Wednesday, 17 February 2021

WEDNESDAY, 17 FEBRUARY 2021

WEDNESDAY, 17 FEBRUARY 2021

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills

Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills

SPEAKER: No petitions or select committee reports have been presented, no bills have been introduced, but Ministers have delivered papers.

CLERK:

Annual reports for 2020 for:

New Zealand Growth Capital Partners Ltd

Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori

Network for Learning

Commission for Financial Capability

statement of performance expectations for 2021 of Network for Learning,

report of the Attorney-General under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Bill.

SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

1. BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on household incomes?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I’ve seen a report released yesterday by Statistics New Zealand showing strong growth in median household incomes in the year to June 2020. Statistics New Zealand found the median annual household income rose 6.9 percent to $75,024 in the year to June 2020, compared with a year earlier. While, obviously, these figures don’t take into account COVID-19, they do show that the Government’s focus on raising incomes—particularly for those on low to middle incomes—through a strong economy, the Families Package, increases in the minimum wage, and supporting more people into work have been having some effect.

Barbara Edmonds: What does the Statistics New Zealand report say about disposable incomes?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Annual average household equalised disposable income—that being after tax and transfer payments—increased from $46,016 to $48,196; that’s an increase of 4.7 percent.

Barbara Edmonds: What does the Statistics New Zealand report show about poverty rates?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The figures include poverty rates for the overall population, and show a significant reduction in material hardship. Three of the poverty measures related to material hardship declined from 2018/19 to 2019/20. The measures that the Government uses to judge itself on, for example, child poverty are relative measures, so when we do see increasing median incomes, this puts pressure on those indicators for poverty. While the figures overall in this report are encouraging, they do show that more work is required, particularly in the area of housing and to support our lowest income New Zealanders. The Government is committed to this work and to building on initiatives that we have already undertaken to support our most vulnerable, including raising main benefits by $25 per week, indexing main benefits to the growth in the average wage, lifting the minimum wage, and expanding schemes such as the Flexi-wage scheme.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all of her Government’s statements and actions related to the COVID19 response?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, including our decision to pass legislation yesterday to set up a new Resurgence Support Payment for business affected by any resurgence of COVID-19. I appreciate the support that was given across this House for that initiative. Firms that experience a 30 percent drop in revenue over a seven-day period will be eligible. The payment would include a core per-business rate of $1,500, plus $400 per employee, up to a total of 50 full-time equivalents. It has greater flexibility than the wage subsidy, it’s available at lower alert levels, and certainly our view is it’s another tool to support businesses through tough times.

Hon Judith Collins: Does she believe her Government has responded fast enough to recommendation 12 in the Simpson-Roche report, in September last year, that saliva testing “should be introduced as soon as possible”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, as I said yesterday—and I’m happy to repeat this again today—there’s no defensiveness on this side of the House about the use of saliva testing. Who would disagree with using something that isn’t nearly as invasive or creates nearly as much barrier—

Chris Bishop: It’s not invasive; it’s spit—it’s spit.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —as what a nasal PCR test does? So we’re all—which is why I’m saying we’re in favour of it, Mr Bishop. So we view saliva testing favourably. Anything that is easier for the workforce is something that we’d like to see. However, we, of course, also rely on the advice of our officials, so I’m very pleased that they are meeting with some of those who have been advocating for the use of saliva-based testing, I believe, tomorrow. We’ve already got it under way in roll-outs in some of our facilities, and I look forward to greater use of it across the board.

Hon Judith Collins: Would increasing our testing capacity so that daily saliva testing can occur cost more or less than the $85 million per day that Infometrics suggests the current lockdown is costing New Zealanders?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: A couple of things that I would say there: one, testing is one of the things we have to do regularly, but we’re also very, very mindful that it is not also a fail-safe mechanism. So it is one thing, and we are, yes, looking to add different testing mechanisms in order to add to the robustness of all of the different filters that we have. In terms of lab capacity, look, there’s a little bit of variation in there. My understanding is some of the traditional mechanisms for testing, if you’re not doing pooled samples, yes, will use similar capacity as what you might for the processing of nasal PCR tests. However, I can’t speak to that in its totality, because I know some of the newer initiatives being brought forward by some of the private sector use a more automated function. So I can’t give a final answer, but I’m sure that that is something that the Ministry of Health will discuss with that private sector entity today.

David Seymour: Why has it taken New Zealand months longer to start using saliva PCR testing than other countries which also have low rates of COVID infection, such as Australia, Taiwan, and Singapore?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: A couple of things. Again—and I give these merely as explanations and not as defensiveness, because I think there is agreement in this House that it’s a useful tool that we’d like to use more widely. But one issue I’d first raise is that, yes, it is, as I understand, being used in Australia—again, an example of how it’s not necessarily the only thing that needs to be done to provide protections, because they have had issues too. We’re all dealing with a tricky virus. The second thing is that even when it’s used in other places, some will have different strategies than us. Ours is not a strategy of just picking up the frequency or the incidence of COVID; we want to stop every single case. As we spoke about yesterday, that’s why validation is important, and that is the issue that Health has raised with us. Before they remove a reliable form of testing, you have to validate what you’re using here. It doesn’t matter if it’s working well in Taiwan; you have to validate here.

David Seymour: So did the Prime Minister mean to say just then that she has seen saliva PCR testing as an either/or for nasal PCR testing, or does she understand that they could be complementary?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course I understand they could be complementary, because that’s exactly what we’re doing now. But, of course, if you want to get some full benefit from being able to use daily testing regimes, it wouldn’t be a bad thing to eventually get it to a level of sensitivity or you’re assured its level of sensitivity is such that maybe it could be used as a replacement in the future for nasal PCR.

Hon Judith Collins: Was the Prime Minister aware that the Ministry of Health had only processed 140 saliva PCR tests in total when she told Parliament, “we already are undertaking saliva testing for our most high-risk areas”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member is aware that we don’t have compulsory saliva testing—that’s the first thing—because we still have our compulsion around the nasal PCR tests. I am aware of the numbers that the member has available around how frequently it’s being used. I don’t have the denominator—as in how many, for instance, front-line workers there were in those facilities at that time—but, obviously—

Hon Member: Thousands—thousands.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —I would like to see—that wouldn’t be true, sorry to the member, that they would have thousands at the Jet Park on one day. But what we do want to see is as much use as possible, because by doing that, you are able to validate the process.

Hon Judith Collins: How can that be an acceptable answer when we’ve got 140 saliva PCR tests that have been undertaken, and how can that possibly be acceptable when we’ve been told by the Prime Minister that there was saliva testing being undertaken in Jet Park and Christchurch and Wellington?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We said it was being rolled out at the Jet Park and was being rolled out.

SPEAKER: I will allow the Prime Minister to answer it, but can we get the phrasing right: “an acceptable answer” is my responsibility and not the Prime Minister’s. But the substance of it—

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yeah. I don’t see how any of that is in contradiction with the answer I just gave. (a) It wasn’t compulsory; (b) I don’t have the number of how many staff were at the facility at that time, but clearly we’d want the numbers to be higher. If we were checking everyone and then being able to match it against their PCR tests, you would want those numbers higher. So I fully acknowledge that.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Has the Prime Minister been advised that the roll-out of saliva testing in our quarantine facilities in particular was delayed because the people involved in that process were diverted to investigating the Northland case and testing their contacts and others?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes. In fact, I was told that some time ago—that there was a delay—because, rightly so, Northland became a very big focus, to make sure that we were dealing quickly and effectively with that issue.

Hon Judith Collins: Is the Prime Minister aware that private laboratories have had the ability to process thousands of saliva PCR tests per day for at least six months and could have been used in these situations?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes. These are conversations that I’ve actually had relayed to me around what’s been available in the private sector. We have directly raised the possibility and the use of PCR testing using saliva directly with the likes of the Institute of Environmental Science and Research and with health officials, because we have the same interest in this that you do. The response that we get is the one that we’re sharing in this House: that whilst they see it as being something that we should be utilising, there is just that level of caution of “Let’s make sure we do it properly so that we don’t lose some of the effective measures that we already have to keep us safe.”

Hon Judith Collins: Is the Prime Minister suggesting that to use saliva PCR tests would be instead of the nasal PCR tests, or is she fully aware that they can both be done for the same people?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I have said in this House multiple times, absolutely I understand that they can be done for the same people. In fact, that’s exactly what you want to do when you’re going through a validation process. So yes, I understand that. That’s been relayed many times, but as I’ve said many times before as well, we want to make sure that the validation process is right so that when you’re using this, you can reliably use it—

Hon Grant Robertson: Just listen to the answers to David Seymour.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —and you can have faith in what you have presented in terms of results. My final statement would be this: the members are trying to have an argument based on scientific evidence. If they wish to have this argument, we have provided the ability to speak directly to the officials, because I am a conduit for their advice they are giving us. So we are providing that. But I actually don’t think we’re in a dissimilar position. We agree that it’s a useful tool, but we have just acted with caution based on the advice we have been given.

SPEAKER: Before the member goes on, I just want to address the Deputy Prime Minister and say that it is not helpful for him to interject during the Prime Minister’s answer. I’m trying to keep things stable over here. I also want to indicate to him that every member has every right to ask a question, even if the question’s been asked before.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Can the Prime Minister confirm that private laboratories are already involved in our COVID-19 testing regime?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes.

Hon Judith Collins: Can the Prime Minister advise what validation needs to be undertaken in New Zealand that hasn’t already been undertaken in New South Wales and the UK and other countries that are currently using saliva PCR tests?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, this is a question that I have asked of the officials as well and, again, an issue the member might like to raise directly with those who have expertise in these areas. My understanding is that when you’re using these machines, there is a validation process that needs to happen in-country, and that generally is what happens for testing regimes, regardless of whether it’s a PCR for COVID or for HIV.

Question No. 3—Research, Science, and Innovation

3. GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Research, Science and Innovation: What uptake from businesses has she seen from the R&D Loan Scheme since it was announced as part of the Government’s response to COVID-19 last year?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Research, Science and Innovation): I am pleased to report that the research and development loan scheme has been almost fully subscribed. Nearly 450 applications from businesses engaging in R & D in New Zealand have been approved. The $150 million scheme was established to support those innovative and R & D intensive companies that were likely to reduce or withdraw altogether their R & D spending in the face of the economic challenges brought on by COVID-19. Applications to date indicate R & D spend of $369 million will be supported through this scheme. As a Government, we are committed to supporting our best and brightest minds, particularly as we rebuild the economy in response to COVID-19, and the success of this scheme to date has shown that New Zealand remains a great place to do R & D.

Ginny Andersen: Why is it important that the Government supports research and development in New Zealand?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: We have learnt from mistakes made in the past where R  & D was not supported and the spend tailed off during times of economic uncertainty. We recognise that R & D is critical to increasing productivity, the provision of high-value goods and jobs, and our overall economic wellbeing. The loan scheme has provided certainty to R & D intensive firms at a time when they would otherwise have difficulties raising capital, which in turn would have flow-on benefits for the wider economy.

Ginny Andersen: What feedback has she heard from companies that have been supported by the R&D Loan Scheme?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: We’ve had great feedback from companies like Humble Bee, a business developing natural plastic alternatives from bee products, who said they were considering shifting their R & D offshore and that this loan will help them bridge the gap between now and their next capital raise. Another example: SnapIT in Nelson, who received a loan that meant that they could preserve R & D critical jobs through the COVID recovery, and enabled opportunities to proceed with core R & D activity that will be used for the benefit of fisheries management in New Zealand. Feedback has been extremely positive, and I look forward to hearing more success stories in the weeks and months to come.

Question No. 4—Oceans and Fisheries

4. Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: Does he believe that allowing bottom trawling on seamounts, deep-sea corals, and other vulnerable marine ecosystems is consistent with the 2006 United Nations Resolution 61/105, which calls on States “to take action immediately … to protect vulnerable marine ecosystems … from destructive fishing practices”; if so, why?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: This Government opposes destructive and unsustainable fishing methods that harm vulnerable marine habitats. I note the member uses a partial quote, omitting that the UN resolution also calls upon States to follow the 2008 international guidelines for the management of deep-sea fisheries in the high seas. These guidelines set out a framework for data collection, assessments and monitoring, control, and surveillance to prevent significant adverse impacts on vulnerable marine ecosystems, which is what this Government is doing.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Will the Government consider following Chile’s 2015 example of banning bottom trawling on all 117 seamounts in its jurisdiction, and Chile’s 2017 example of banning bottom trawling in 98 percent of its exclusive economic zone (EEZ)?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I think it’s important that we have some context to this. More than a third of New Zealand waters are completely closed to bottom trawling and dredging. Benthic protection areas also protect large areas of mostly pristine marine environment from trawling and dredging, and scientists have calculated that more than 90 percent of New Zealand’s EEZ has not been bottom trawled since detailed position data began to be recorded in the early 1990s. The Minister also awaits with interest the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor’s report on fisheries to further inform Government actions on this and other matters.

Hon Eugenie Sage: When does the Minister expect to be in a position to address what he described while receiving a petition signed by more than 50,000 people as—and I quote—“legitimate concerns about the adverse environmental effects of bottom trawling”?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: As I mentioned, the Minister awaits the advice from the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, which will help inform Government’s future actions. We expect to have that report in the next few months.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Does the Minister agree with the view of the Ministry for Primary Industries that a New Zealand deep-sea trawler moving on after accidentally destroying coral and sea sponges represents sustainable management in action, as reported by Radio New Zealand in January, and, if not, why not?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: If that is in reference to a case that is before the courts, it would be inappropriate for me to comment.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Why did the Ministry for Primary Industries not release further information to the public about this incident of destructive bottom trawling at the time it occurred in December?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: The Minister is aware of that incident, and he has asked the fisheries officials to make sure that those NGOs get that information promptly.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Is the Minister concerned that according to the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition, the New Zealand bottom trawl fishery for orange roughy in the South Pacific has had—and I quote—“the highest bycatch of deep-water vulnerable marine ecosystem indicator species reported in high-seas fisheries worldwide over the past 12 years”, and, if so, why does the Government continue to allow this destruction of deep-sea coral, sponges, and other vulnerable marine species?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: New Zealand’s proposal regarding orange roughy in the Tasman Sea is based on an assessment of the Scientific Committee of the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (SPRFMO). This committee has representation across member countries and takes into account the best available scientific information on a range of factors, including potential effects on the fish stock and environment. The SPRFMO catch limits are increased and decreased in response to that, and are set with the best available information.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table a report dated October 2020 by the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition entitled Preventing biodiversity loss in the deep sea.

SPEAKER: I’m just going to seek the member’s assurance it’s not a document that is available on the internet?

Hon Eugenie Sage: I was sent the link.

SPEAKER: Sorry?

Hon Eugenie Sage: It may be.

SPEAKER: Right, well, in that case, I’m not going to put it to the House.

Question No. 5—COVID-19 Response

5. PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: What changes have been made as a result of what has been learned from recent cases associated with the Pullman Hotel managed isolation facility?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Yesterday, the Pullman hotel began receiving its first guests again after its recent shut down. This followed an intensive deep cleaning process, a thorough investigation by public health officials, and some changes to the way that the Pullman facility will operate in the future, which includes: the way the Pullman’s corridor ventilation system operates—corridor ventilation will now operate 24 hours a day as opposed to the two hours a day it was doing at the time of these incidents; returnees will be advised to close all their windows and their trickle vents in their rooms before they open their door, to limit the risk of COVID19 making it out into the public spaces; returnees will be limited in the times that they’re permitted to leave their rooms—this will now be done to a set timetable; and air filtration systems are being installed in the lifts later this week, and that work should be completed by the end of this week.

Paul Eagle: Is he confident the Pullman hotel is safe for all returnees?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, we’ve had good advice that the Pullman hotel is in fact a safe facility for us to be using. We’ve been carefully considering the health and wellbeing of returnees and the staff who work at that facility as we’ve made these decisions. That’s the reason that we’re initially only opening the facility to 50 percent of its capacity, and only on the lower floors—to minimise the use of the lifts. Whilst that’s happening and the air filtration systems are being upgraded, as I said, the CCTV system has been upgraded, and strict new procedures have been implemented to limit people’s movements around the Pullman.

Paul Eagle: Are any of the changes made at the Pullman hotel being made across other facilities?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, absolutely. What we’ve learnt from the Pullman has resulted in changes in our systems and processes across all 32 facilities. Recent changes that we’ve made include: a requirement for returnees from most countries to have a negative test 72 hours prior to their departure; day zero, day one testing is now in place—so basically people are tested within 24 hours of arriving in the country. More robust infection and prevention control measures have been put in place as a result of the lessons from the Pullman: increased cleaning of shared spaces is now being done, the requirement for returnees to remain in their rooms past their post - day 11/12 test is now in place, and further restrictions around the movements of returnees at all of our facilities is also in place. These are on top of the measures that were already in place, including physical distancing, the use of masks, hand sanitising, cleaning protocols, and quite significant work in the high movement areas to make sure there can be little spread of the virus.

Chris Bishop: Is the report into the Pullman hotel one report, or is there more than one, because the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment website says “reports” plural; and when will the Government make the report public?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Speaking to the question that the member is about to ask me, we’re intending to make the health advice that said that we should reopen the Pullman—we will make that report public this week so that people can see the advice that we have made that decision on. There are other reports that touch on the issues around the Pullman, including the case investigations for the cases involved.

Paul Eagle: What auditing is occurring to ensure that managed isolation and quarantine facilities follow public health guidelines?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Ministry of Health and our managed isolation continue to regularly review policies and processes to ensure that they remain fit for purpose, and to reduce the risk of the spread of COVID-19 within our managed isolation facilities. There are regular inspections, including by agencies like the Ombudsman, to ensure that these facilities are safe. The Pullman has been an important part of our system, it’s received consistently good feedback from returnees, and we’re looking forward to seeing it back up and running at full capacity when it’s safe to do so.

Question No. 6—COVID Response

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Does he stand by his statement—

SPEAKER: Order! To?

6. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: Sorry. To the Minister of COVID-19 Response: Does he stand by his statement—we’ve had so many interactions, Mr Speaker. Does he stand by his statement, “And you see that in the fact that our system is always changing. We are always doing new things”; if so, when, if ever, will the Government introduce mandatory daily saliva testing for border workers?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Yes. We continue to review our settings based on emerging information about the virus and emerging trends in test technology globally. However, more work needs to be done on the comparison around the sensitivity between a saliva sample and a nasopharyngeal swab. It’s important that we use the best diagnostic tools to suit our settings and context to ensure that the detection of COVID-19 is done as early as possible. We understand that experts in Australia have signalled similar concerns regarding the use of saliva samples in their context, which is actually very similar to our own.

Chris Bishop: Does the Ministry of Health accept that the SHIELD saliva test developed by the University of Illinois has been validated as just as accurate as the nasal swab test in a blind testing process conducted by Janet Pitman at Victoria University?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don’t have advice on that particular product. I’m aware that there’s a number of people in the market at the moment trying to sell their product and they all speak very favourably of them.

Chris Bishop: When New South Wales has conducted more than 50,000 saliva tests for COVID from December 2020 to February 2021 across 21 hotels in Sydney, why has New Zealand done just 140?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think, as I mentioned earlier in question time, we began our roll-out of saliva testing in January. That roll-out was paused whilst the people involved in it were diverted to focus on the case investigations around the Northland case that we dealt with. We do have a limited workforce and we need to prioritise them to working on the issues that are the most pressing, and the most pressing was investigating those cases to make sure there was no further spread of the virus.

Chris Bishop: Is he really saying that the reason we don’t have daily saliva testing now, when it was recommended in September—in fact, probably earlier than that—is because of the Northland cases just last month?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No. There’s a variety of reasons, including us wanting to make sure we’re validating the science and that we’re going to get good, reliable results. There are some workforce constraints. We’re working through those to make sure that we can do saliva testing more widely. But there’s a combination of factors. We will do saliva testing more widely at such time as it gives us the confidence that we need that it’s reliable and that it adds something to our testing regime.

Chris Bishop: Can he confirm that a saliva-based PCR test is acceptable as a pre-departure test for entry into New Zealand, and doesn’t this indicate that it should be rolled out more widely in New Zealand?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think it’s important to remember what the pre-departure testing is all about. It’s about reducing the possibility of COVID-19 coming into the country. It’s not being used as a diagnostic tool. It is not 100 percent effective. There continues to be a risk—[Interruption] There continues to be a risk of people contracting COVID-19 on their way to New Zealand. Ultimately, the pre-departure testing isn’t actually part of our elimination strategy. [Interruption] It’s part of our strategy to reduce the number of positive COVID-19 cases that come into the country in the first place. I’d point out that when it comes to our elimination strategy—

Chris Bishop: Oh, come on.

SPEAKER: Order! Sorry, I’m going to interrupt the member. This, for many New Zealanders, is something which is very important. There’s been explanations of this point given in the House before. Clearly, either members were absent or not listening; I can tell from their reactions. I want Chris Hipkins to finish this answer with the Opposition in silence.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It’s important to remember that when it comes to our elimination strategy—so the testing that we are doing within the community and the testing that we are doing at our border—even a 2 percent difference in the efficacy of different testing methods can have a very significant impact. Unlike countries who are dealing with mass numbers of COVID-19 cases, where 2 percent is actually relatively immaterial in the grand scheme of things, to New Zealand 2 percent can be the difference between having a big cluster of cases develop and not.

Chris Bishop: Isn’t it correct, as the Prime Minister accepted yesterday in response to the Leader of the Opposition, that any diminution in accuracy as a result of a saliva-based PCR test can be more than made up for by the constant repetition of doing it daily?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: If your testing methods have been validated.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. Mr Speaker, members are often rebuked by presiding officers for bringing the Speaker into the debate, including during question time. Can I ask you to consider, when you reflect on this question time, whether the extraneous comments you made because of the interjections actually did the reverse, where you were bringing yourself into the debate? There is a risk that the commentary that can come with some of your rulings does do just that.

SPEAKER: Well, I thank the member for his comments. I was considering making mine very carefully for two or three supplementary questions beforehand, because of the loud noise. My comments were made quite deliberately, and I want to reinforce the fact that I think that most New Zealanders want to be able to hear what is happening here. And when we have a hubbub on my left, and they can’t, then I end up with the complaints. The members don’t get them; I do.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to that point, Mr Speaker, that wasn’t the comment that I was referring to. You are perfectly entitled to rebuke those for the amount of noise and interjection that was going on. It was the reference to the quality of the question and the fact that you believed that Mr Bishop had not been listening to previous answers. The question was still in order and deserved to be answered, even if it risks some repetition.

SPEAKER: Sorry, can the member remind me of which intervention he is referring to?

David Seymour: Mr Speaker?

Hon Michael Woodhouse: I’ll just answer the question. I can’t remember the exact words, but there was a reference to the fact that clearly Mr Bishop could not have been listening and then there was a judgment on that. I’d need to go back and have a listen to the Hansard, but I want you to reflect on—

SPEAKER: Well, sorry. I’m happy to go back and look at it. It wasn’t meant as a deliberate reference to Mr Bishop. It was meant as a reference to members generally because if they had been listening, they would have understood already the point that the member was about to make or trying to make and was being shouted down. David Seymour—point of order?

David Seymour: Yes, speaking to that.

SPEAKER: Well, no. Mr Seymour, there’s not currently a point of order on the floor. I have dealt with it. We’ll go back to the business.

David Seymour: Well, it’s a fresh point of order.

SPEAKER: I want to make absolutely clear to the member that this is to be a fresh point of order on a different matter. If it is on the same matter, it is out of order because I’ve dealt with it.

David Seymour: Well, Mr Speaker, it is a comment on the matter that has not been raised and I think is worth raising, and it’s this. It’s quite possible that members understood what was being said but were indignant about what was being said. And the effect of your reflection was to colour their behaviour as ignorance, when they have every right to be indignant at the answers they were hearing, as I certainly was, and I—

SPEAKER: OK, right. The member will resume his seat. He is going over the matter again. I have never ruled against ignorance in this House, because that would be stupid.

Question No. 7—Small Business

7. KIERAN McANULTY (Labour—Wairarapa) to the Minister for Small Business: How many businesses have registered for the Digital Boost skills training and support initiative?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Small Business): Support for small businesses to adapt, recover, and grow is a priority for our COVID recovery plan. The $20 million Digital Boost programme was announced in Budget 2020 and got under way in December, and so far over 2,900 businesses have registered for support with training and to improve their digital skills and use of technology. The initiative also encourages business-to-business support. For example, in South Wairarapa, the owners of a sheep and beef farm at Palliser Ridge are part of the Digital Boost programme. They are encouraging others in the primary sector to make better use of digital tools such as cloud-based software. The owner says with five staff managing 17,000 stock units on a 1,500 hectare farm, digital solutions mean better communications and getting more work done. Businesses can access the free Digital Boost resources through the digitalboost.co.nz website.

Kieran McAnulty: What are the benefits to small businesses, especially those in the primary sector?

Hon STUART NASH: Small businesses represent over 97 percent of all New Zealand firms. They earn over 25 percent of New Zealand’s GDP and generate 41 percent of all new jobs. As the Prime Minister acknowledged at the recent primary industries summit, non-food primary sector businesses also have a key role to play during our COVID response. This includes, for example, those that are processing wool for medical face masks and the wider forestry sector, which produces paper and timber products to package and transport food. Increasing digital ways of working will enable more small businesses, especially those in the food and primary production sectors, to keep operating during future COVID-related events.

Kieran McAnulty: Are small businesses well placed to make a greater move to digital operations?

Hon STUART NASH: A recent survey by software platform Xero shows small business job numbers and revenue are up on a year-by-year basis. Another survey, by MYOB, shows 21 percent of small and medium enterprises intended to start or started e-commerce sales ahead of the recent Christmas / New Year break. Recent research by McKinsey & Company suggests that over the course of eight weeks, COVID had caused the equivalent of five years’ worth of advances in digital transformation. Big businesses like supermarkets, banks, and manufacturers have made the transformation, but we are very keen for small businesses to also have access to this technology. We are investing in the recovery and rebuild to encourage businesses to get people into work, to fill skills gaps, and to take advantage of new opportunities in an economy that is in better shape than the vast majority of our trading partners.

Question No. 8—COVID-19 Response

8. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: What were the “multiple factors” that contributed to the cases around the Pullman Hotel managed isolation facility, and when, if ever, will the reports be made public?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): I was provided with advice by the Pullman incident review technical advisory group indicating that while it may not be possible to identify the precise transmission mechanisms involved in the recent transmission events at the Pullman, some of the likely key factors included the nature of the variant, the ventilation at the facility, and non-essential movement within the facility. I’ve asked for the health advice that I received to be released this week.

Chris Bishop: Why is the health advice that he’s received being released but not the actual reports?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I indicated to the member before, the issues around the Pullman have been discussed in a number of different reports to me, including individual case investigations. We released the aspects of the case investigations where there’s a public interest. Obviously, case investigations include a lot of information, including people’s quite personal and private information—some of which is actually released when there’s a public health ground to do so, but we don’t as a matter of course release all of those reports.

Chris Bishop: Why can’t the reports into the Pullman be released with the appropriate redactions to protect personal privacy, which I note the Government does quite a lot, all the time?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’ve already indicated that the report is going to be released. It’s going to be released this week.

Chris Bishop: Why were the multiple factors that this report has concluded only detected as a result of the three community cases coming out of managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) at the Pullman and not during the earlier regular audits of the Pullman?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don’t necessarily agree with the assertion in the member’s question. There have been regular ongoing audits of all of our facilities. Each one of those audits identifies new areas where there can be improvement. Usually, it’s just relatively minor improvements that need to be made. In this particular case, though, there are some extra precautionary measures that can be taken. But it’s important to note, as I did in my primary answer, that there was no conclusive finding here. There was no absolute certainty about exactly what had happened, so these are extra precautionary steps that can be taken.

Chris Bishop: Have all the recommendations as a result of the health advice arising from the Pullman reports been implemented at the Pullman, and have all of the recommendations that apply to the wider MIQ system been implemented across the system?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the first part of the question, yes, that is the advice that I’ve received, although I do note—as I’ve said earlier on today—that the air filtration work is ongoing. The lifts have not yet been completed, but the advice I’ve had is that they’ll be completed by the weekend or over the weekend. Certainly, the other recommendations in relation to the Pullman have been implemented. In terms of the second part of the question, which is the extension of those lessons across the wider MIQ network, that work is ongoing. Each one of those facilities is different, so they’ve got different air filtration systems, different air conditioning systems—some have windows that can open, some don’t; some have balconies, some don’t. So we need to go through and work our way through the lessons learnt from the Pullman and apply them to each of the individual facilities. Now, that work is being done by the MIQ team—they’re working as quickly as they can, but I can’t, hand on heart, say it’s happened at every facility and that all of that’s been completed yet. That will take a bit of time, but they’re certainly working with urgency to pick up the most immediate recommendations, including, for example, the staying in your room after you’ve had your final test before you leave—that has been operationalised in all of the facilities.

Question No. 9—Broadcasting and Media

9. IBRAHIM OMER (Labour) to the Minister for Broadcasting and Media: What recent announcements has the Government made about supporting sustainable public interest journalism?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister for Broadcasting and Media): On Friday last week, I launched a $55 million fund to be administered through New Zealand On Air to support public interest journalism. The fund will ensure local, regional, Māori, Pacific, and many other under-served audiences will get to see and hear stories that are important to them. Grassroots journalism has been on the decline in recent years for a number of reasons, and that has meant New Zealanders have been missing out on news that is important to their communities. The fund will help New Zealanders stay informed as well as supporting the sector to maintain a healthy democracy and, of course, create and protect jobs. The funding is time-limited to three years, in order to give media support for content and jobs as they transition to new platforms and business models that are necessary to ensure a strong and sustainable media sector in the future.

Ibrahim Omer: Why is it important to ensure New Zealanders have access to public interest journalistic content?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Thank you, Mr Speaker. COVID-19 and the lockdowns last year highlighted the importance of the role that our media plays in providing up-to-date, independent, and trusted information to the public. We want to ensure that kind of coverage is supported and developed across all community levels, where media operations have often cut back resources to reduce their costs. A viable fourth estate is important for a healthy democracy, and this is why support is required to ensure journalistic capacity across local, regional, and national newsrooms is retained and built.

Ibrahim Omer: How will the fund work?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: As I said, the $55 million fund is a three-year funding commitment. New Zealand On Air will administer the contestable fund, which will be for projects that media outlets are able to show will fill a public interest service that would otherwise be at risk of not being produced without this fund. New Zealand On Air is independent and has a track record of over 30 years of making independent funding decisions. It’ll be open to all media entities, from large media organisations through to small local entities, and Māori, Pacific, and ethnic media, and applications will open at the end of April.

Question No. 10—Local Government

10. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National) to the Minister of Local Government: Does she stand by her statement that “electoral law matters require thorough consultation”; if so, how is the public consultation process on her Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill “thorough”?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Yes, and I want to thank the Māori Affairs Committee for the work they undertook during a truncated select committee process to engage the public. I’m informed that there were 12,508 written submissions, 9,703 of which were template style, and 2,805 unique submissions, two-thirds of which were supportive of the bill.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does a consultation process of submissions being opened one day and closed the next meet her definition of “thorough consultation”?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I note that many submitters during that period of time identified that while the submission process was short, it was long overdue. Let me take, for example, Jill Day, a Wellington city councillor, who said, “The next election is actually looming faster than we can all imagine and we want to make sure we can make this change in time. One of the things I was really excited about was the announcement that there’s been an extension so that we, as a council, can revisit the decision from last year. Otherwise we have to wait another three years.” So there’s actual genuine urgency with this.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How could she, or any MP on the select committee, read the submissions on the bill in the timetable she requested, when it would require reading a submission every minute—and I’m only referring to the unique submissions; a submission per minute—without any sleep for three days?

SPEAKER: Order! The member can refer to her own reading; she’s not responsible for the reading speeds of select committee members.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Mr Speaker, let me respond. From my observation of this select committee, there were very diligent members who participated and engaged with the views of the public, irrespective of what view they held.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Did she or anyone from her office or department give supporters of her bill advanced notice, ahead of the general public, of the exceptionally short select committee process?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: In terms of the issue, this matter has been in the public domain for a long time. Many submitters referred to the campaigns in relation to the Māori wards matter in their specific councils, and, indeed, some said this conversation has been around for at least six years.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very narrow: did she or anyone from her office or department give supporters of the bill advanced notice of the exceptionally short select committee process? She did not address that question.

SPEAKER: The member will address the question.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Once the bill was tabled in the House, everybody knew about the submission time, in the manner that the Māori Affairs Committee had promoted. I made it very clear that the pending changes were in line with the public discourse that had been out in the public domain for at least the last six years.

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: Can the Minister confirm that Local Government New Zealand had been lobbying for this change for some time, had been in direct contact with you about seeking a change, and were also very clear about the limited time frame for such a change to be enacted before they would have to go through a process of referendum, so would have known that it would have been coming in a short time frame?

Chris Bishop: Point or order, Mr Speaker.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Yes, yes, yes, and yes.

SPEAKER: Sorry, a point of order, Chris Bishop.

Chris Bishop: There were at least three legs to that supplementary question from the Prime Minister to the Minister there. You have consistently ruled that we are not allowed to ask more than two in a supplementary.

SPEAKER: I take the admonition of the member. The member will answer not more than two of the three legs.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Yes and yes.

Teanau Tuiono: Can the Minister confirm that the reason for her sense of urgency to pass this bill is an urgency to overturn a breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi before the 2022 local elections?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Yes, and, as I had explained in previous questions in the House, this is a short-term fix to enable a discriminatory provision to be removed from legislation in time for the 2022 elections.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Was it fair for councils supporting the bill to be advised on Friday, 5 February that it would be read for a first time on the following Tuesday and that the select committee process would be “exceptionally short”, thus giving those councils six days as compared with one day’s notice for the public?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Several of the councils who were prepared for this process actually lobbied—

Chris Bishop: Outrageous!

Hon Grant Robertson: Calm down, Chris.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: —to ensure—

SPEAKER: Order! The advice might be sage but it’s out of order. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Grant Robertson: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Several of the councils who were prepared for the submission process were aware that there was a pending legislative obligation to hold a referendum. They were concerned about the cost. So they were ready for a process that engaged them, and, can I just reiterate, the conversation amongst many of those councils who were supportive have been around for a very, very long time.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does she agree with the statements today in Stuff from former Department of Internal Affairs senior local government adviser Mr Gavin Beattie that some of the statements made by the Minister needed to be corrected, notably that the 2002 law was racist and that the Māori wards should be considered the same as general wards, and will she now apologise for those errors?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: That member is selective with his quote. What I do agree with is that in the article that’s being referred to, the time that Māori wards were introduced into legislation is the same time as the provisions of the single transferable vote were introduced into legislation—that a poll be applied. I stand by my voting record on this particular issue. I think it was a progression—obviously not far enough to deliver the outcome, and that’s why we’re coming back to the issue of removing a discriminatory clause in legislation.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why has she stated that her bill provides the same process for creating Māori wards as general wards when the process for general wards requires public notification, submissions, hearings, and appeal rights, where none of these are required in her bill for Māori wards?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The bill will remove the discriminatory provision of a 5 percent referendum. The way in which the Māori wards will be decided will stay the same. This will be to ensure that we can implement these changes in time for the 2022 election. The longer-term stage-two fix, as I indicated in the legislative statement, will be a matter that will go to full consultation, both the policy process and the select committee process, at the end of this year.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Will councils, under her amended law, have the legal authority in future to disestablish Māori wards once established, if they wish, as they can do with general wards?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Yes. As I have said, removing the discriminatory provision will still enable councils to put the resolution without the prospect of a poll overturning their resolution. They have up until 21 May to either put the resolution for those councils who have not yet done so or overturn that resolution. But I much rather suspect, from the many submissions that were in favour of this bill, that many—several—councils see this as a positive part of our democracy to include Māori wards.

Question No. 11—Prime Minister

11. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement regarding the NZ COVID Tracer App that “We all want to avoid more restrictions. To stay at level 1 relies on all of us continuing to be vigilant and playing our part. Keep using the app”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): I stand by the full context of that quote from my post-Cabinet press conference from 5 October 2020 where I said, “We all want to avoid more restrictions. Our public health systems are getting stronger all the time, but to stay at level 1 relies on all of us continuing to be vigilant and playing our part. Wherever you are in New Zealand, keep using the app. Scan in everywhere you go, and remind the people you are with to do the same. If you are even slightly unwell, stay home, ring Healthline, and get a test. Avoiding another outbreak depends on each and every one of us, and we all have a role to play.” The only thing I would add to that statement is that I would encourage those who don’t perhaps have smartphones to have some other way of recording at all times the places that they go, and different ways of recording are legitimate too.

David Seymour: Were any of the close or casual contacts for the current community cases identified using the NZ COVID Tracer App, and, if not, why not?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: My understanding of this case, unlike the Northland case, where we had really good use of the COVID Tracer App by the individual in question—in part, I put that down to the extraordinary efforts that go in while people are at managed isolation and quarantine to encourage the use of the app. My understanding for these cases that we’ve been dealing with, certainly those that we reported yesterday, they did not use QR scanning. That does not stop, of course, the Ministry of Health from sending out notices in other forms to those who may visit different places. I would need to check what they did in that regard, but I do know these cases did not scan.

David Seymour: Point of order. The question was very narrow—whether or not any close or casual contacts for the current cases were identified using the app. I didn’t hear if the Prime Minister addressed that question.

SPEAKER: If the member had listened to the end of the question when the Prime Minister said that the person didn’t scan, it’s very unlikely that anyone’s going to be identified if the person with COVID hadn’t scanned.

David Seymour: Point of order. Mr Speaker, for example, it’s possible that they could have located other people who were at locations they knew that the cases has visited at certain times, so there are other possibilities that I was asking the Prime Minister about.

SPEAKER: OK—Prime Minister.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’m happy to clarify. To be exact again: they did not use QR scanning or Bluetooth. We always ask that question. With regard to what Health were able to do with those who may have been at the vicinity at that time, forgive me, Mr Speaker; I cannot specifically answer that question. That might be something the COVID Minister could. I would be happy to ask Health and report back to the member.

David Seymour: Will the Government make it compulsory to scan in when visiting a premise that has QR codes, and can the Prime Minister assure New Zealanders that scanning in does not mean the Government is tracing you; it only means that data about places you’ve visited is stored on your phone and you may voluntarily share it should you choose to, and that if you happen to have a positive case, it would be very wise to share that data and help save New Zealand another lockdown?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I absolutely agree with the member—it is the reinforcing of that message. I understand people’s anxiety with the idea of information about where they’ve been being collected in an inappropriate way. You’re absolutely right: people hold that information themselves. They have to give permission for it to be shared in the event they are found to have COVID-19. So we do need to keep reinforcing those messages, and I’d appreciate every member’s help with that. On the issue of compulsory use of scanning, this issue that you’ve raised around people worrying about the role of Government, we factor that into our thinking; but we have debated whether or not compulsory scanning should be used. One of the greater issues for us has been enforcement. We’ve been worried about, for instance, business owners feeling like they would have to be the ones to enforce customers scanning before they come in, and there are lots of disincentives for that given it might hurt them commercially. So we’ve been trying to work through those issues, and it’s still a live discussion.

David Seymour: So to be clear, shall we take it that the Government currently can’t say whether it will make it mandatory to scan in at businesses that have QR codes, despite the current outbreak having potentially been spread and put New Zealand into lockdown for some time because people didn’t scan?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would firstly say that the issue of the cases we’re dealing with having not scanned is not the reason that we went into lockdown. We went into lockdown because the person who had COVID, we were not able to deduce swiftly and still haven’t been able to deduce where exactly that infection took place. In fact, the individuals in question have provided a relatively good recall of where they have been. But it does always help us, of course. The second point: we’ve discussed as a Cabinet compulsion before, and we have not adopted it. We are going to discuss it again, but I don’t want to pre-empt Cabinet’s decision.

Question No. 12—Internal Affairs

12. GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What initiatives has the Government funded to help keep New Zealanders safe online?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): We do our best to protect children and keep them safe online, but this is often difficult to manage. With the ever-evolving and escalating nature of online harms, combined with the increasing time spent online during the nationwide COVID-19 lockdown, the Government acted quickly by investing $3 million from the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund in the hugely popular “Keep It Real Online” campaign. This wide-reaching campaign kicked off in July 2020 and is just one part of the Government’s work to keep New Zealanders safer online. It helped parents, caregivers, children, and young people to understand and identify online bullying, inappropriate content, and grooming, as well as providing tips and resources to prevent harm and seek help.

Ginny Andersen: Why was the “Keep It Real Online” campaign necessary?

Hon JAN TINETTI: We know that 40 percent of young Kiwis have had online interactions with people they’ve never met in real life, and one in five are bullied online every year. During the COVID-19 lockdown, total internet traffic increased by 40 percent. That’s why this Government invested in the “Keep It Real Online” campaign to educate and provide engaging tools to help not only our children and young people but also their parents and caregivers to identify harms and stay safe online. As a parent and a teacher, I know the importance of meaningfully engaging young people in a way that is both relevant and interesting. The “Keep It Real Online” campaign is an innovative way to get these messages across to our young people.

Ginny Andersen: How successful was the “Keep It Real Online” campaign in reaching New Zealanders?

Hon JAN TINETTI: We have heard positive feedback from parents, caregivers, and young people across New Zealand. I am pleased to inform the House that the initial campaign, featuring porn stars, an online groomer, two imaginary rabbits, and a young girl being bullied, has reached over 68 percent of New Zealand parents and caregivers, and was viewed 32 million times worldwide. Over 860,000 New Zealanders have checked out the website, and once children returned to school after the campaign started, there was a decline in the number of searches for pornography on school networks and an increase in people seeking information and advice on this issue. The second phase of the campaign was targeted directly to intermediate and high school - aged students through the miniseries called The Eggplant. The episodes of this miniseries have been viewed over 250,000 times and key scenes and trailers have had well over 4 million views on social media. It will continue to be promoted as an ongoing resource in schools now the school term has started. I’m proud this Government doesn’t shy away from difficult topics and is doing what works for young people, even if some people of the boomer generation don’t yet know what an eggplant means.

SPEAKER: Well, I think I’m older than a boomer, so the member probably hasn’t insulted me!

General Debate

General Debate

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

A little over a year ago, COVID-19 burst its way onto the world stage, and we have been grappling with that, around the world, ever since. It’s worth remembering a few key numbers at this point: 1,984 New Zealanders have tested positive for COVID-19 in that time; 356 other probable cases have been identified, bringing our total to 2,340. It is also important at this point that we recall the 21 people—21 New Zealanders—who have lost their life to COVID-19, and the five others who are suspected to have lost their lives to COVID-19. Those numbers, whilst they are sobering, are the envy of many around the world. COVID-19 has had far less of an impact in New Zealand than so many other places around the world—and I say that not out of self-congratulations, as members opposite will occasionally accuse me and the Government of, but as an acknowledgment to the contribution of all New Zealanders. That result was not achieved by the Government, and by the Government acting alone; it was achieved by all New Zealanders, all of the team of 5 million.

But I do want to single out some in particular, starting with our essential workers—those people who kept New Zealand moving in the early parts of our COVID-19 response, the people working on the front lines in our supermarkets, driving our trucks, keeping the country going, keeping the country fed, keeping the lights on whilst we had our lockdown—and I do want to acknowledge them again. I want to particularly thank, as I did yesterday, our border workers: the airline crews who are doing absolutely everything they can to keep COVID-19 out of New Zealand whilst also keeping essential supplies and people coming and going from New Zealand; the staff who are working at our ports and our airports, who are going the extra mile, again, to keep themselves, their whānau, and our communities safe.

Those who work in our managed isolation and our quarantine facilities: the cleaners, the security guards, the caretakers, the caterers, the Defence Force workers, the police—a big thank you on behalf of all New Zealanders for your contribution.

I want to thank our health workers, those particularly who are doing the testing for COVID-19 in our managed isolation and quarantine facilities, at our airports, at our ports, and in our communities; the lab workers who process all of those results—and they are particularly busy at the moment processing a significant number of results, and we thank them for their contribution. I want to acknowledge those who have been working on the preparation for the roll-out of our vaccine and those who worked on securing the supplies of vaccine for New Zealand. They’ve been incredibly effective in that job, and we are looking forward to seeing the vaccine starting to roll out from Saturday. That’s been a significant effort.

When we started dealing with this a year ago, there was no rule book for COVID-19. Around the world, every country had to grapple with the challenge of how to respond; we all had to make things up as we went along. And I want to acknowledge that we’ve got a system that has learnt to learn—a system that learns and adapts, that incorporates the lessons from abroad, where they are appropriate, and builds those into New Zealand’s response. We have a response that strengthens day by day, that requires constant vigilance and constant effort. The work in our managed isolation facilities to continue to identify risks and minimise them as much as possible has been integral to our response. I’ve always said there is no such thing as a 100 percent guarantee when it comes to COVID19, and, sadly, that will always be the case for as long as COVID-19 is with us. But we can all play our part, as members of the team of 5 million, in keeping COVID-19 out, and we can start with the simple things: scanning QR codes.

Everyone’s human. Now and then people will forget. I went out for lunch today. I walked into one place and walked straight out because I didn’t see anything I wanted. I forgot to scan. As I was walking to the next place, I pulled out my phone to scan and I remembered that I’d forgotten the last place, so I entered a manual entry in. Everyone’s human—everyone will forget from time to time, but we can all do something about that. We can all play our part. Scanning QR codes, keeping accurate records of where you’ve been and who you’ve been in contact with, gets us ahead of the curve. That means when we get a case, we can run it to ground quickly and we don’t need to escalate our alert levels. Every one of us can play a part in that: keeping our personal hygiene measures intact, washing our hands, coughing into our elbows, staying home if we are sick—I cannot stress that enough—self-isolate as you wait for your test results if you’ve had a test. These are all things that we can do to keep COVID-19 out of our community.

New Zealanders have sacrificed a lot for the success we have achieved so far, and there are more sacrifices to be made, including by those who are in Auckland right now, and those around the rest of the country dealing with alert level 2. I thank them for the contribution and the sacrifice that they have been making.

Dr SHANE RETI (Deputy Leader—National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’ll be speaking about the recent Northland outbreak today, but it would be remiss not to offer a few reflections on the news of two positive cases today and segue that into the Northland discussion. First of all, there are clearly positives and negatives to today’s news. On net-net, we need to offer some hope and some encouragement going forward. If we look at some of those positives, the positive is that we were looking, protocols were initiated, people followed the advice, and subsequently we have found another couple of positive cases.

On the negative side, one of the concerns has to be that the social network is increased—that is, we’ve found another person with another social network—more specifically, what appears to be the brother—and it’s not clear that he was picked up in the first sweep and, therefore, all his contacts also widen, and so our net is wider today. I think, secondly, if we imagine that the first grouping was a family—mother, father, daughter—and now we have a completely different grouping—that is, we understand the relationships within the family, those close contacts, but now it’s jumped across a classroom, purportedly, to another family. That’s a worry. We’ve now jumped out of the family and across the classroom. So I think we need to take that into account for what it is. I am reassured by what we’re being told, that 75 percent of cases have come back as negative. I think that’s a good thing, but, of course, that’s a negative in terms of, if we’re fishing where the fish are, and that’s what we’re looking for—you know, are we testing in the right place? So, again, just want to offer some sense of hope with today’s news.

I want to talk about the Northland outbreak, and I want to put it in terms of a formula: Northland outbreak two weeks ago plus an abundance of caution equals our response today. How is our response today better with what we know about the Northland outbreak? What is the abundance of caution we could and should bring? I firstly want to talk about deep cleaning. There were approximately 31 retail locations in the Northland outbreak; not one of them was recommended to undergo deep cleaning. How can that be? We asked the Minister at select committee this morning, and he said it’s a case by case risk analysis. Well, how did that work for the November outbreak in Queen Street? They all required deep cleaning, but 31 Northland locations were not recommended to be deep cleaned. Here’s what an abundance of caution would say: you deep clean if you’ve had a positive coronavirus case in your retail outlet. That’s what today’s response should look like if we apply an abundance of caution to what we learnt from the Northland outbreak. That’s not to diminish the consequence to retailers—it’s expensive, the premises are shut down, it is a burden; I do accept that—and I look and commend those retailers, particularly those out at Ruakākā, who took their own initiative and deep cleaned. They did the right thing. This is how we can make this response better.

Secondly, we need to understand why all of the Northland locations have not been identified. Why have the hairdresser and the Airbnb not been identified? What is the rule—I just want to know the rule; help me understand the rule—that says some locations can be identified but others don’t need to be? I don’t understand that; I want to understand that, and I want to propose that an abundance of caution means all locations are identified. That’s what a better response looks like.

We’ve mentioned saliva testing; we’ve talked about it for several days now. We had eight- to 10-hour testing queues in Northland, and I’m led to understand that saliva testing was offered to the ministry to help with those queues, because as one can imagine, if you’ve got 10 vehicles, it’s much more cost-efficient, time-wise, to go past each vehicle you’ve authenticated—you’ve got the labels, you give each their spitting container, and then you come back and pick them up, rather than individually nasopharyngeal swabbing. This was offered to the ministry, and my understanding is the phone was not picked up. That’s also what a better response looks like.

I just want to remind people of the four levers that we’ve got, the only levers that we’ve got, to manage coronavirus—we don’t have antibiotics; it’s a virus—other things that we can do. The levers we’ve got are testing; we can be tested. The levers we’ve got are isolation and social distancing. We’ve got tracing—contact tracing and COVID app tracing—and we’ve also got personal protective equipment. That’s it—it’s all we’ve got, the only things we can do. It’s all we can do for this—and that’s all we ask of New Zealanders to do, and that’s all we ask of ourselves and of our organisation and of the infrastructure we’re proposing.

So what I’d like to think, in conclusion, is that we take the Northland outbreak, we apply an abundance of caution, and we get to a better outcome with better ways of managing coronavirus here today in this current outbreak. That’s what I’m hoping this Government will do. Thank you.

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Courts): I shared with the House last night the whakataukī from the islands of Samoa, which is “E se’e fua le tama o Ulufanuasese’e ma le loto tetele, ae se’e ma le fa’aeteete”. The reference is to this young man, Ulufanuasese’e. He might surf with confidence and a skitey-ness on the ocean waters, but he’s constantly alert and aware of the demons of the ocean. I’ve used that saying to try and keep people having a sense of confidence, but to also be aware of the virus that is ravaging the world over, and my sense is it’s not just the Pacific community; it is all of New Zealand that is seeking leadership to unite and stay focused on the task that is at hand.

I think that we New Zealanders, all 5 million of us, plus the cats and dogs and sheep and other whatnot animals, are focused on getting on with the job through an unprecedented time in our history. All 5 million of us share the desire to remain united and focused because of our motivation to keep our people safe—and I mean all 5 million. I think we are united and focused because we recognise that throughout Aotearoa New Zealand, we have cohorts of the population who are the most vulnerable in our communities, and we are united and focused on being cognisant of that.

We are also focused and united in the recognition that we are so grateful to people who are, day in, day out, keeping all 5 million of us safe. They are laying their bodies on the line, working at the airports and working at our quarantine isolation units, day in, day out, and not only them personally but their families.

So I think what we want to send to New Zealand today is that we have been able to stamp out the spread of COVID-19, and we can do it again. I want to say that repeatedly, because sometimes when I’m listening to my colleagues on the other side, my sense is that they want to improve our system, which, obviously, we need to do, but on the other hand I also get a sense that they’re constantly negative, inconsistent, and chaotic. That does not bode well at our unprecedented time, when we need to stay focused on keeping confidence and keeping people informed about what is going on.

We have a plan that works. Our team of 5 million has shown strong resiliency in some very challenging and trying times, and I’m always in awe when I’m meeting them. Last weekend, with the Pacific communities of Dunedin, I was in awe of the resiliency and the way that they give the Government respect for what we’re trying to do. They recognise nothing is 100 percent and they recognise that nobody is perfect, but they also appreciate the constant reviews and the constant updates from our Prime Minister and from the Minister for COVID-19 Response.

I just want to say to all of our communities, we’re so grateful for your consistent support and spirit of solidarity. They share that with us when we say that our best economic response is a strong health response, and I want to thank all officials. I don’t think that we do that often enough, but in this particular case, some of us might go home and have some time out, but I know that officials in my office, officials in the Ministry of Health, and officials of all of the Government—they are working around the clock to make sure that we have the best, up-to-date evidence and information for this Government to be able to make the best call.

So today, the Government will make a decision. I am hopeful that there will be other information that will be provided by the Ministry of Health so that we can collectively decide the next steps onwards after the first-instance decision of moving Auckland to level 3 and putting the rest of New Zealand at level 2.

Tonight, I will initiate our nationwide fono with our Pacific communities—one of many. It will involve our Pacific experts so that we’re giving information to our community that assures them about the safety and effectiveness of what we’re doing.

SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker, thank you. I’d also like to talk about resilience and about health. It’s about the resilience of nature and the health of our oceans, because our oceans are the lifeblood of our planet. They’ve been responsible for absorbing over a third of the excess carbon dioxide that’s been associated with human-induced climate change. They’ve absorbed over 90 percent of the excess heat from that climate change. They are home to taonga species, from dolphins, whales, fish—30 percent, at least, of Aotearoa New Zealand’s biodiversity is in the sea. But even though they provide us with so much food and they are essential to our economy, we have not been looking after them well enough and we need to invest in better care of Tangaroa to provide us with thriving oceans and to help them become more resilient. We’ve got continued sediment pollution from earthworks in areas like Auckland, we’ve got plastic pollution going into rivers and into the sea, and we’ve got overfishing, and that’s an area we really need to address.

In Aotearoa New Zealand, the Green Party wants us to have thriving oceans, and our commitment to that was such that one of our six big policies that we championed during the election campaign was our policy for thriving oceans. One of the key commitments in that is to end bottom trawling and to end set-netting. Ending bottom trawling will end an industrial fishing method which involves dragging heavy nets, weighted heavily, across the seabed, like ploughing the seafloor—bulldozing the seafloor. Each pass of one of those heavy bottom trawling nets on things like seamounts destroys coral, destroys sponges. Those corals can be over a hundred years old. If they’re destroyed, they don’t just bounce back, and that’s why we need much stronger action, particularly now that we no longer have New Zealand First in this Parliament as a handbrake on action to move towards sustainable fisheries management.

We need to stop bottom trawling. There was a petition that was presented last December—50,000 New Zealanders want an end to this really destructive method of fishing. The Minister who was answering for the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries today indicated that something might be done, but we need urgent action, because other countries have acted. Chile has acted in 2017 to ban bottom trawling throughout 98 percent of its exclusive economic zone (EEZ). New Zealand’s EEZ is one of the largest in the world; it’s 15 times the size of our land area, and yet we still allow bottom trawling.

The New Zealand delegation in the recent meeting of the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation resisted efforts by the European Union to strengthen some controls that exist around bottom trawling. The New Zealand delegation, the Ministry for Primary Industries, resisted increasing the distance which vessels have to move to after they have had an accident and pulled up vulnerable marine ecosystem species like corals. New Zealand resisted increasing that distance from one nautical mile to five nautical miles. What that means is that if a fishing vessel encounters deep sea corals, pulls them up, then it only has to move one nautical mile away, and it may still be damaging the same seamount.

We know that these seamounts are biodiversity hot spots. We’ve got people like Dr Malcolm Clark in the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research highlighting that it will take them centuries to recover from bottom trawling. They are fished by the orange roughy fishery, and that is one of the reasons, with the industry pressuring, that we’ve seen, I think, such slowness by New Zealand to protect seamounts. Who would want to eat orange roughy? These fish can live for over 200 years—Mr Seymour says he would like to. They live for over 200 years. They don’t become sexually mature until they’re about 20 years old. That means they are very slow to breed and their numbers are very slow to recover from overfishing. We need to move to ecosystem-based management, we need to stop bottom trawling on seamounts if we want to have thriving oceans, and that’s one of the key commitments that the Green Party wants to see progress on in this Parliament, as well as action on marine protected areas, because, again, there we lag well behind the rest of the world. The Marine Reserves Act dates from the 1970s. We need to catch up with our Pacific neighbours, reform that legislation, and adopt the target of 30 percent of our seas being protected by 2030. Thank you.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe, otirā, e ngā mema katoa, tēnā tātou katoa. Mr Speaker, it’s my first contribution in the 2021 year. Can I please send my salutations to yourself and to our presiding officers, and of course my mihi to my fellow colleagues in the House today. We are in unprecedented times, and before I go there can I just please acknowledge your leadership and that of the Business Committee in ensuring our electoral offices around the country were given clear guidelines in the recent alert level changes for Auckland and the rest of the country. Can I just say that on the record to acknowledge that. What’s happening in Auckland—I just want to acknowledge the pressure that is brought to bear on whānau, businesses, and, of course, workers, and the flow-on effects it has in terms of level 2 around the country.

My contribution this afternoon—I want to talk about how quickly the Government has responded with the latest outbreak or resurgence, both in terms of protecting businesses and workers and the way in which our kete of knowledge of this virus has grown some 12 months deep. I’m proud to be part of a Government that looks for continuous improvement. The advice that we seek is always based on good health science and also without taking the eye off continuous improvement. So I too want to acknowledge the team of 5 million. I want to acknowledge our essential workers, our border workers, and in that regard—I’m proud to say, as the Minister of Customs—acknowledge the work that our customs officers are doing not just at the airport but at our ports under the marine border orders—some incredible work done by a lot of New Zealanders to keep ourselves safe. But this Government has acted fast to identify and to include close contacts that are tested. This week, we had the resurgence support payment legislation going through the House, to support and recognise the struggles for many businesses, particularly in the Auckland area. That would enable up to seven days of $1,500 per person on site and up to $400 per worker to a maximum of 50 fulltime-equivalents. That will go a long way to help and support our small businesses.

But, of course, the big news this week was the arrival of our first batch of vaccines, some 60,000—or 30,000 dosages—which is a pleasing start of our commitment to ensure that we are supporting our front-line workers, and pleased to see that roll-out will start taking place this week. It’s a start. This Government did indicate the first quarter, so I am pleased that we have been able to deliver these initial vaccine arrivals.

In the time that I have, I want to acknowledge the Māori response, particularly in Auckland. I want to acknowledge Turuki Health Care, the Waipareira Trust, and, of course, the Whānau Ora clinic in Manukau, who have come to the fore to ensure the testing, the services support for those vulnerable communities in South Auckland, but in Auckland particularly. They are at their finest, given the 12 months of work that they have undertaken to keep those particular communities safe. I do want to labour that point around the Māori response, not just in Auckland and this recent case but the resilience of those communities throughout Aotearoa in terms of testing and both ensuring communities are communicated with in an appropriate manner but also providing those support services. So I want to acknowledge those particular organisations who are doing a stellar job.

Like I said at the beginning, the response of the Government has been fast and furious. The vaccines have arrived, support for small businesses is there, but the underlying point for me is this continuous commitment to improve the way we are addressing COVID when it rears its head. To move quickly, to stamp it out, to trace it, to treat it is part of the Government’s elimination strategy. I’m very proud of it.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to start my contribution by saying thank you to our hard-working border workers, thank you to our nurses, and thank you to the people working in our managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) facilities around the country. As I said yesterday, they are truly at the front line, and as the Minister for COVID-19 Response said yesterday, they are the heroes of our COVID response.

It was a little bit grating to hear the Minister say yesterday that the Opposition has attacked border workers. We have never attacked border workers, and we never will. We have asked questions about the system, and we will continue to ask questions in the spirit, as the Minister has just noted, of continuous improvement. We owe that to New Zealanders. But we have never attacked border workers, and we never will. They are doing a fantastic job.

On that note, can I also say that New Zealand has done really well in tackling the scourge that is COVID-19. That doesn’t mean that we can’t do better, and we all have an obligation in this Parliament to try and ensure that. That’s the reason we’re all MPs: to try and make New Zealand a better place, to try and improve public policy, and also to try and improve the implementation of sound public policy. So every time we stand up in question time as the Opposition and we ask questions about the Pullman Hotel and the reports into the Pullman, or we ask questions about saliva testing, as we have done today, or, as in the past, we have asked about pre-departure testing, or we’ve asked about various community outbreaks and the actions of the Ministry of Health—every time we do that, it is in the spirit of continuous improvement. It’s in the spirit of trying to make sure the Government does the best job they possibly can.

The whole point of our parliamentary democracy is that the actions of Government and the policies of Government and the statements of Government are scrutinised, and the reason they’re scrutinised is because without scrutiny, Governments can do what they like. Governments don’t necessarily do the right thing, and so the whole point of this House is to make sure that they do. And we’ll have a contest of ideas about what the right policies are. We’ll have a contest of ideas around whether or not Ministers have behaved badly or behaved well, or whether or not they’re implementing policy well. That’s the whole point. It’s like that for education, it’s like that for health, it’s like that for social services, it’s like that for the economy—all of the big issues—and it’s no different when it comes to COVID-19. So that’s a couple of points I wanted to say at the start of my contribution.

I want to talk about saliva testing, and I do want to urge the Government to introduce daily saliva testing at our border, at our MIQ facilities, at our quarantine hotels, and for our workers at the border more generally. That is in the spirit of continuous improvement, as we’ve just heard from Meka Whaitiri. It’s not just the National Party that is encouraging the Government to move more quickly on this; it is experts like Professor Michael Baker, Professor Nick Wilson, Sir David Skegg—who was so instrumental in the early part of the Government’s response and gave evidence to the Epidemic Response Committee—and it is the Government’s own expert advisers that they commissioned themselves, Sir Brian Roche and Heather Simpson, who recommended it in the Roche-Simpson report of September last year. In fact, the learned authors recommended the Government do it as soon as possible, and in September noted that widespread roll-out of saliva testing was at least two months away. Well, that was in September. Two months from September is November. We’re now in mid-February and still no closer to widespread deployment.

In fact, Newshub reported last night that just 140 daily saliva tests have been conducted in a limited trial on a voluntary basis. As I pointed out in the House today, Australia—just one state, New South Wales—has done 50,000 in the last two months. So our view is that if Australia can do 50,000—I don’t think anyone expects that many in New Zealand, as a smaller population, but we certainly should be striving for more than 140. As I pointed out to the Minister in question time today, a saliva-based PCR test is acceptable at the border for people to prove that they don’t have COVID and to get on a plane and come to New Zealand. I venture to suggest, and put it to the House, that that means it should be deployed more widely in New Zealand.

What are the arguments the Government has proffered against it? The first argument is around validation—that it needs to be validated. Well, speed up the validation through the Ministry of Health. That should have been occurring many months ago. And as I pointed out again today, the SHIELD, a University of Illinois - based system developed by Rako Science, says that it’s just as accurate, and they have had it validated independently by a Victoria University of Wellington scientist.

If capacity is an issue, expand the capacity. And, of course, if it is indeed less accurate, that can be more than made up for by increasing the frequency of the test to make sure that as many people are done as possible, and that more than makes up for any reduction in accuracy—

SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Well, what we’ve seen today is an interesting occurrence, because we’ve seen not only just contradictions and negativity from those members opposite, but a bizarre obsession with saliva testing—a bizarre obsession with testing practices that are already occurring right now in New Zealand. What disheartens me is that right now, New Zealanders have done such a strong job, such a sterling job. We have done this before, and we will do it again. The fact that we have worked together as a team—that is the strength of the team of 5 million, and that is what puts us in a position to be so much better than any other country at the moment. It is why we have done such a strong job.

Now, what concerns me is that we have a team of 5 million and then we have 33 of the National Party going out to the side, concerned about side issues, clutching at straws. What we’ve seen today is negativity, inconsistency, and, to be quite honest, it’s been somewhat chaotic. Look, I’m quite heartened by the fact that Chris Bishop is supporting essential workers, and I look forward to his continued support when we continue to raise the minimum wage, and I look forward to his vote across the floor in that space completely. I’m looking forward to that one. But what we have seen in Auckland is really a concern for some of those small businesses, and it’s important that the support we have provided through the resurgence package is continued to be rolled out.

I would like to particularly acknowledge those small businesses that work around hospitality and have had to deal with foodstuffs. I know many instances where large amounts of food were brought in and then, due to changing into alert levels, they’ve had to lose that. That has been a direct loss. That is a significant problem, and I think that that is important to acknowledge—those businesses that have really gone above and beyond in order to support a country that has become so free and so economically mobile by having those restrictions in place. It means that New Zealand is a safer country, is a safer place to be able to exist in, and has largely been COVID free for the large part of this pandemic.

But what we’ve seen is a real contradiction, even in the idea of having an elimination strategy. What we’ve seen from those members opposite—the COVID-19 response spokesperson Chris Bishop agreed that the Government did the right thing to move so quickly to respond in the way that we did, and it was clear that we simply can’t get COVID into our community. Great. Happy with that. But then we have Michael Woodhouse coming in and running out of patience with alert levels. He’s just had enough of them—going in and out is too much—and implying that National would consider abandoning elimination. Well, I think it’s important that if you’re going to be a credible Opposition and if those members are attempting to hold the Government to account, it would be good if you could sing from the same song sheet. What we are hearing is an inconsistency in that space.

Wait: it continues on—it continues on—with the Hon Judith Collins making comments around the coming out of alert level 3 in Auckland. She stated that if there was no positive test today, she thought we should relax level 3 in Auckland—right? Right. But if there are no positive tests, I can’t imagine if there’s any reason why people wouldn’t be expecting to come out of lockdown. Well, it would be good if the leader could actually make a decision about whether we should come out of lockdown or not. We know today that there will be a decision made in terms of what is happening. We do not underestimate the impact of level 3 on those restrictions, and that is why—that is exactly why—we need a robust system that springs into action every time we need it to.

Today, as I mentioned, the Government will decide whether we can alter our alert level settings, and we will do so based on the most important and up-to-date information—health advice, science advice—not speculation, not contradiction, not grasping at straws to try and have a crack but being part of the team of 5 million that works collectively. I think back to a whakataukī that always makes my heart, I guess, warm. It’s the fact that we work as a team. Ehara taku toa i te toa takitahi, he toa takitini.

[Success is not mine alone, but of the many.]

That is what has put New Zealand ahead of so many other areas and has put our people, our children, our elderly, and our workers in a position where we’re able to do so much better. That’s why we’ve had to have a response, also, that is continually improving. Yes, we acknowledge that there are areas that need improving, and that is part of why we learn and move with the changes.

I am proud that this is a Government that has worked collectively and not stood on the sideline and niggled but instead worked towards protecting the wellbeing of our New Zealanders and protecting those who need it the most, while at the same time having an open economy that is still able to pay our workers and have small businesses operating. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Well, Mr Speaker, I listened to the comparative cogency and coherence of those last two contributions and all I could conclude is there must have been a big swing factor in the Hutt South results of last year’s election.

But I want to talk also about saliva testing, because actually it means so much this week for two reasons. The first reason is that there is a very real possibility—perhaps a probability—that if we had better testing, then we wouldn’t have needed such a long lockdown, because we could have actually found the source of this current outbreak early. So it could have saved New Zealanders huge costs to their healthcare, to their education, to their anxiety, to their livelihoods, and to businesses. But the second reason is that the Government’s failure to adopt saliva PCR testing, the same way that many similar countries have, tells us that we have a Government unable to embrace and work with better technology and embrace and work with the private sector businesses, the innovators, and the entrepreneurs.

The problem for the Government is they’ve now used so many excuses, so many false rationales for why it is that New Zealand is so far behind in its adoption of saliva PCR testing—well, actually, why the New Zealand Government is so far behind. And we see in the news private companies, Ryman Healthcare, for example, already using saliva PCR testing, and that’s often the difference between the private sector and public. We heard from the Government that saliva PCR testing is not as accurate as nasal PCR testing. Well, actually, the best studies we have are meta-studies comparing 16 different studies of saliva PCR testing. They find that the difference in accuracy is a percentage point. One’s about 85 percent accurate; the other’s 86 or 87. There’s almost no difference.

Then they said, “Well, it’s not a substitute. We need to check that it’s as good as nasal PCR testing.” Well, even if we believe the Government for a moment that a one or two percentage point difference in accuracy measured—and even if we believe that testing more often, because it’s easier to do saliva testing, wouldn’t make the difference—even if we believed all that, it doesn’t have to be a substitute. Yet we heard from the Prime Minister today—she seemed to be saying we can’t have saliva testing because it’s not a reliable replacement. And then yesterday, in question time, yet another one: the Prime Minister said, “Well, we need to verify it for New Zealand, because it doesn’t work in countries that don’t have high rates of COVID-19.” Well, apparently, the Prime Minister is unaware that Australia, Singapore, Taiwan—countries that also have very low rates of COVID-19—are also using it.

At one point, the Government told us the problem is New Zealanders can’t spit well enough. I had to double-check that one; I thought it was being made up. But no, it’s true.

Chris Bishop: The spit’s different, apparently.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, they thought that the spit was different. And then they said you have to go half an hour without smoking, eating, or chewing gum. Well, I hope that people are capable of doing that. Then we heard from the Prime Minister today that we can’t have new and better technologies because it won’t be a total solution to COVID19. Well, actually, we know that every little bit helps and every innovation helps.

The truth is that none of those excuses work. The reality is that the Government got a report on 28 September from Heather Simpson and Sir Brian Roche, and it said that all efforts should be made to adopt saliva PCR testing as soon as possible. The truth is, what this episode tells us about this Government is that they have been captured by the officials at the Ministry of Health. They’ve been unwilling to follow the science when it emerges from other sources. They’ve been unwilling to work with private businesses to get better results. They haven’t even been willing to work with other Government departments. That’s not my view—I’ve said it many times—that’s what Simpson-Roche says. The solution, if New Zealand wants to survive as an island nation on a pandemic planet, is to sophisticate our defences, to have an epidemic response unit that is multidisciplinary and public and private sector, and to start adopting better technology with no more excuses. New Zealanders’ lives and livelihoods depend on it. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Today, 17 February, marks four months since the general election. Around this time, four months ago, I was with my hairdresser, Chrissy, a proud Mana small-business owner. I was discussing with her my nervousness around the election results, that you can never count your chickens before they hatch, and the benefits of having a curl versus a straighten. But besides the skill that hairdressers and barbers possess, I’ve held a belief for a long time that hairdressers and barbers are a good gauge of the temperature within their community; the stories, the secrets, and the number of clients that they must counsel over the years are worthy of a TV show. Chrissy and I would have regular catch-ups every six weeks, and she would share what she was seeing as a small-business owner in the COVID world, what she was hearing from her clients, and, overall, what the sentiment on the ground was.

Since the election, I’ve met many Chrissys, many small-business owners in Mana, and the overwhelming sentiment has been “The wage subsidy saved my business, the lockdown was tough but it was needed, and thank goodness we live in New Zealand and have Jacinda as Prime Minister”. Now, fast forward four months. I’m taking my first call in a general debate in alert level 2, with two new community cases of COVID. We on this side of this House do not underestimate the impact of an alert level 3 lockdown in Auckland. That’s why we need to have a system that responds quickly, and if it needs to be tweaked, that it is done so. When new cases of COVID-19 emerge in the community, we are ready and able to respond with a Kiwi business package. Policies and payments such as the new Resurgence Support Payment that was passed through the House—again, I acknowledge the Opposition for their support of that bill yesterday—the short-term absence payment to cover eligible workers who need to stay home when they’re awaiting a COVID-19 test, and the COVID-19 Leave Support Scheme to help businesses pay workers who have to self-isolate because of COVID-19. We will continue to support Kiwi businesses and workers to help them through the economic impact of this virus. So thank you to our businesses in Auckland and to those across the country who’ve been affected by this alert level 3 lockdown. We’re doing as much as we can to support our country through the economic impacts of this virus.

I also want to give my thanks to those who have contributed to the COVID response, particularly those at the border. Thank you. Thank you for the sacrifices that you make daily to keep our country safe. I’ve heard stories that some of you are refraining from going to church, the gym, and major events. You’re going that extra mile, and we thank you on this side of the House.

Today I met with a Mana constituent who was based in London in March last year. He was a fit, young, 20-something Pacific Islander professional who really got sick. He woke up one night with fever and aches—he had COVID. He thought, initially, it was like a bad flu, but it actually got worse. Almost a year later, he is back in New Zealand and he is seeing a specialist for his new heart condition. He has long-haul COVID. He’s also seeing a counsellor to help his mental wellbeing, as the impacts of watching those die around you in hospital while in the UK, while you do not have your family and your friends to support you, provide scars that cannot be seen. He has a message to his family and his friends and to those who are wary about the vaccines coming in the future. His message is: “Please take COVID seriously. We don’t know how lucky we are in New Zealand.”

So we on this side of the House are taking COVID seriously. Our approach of going hard and going early is why we can pride ourselves on our resilience, our unity, and our resourcefulness as a country. We’ve beaten COVID-19 before when they said it couldn’t be done, and we’re taking the right steps to beat it again. So thank you to all the New Zealanders and our team of 5 million for playing your part in this country’s COVID-19 response.

I finish my contribution with a personal story of “Papa Joe” Williams, one of the victims of COVID-19, who was a South Auckland doctor. When I was a university student and I was taking my children to see Papa Joe, he was a huge encourager and a huge person within the Cook Island community for encouraging Pacific women and men to study tertiary education. Every time I went and saw Papa Joe, he was always saying to me, “How’s your studies going? Do you need any support? Make sure you go to the PI network over there at Auckland University, and you make sure they give you the support you need.” Papa Joe was one of our victims of COVID-19 in this country. Papa Joe was the face of COVID-19 to him and his community, both here in New Zealand and in the Cook Islands. So I finish my contribution with a thank you, Papa Joe, for your kind words.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): New Zealand is facing a housing emergency. Imagine if this Parliament took it as seriously as we have our response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Imagine if this Parliament acted with the urgency and the seriousness with which we have acted in our response to COVID-19. What would that look like? We would address the causes of our housing shortage, not just the symptoms. We would work together across this House on the solutions, not just resort to petty politics, and we would treat New Zealanders with intelligence and respect, not try and fool them with half-thought-through hoaxes like KiwiBuild but instead make the serious, long-term changes needed to ensure that the next generation of New Zealanders, indeed today’s young people, can afford to buy a house in this country.

I am calling sincerely on the members of the Labour Party to hear National’s cry to work with us on the urgent measures that are needed in New Zealand to increase housing supply. Need I describe how urgent this problem is for the members opposite? In the past year alone, median house prices in this country have increased by $118,000. That’s more than most New Zealanders will ever earn in a year. And what that means is it is locking an entire generation out of homeownership. In the past year alone, those saving for a house deposit have watched that deposit get another $22,000 out of reach, and you know what that means? It means the only people who can afford to buy houses in this country are those who can get help from the bank of mum and dad. It is locking a generation of New Zealanders out of having a stake in their community, out of having a stake in our economy, and it is changing the very nature of our society. And we are not giving them hope for the future, because there is not serious action happening.

It is not just those who might want to keep the homeownership dream alive; it’s those who are renting too—because that is out of control. Rents have gone up $110 a week in the past three years alone, meaning that even if you are scrimping and saving to get a deposit together, it’s getting harder and harder every year. Low-income tenants are being squeezed by rents rising faster than incomes, and we’re seeing the result. More and more New Zealanders can’t afford to rent a house in the private market. There are 22,000 people waiting for a State house. That is a record. That is the highest it has ever been in New Zealand history. And what that means is that those are people without homes. It is a national disgrace.

We have 6,000 New Zealanders living in motels. They are living in motels. We have families trying to raise their kids in a motel room next to someone who’s just been released from prison on one side and someone on the other side who’s got an active drug addiction, and we’re saying, “Good luck for the future.” That is a recipe for a breakdown in social cohesion and for an ongoing divide between the haves and the have-nots in our country, and the members opposite had an opportunity to work with the National Party on actually solving these problems. I am not here in Parliament to describe our problems; I am here to progress their solutions. We actually know what to do here. We need to unlock the constraints which hold back land release, which make it too hard to build a house in this country, to get consent, to develop at scale and at pace, and which mean that even those wishing to develop need to spend years in court, in hearings, in delay.

This is not a magical solution. National did this in Canterbury following the earthquakes. We acted with urgency, we introduced emergency measures, and it worked. [Interruption] Go and look at the graphs, Kieran McAnulty. Housing affordability in Canterbury levelled off while it took off around the rest of the country. It’s time we took that approach here. We need to act with urgency. The answer was never KiwiBuild. That is a disgrace—the biggest hoax of a public policy that we will see in this Parliament, I venture. It’s time to act on New Zealand’s housing emergency.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour—Wairarapa): It’s hard to believe that in about a week’s time, it would be a year since New Zealand saw its first case of COVID. What a year it has been! So around about a year ago, we saw cases popping up in Australia, in the UK, in the US, and all around the world. We went into lockdown quicker, from that point that we got our first case to when we responded, than those other countries that we compare ourselves to. We stand here and we still hear the National Party trying to correct the record, but they cannot back it up with facts. We’ve heard their leader, Judith Collins, try this in numerous general debates—does not stack up with reality.

We have heard them try it in the general election. Well, we saw how that went for them, because we know, deep down, that New Zealanders are grateful to be here. They only need to look overseas to see what the alternative could have been. And they only needed to watch during the Epidemic Response Committee to see what the response would have been if it were the National Party in charge: every single day, calling for New Zealand to open its borders; every single day, saying stuff that countered what the experts were saying. That is the key point.

At this very moment, Cabinet is discussing what to do with the current outbreak in Auckland, specifically around alert levels. New Zealanders know that Cabinet will, as they always have throughout the last 12 months, be listening to the experts and taking on their advice. There is unity here, not just on this side of the House and in this Government but across the country. Every single member of Parliament would have gone around their home patch and talked to locals over the Christmas - New Year period before resuming to work. They would have heard, I’m sure, what I heard consistently: people that were happy with how we as a country responded.

I stand here today proudly as the member of Parliament for Wairarapa. Wairarapa was the region that saw the first case of community transmission in this country. Wairarapa was also the first region to rid itself of COVID and stay COVID-free, and I am proud of that. The work that our essential workers and our health force did to get to that point was extraordinary. I want to take the opportunity not only to thank them but to thank those that continue to work across the country to help us keep the level of safety that we have and that we enjoy here.

As Cabinet deliberates on the decision—the difficult decision—that they have to make, there have been countless people investigating and providing information to the experts so that they can provide up-to-date advice to Cabinet. I have absolute faith in that evidence-based advice, that Cabinet will make the right decision for this country.

We can compare that approach, that consistent approach that’s been the case for 12 months, to the approach that we’ve seen just this week from the National Party. I would have thought that they would have learnt the lesson that was given to them at the general election. I will acknowledge, actually, the leadership that some of their members are trying to show on that side of the House, by talking about solutions. But they just can’t bring it together. They have a situation where Michael Woodhouse, fresh from chasing a mythical homeless man in managed isolation and quarantine, is now talking about the fact that we are going to have to get used to perhaps following a herd immunity approach in this country—“Just get used to it. We’re sick of lockdowns. We’re just going to have to get used to it.”

We hear their leader, Judith Collins, saying that if there are no cases today, we should open up. Since when has she been the expert? What she should be saying, and what New Zealanders want to hear from their leaders, is that we have experts, they are evidence-focused, and they will provide the best approach. Now, I saw a definition of a word this morning. It came up on Twitter—Susie Dent from 8 Out of 10 Cats Does Countdown—and it is “ultracrepidarian”. It is a presumptuous critic, one who loves to give opinions on matters they know very little about. How appropriate for that to pop up on my feed today.

New Zealanders are sick of politicising this. What they want to see is what they’ve seen from this Government for the last 12 months. We know what we’ve got to do. We’ve done it before. Let’s just get behind it and get it done.

Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. In November 2017, the Minister for Land Information received a briefing on issues and opportunities in the high country. Now, that’s fair enough. It’s always good to review legislation, particularly legislation that is particularly longstanding—as is the Crown pastoral land regime, which first came in 1948 and then was refreshed by the Crown Pastoral Land Act some 40, 50 years later. Fair enough. And in that briefing to the new Minister, Land Information made some very interesting observations and, indeed, recommendations. One of those observations was, “We recognise that stewardship of land needs to be integrated and strategic to deliver good economic, environmental, social, and cultural outcomes. We can achieve better outcomes when we coordinate our efforts with others”, and by the “others”, I’m assuming that the officials meant the lessees—

SPEAKER: Order! I apologise for interrupting the member. I forgot to start the clock, and as a result of that I’ll stop it when we get to one minute. I think it gives her about an extra minute.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: I assume that the officials were referring, when they made reference to coordinating our efforts with others—I assume, and I do hope, that at the end of 2017, those comments were referring to the high country farmers. Further into this advice received by the Minister for Land Information, the Hon Eugenie Sage, some of the recommendations of improvements came to “Support more innovative approaches, including identifying ways we can support farmers”—support farmers—“to exercise stewardship while using land productively; … Improve coordination with other decision-makers; … Enhance public participation; and, … Improve quality control and consistency.” This is good stuff—this is good stuff. But where is the focus—in this document, in any other document that I have seen, where is the focus on the performance of Land Information in all of this?

So fast-forward to July of last year, when the Minister for Land Information brought the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill to the House and spoke in the House—somewhat predictably—as did I and my colleagues. I spoke very passionately about this issue because when I saw this bill, when I saw what this Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill was, when I saw what it contained, my question was: what happened to the advice? What happened to that partnership approach? What happened to that enabling approach? Why are we now dealing with a Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill which does anything but that? Because what this bill before the House, before the Environment Committee, does is it turns a partnership arrangement between Crown pastoral lessees and Land Information New Zealand, the Crown, into one of master and servant. More than that, it takes a partnership which, indeed, could need improving, as alerted by the officials in their advice to the Minister—how have we moved from a partnership to the prescriptive master-servant relationship which is contained in this bill?

So here we are. I made my comments very plain at the time, as did colleagues. We are in the select committee—none of that today, because our committee has not reported back, but I will go back to the Hon Damien O’Connor’s first reading speech, when he was Minister of Agriculture but not land information, where he said, “The bill will ensure that the Crown and leaseholders work together”. OK, the Hon Damien O’Connor, how is that going to happen in a regulatory environment which pitches Crown pastoral lessees against Land Information New Zealand, and a regime where Land Information and their agents go on to a Crown pastoral lease and can strike an infringement notice—can strike an enforceable undertaking upon that lessee? Where is the partnership in that? This bill, which is before select committee—and submissions close on Monday—has fundamentally changed the nature of high country farming in New Zealand. So what’s the way forward?

I have some suggestions. My first suggestion to the Minister: withdraw the bill. Turf it, make it go away, come back to this House with a bill which recognises that high country farmers are stewards of their land, that environmental outcomes in the high country are improving—could do better, are improving. Instead of doing it to the high country farmers, how about doing it with the high country farmers? Ditch the bill, Minister; come back with a better one.

SPEAKER: Order! The time for this debate is well past expired.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Point of order. I seek leave for the House to now adjourn until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none. So the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Thursday, 18 February 2021.

The House adjourned at 4.07 p.m.