Tuesday, 31 August 2021

TUESDAY, 31 AUGUST 2021

TUESDAY, 31 AUGUST 2021

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

SPEAKER: Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interest, we acknowledge the Queen and pray for guidance in our deliberations, that we conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.

Ministerial Statements

COVID-19—Alert Level Changes

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wish to make a ministerial statement on the changes to COVID-19 alert levels.

On Tuesday afternoon, 17 August 2021, we were advised of a case in the community with no obvious connection to the border. In a matter of hours after this, the Cabinet had met and agreed a move for all of New Zealand to COVID-19 alert level 4 from 11.59 p.m. that evening. It’s now 14 days since COVID-19 re-emerged in the community and New Zealand moved to alert level 4. It was news that nobody wanted. The events of the last two weeks, however, have once again confirmed the value of going hard and going early. Elimination remains New Zealand’s best strategy, and we are throwing everything at it.

On Monday, 23 August, Cabinet agreed to extend alert level 4 for the rest of the country, and yesterday Cabinet also confirmed a decision from last week to move all of New Zealand south of Auckland down to alert level 3 from 11.59 p.m. this evening. Cabinet also agreed to keep Auckland at alert level 4 until at least 11.59 p.m. on Tuesday, 14 September, with a review of those settings on Monday, 6 September.

Unfortunately, the latest outbreak has particularly affected Auckland. Once again, Auckland is doing the heavy lifting, and we acknowledge their immense efforts and the sacrifices they are making for us all. Based on the size of the current outbreak, based on the number of daily cases we’re seeing, and based on the need to sustain reduction in cases before moving alert levels, Auckland will remain at alert level 4 for another two weeks. Northland will move down a level from Thursday if the remaining tests that we are waiting for come back negative.

We need to be confident that we do not have COVID-19 Delta circulating undetected in the community, and we need to be confident that any cases we may have are contained and isolated. Signs are encouraging that after the hard work of all New Zealanders, we are seeing the effects of the lockdown starting to turn the tide. We are seeing a decrease in cases outside of households, a decreasing number of locations of interest, and the reproduction rate starting to reduce. That’s not to say that we are out of the woods yet. We’ll continue to see new cases reported from these Auckland clusters for a while yet.

In the last two weeks, we’ve processed just over 420,000 tests. Our contact tracing has also performed strongly. Approximately 34,500 contacts have been identified, with 28,839—or around 80 percent—being contacted by our National Contact Tracing Solution. Also, a shout-out to our managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) staff. There’s no doubt the managed isolation and quarantine system is under pressure, and their incredible and ongoing efforts to help keep us all safe deserve acknowledgement. They are New Zealand’s unsung heroes. Our schools, too, are once again stepping up to minimise the disruption to students and their families, and we thank them.

We have gratitude for our vaccination workforce, GPs, pharmacies, and Māori and Pasifika health providers. The rate of vaccinations has been increasing, and in the last two weeks we’ve had more than seven record days, which are averaging approximately 430,000 doses administered per week. In total, 3.4 million doses have been administered, including 2.2 million first doses and nearly 1.2 million second doses. We do know, and I acknowledge that everybody in the House has shown public support for this, that the vaccine is our best defence against COVID-19. It is free of charge and it is safe to use. Vaccine shipments continue to arrive regularly.

Throughout our response to COVID-19, we’ve used the latest evidence and the best advice available to us at the time. We’ve learnt and we’ve adapted and we will continue to be guided by the science.

Last week, I announced the introduction of mandatory record-keeping for busy places and large gatherings. These are the sorts of places where people gather consistently and in larger numbers, such as cafes, restaurants, bars, casinos, concerts, aged-care facilities, healthcare facilities, barbers, nightclubs, and libraries. It’s now mandatory to wear a mask when visiting a business or a service at alert level 4. We’ve also, based on the latest scientific evidence, widened the gap between vaccines doses from three weeks to six weeks, to get wider population coverage sooner. Of course, we’ll continue to follow the science—for example, what it tells us about the most effective timing for booster shots and ongoing vaccinations.

All Government border workers in high-risk jobs are now required to be vaccinated, with checks and balances in place to ensure that this is happening. By the end of next month, all those working in jobs at the border that may see a person come into contact with COVID-19 will also need to have been vaccinated. These are measures to protect those doing those jobs and to ensure that we are plugging any further gaps in our border defence. We’re doing all of this, and more, while continuing our work on the reconnecting New Zealand strategy, which we announced a few short weeks ago—though it feels a lot longer.

It’s understandable that New Zealand is totally focused on the here and now and getting to the other side of this outbreak. As I said earlier, the Government is throwing everything at it, but we are also looking ahead. We will not lose sight of the medium- and long-term goals, and I can assure the House that planning for the future also continues apace.

Can I end by acknowledging, once again, that the last two weeks have been difficult for a lot of people. No one wanted to see COVID-19 re-emerge in the community, but we always knew that it was possible and that it could happen. We know that the best way to protect our people and our economy is to stamp out this virus, and, thanks to the hard work of all New Zealanders, we are making great progress to do that again.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and can I thank the Minister for COVID-19 Response for that update. Can I also start by thanking everyone who has gone out and got a test in the community—thousands of people. I thank our essential workers who are keeping our shelves stocked, keeping the country fed, keeping the country moving. I thank our healthcare workers, who were under pressure before but are under even more pressure now—so everyone doing the testing, doing the vaccinating, including those in the conditions in Auckland today—and thank you to all the Kiwis who have lined up to get vaccinated. That’s the way out of this lockdown and it’s the way to connect to the rest of the world. Some questions for the Minister: how many contacts have been identified but have not yet had a test?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): If I get the right table, I can run through those in a bit more detail. In terms of the closest contacts, if we call them that for now, 924 of them have been identified and we have results for 738 of them. Of the close contacts, the next level down, 30,887 have been identified and 27,687 we have a test result for so far. It’s important to note that there will sometimes be a justifiable reason why a person may not have been tested yet, because that’s determined by when their potential exposure was, and if they’ve only recently been potentially exposed, the test may not be taken immediately, and may be taken a couple of days later.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Can I ask the Minister why these updates are not regularly provided as part of the 1 p.m. or sometimes 4 p.m. updates. They tend to be a little bit sporadic—sometimes we get them, sometimes we do not—and I think there would be greater surety for the public if they were provided as a matter of course by the ministry.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): I think one of the challenges for the people who produce all of this information every day is that there is a very large volume of information that they’re dealing with now—612 total cases that they’re dealing with at the moment, which is far greater than we’ve dealt with in previous outbreaks. It does mean that there is a bigger lag between when information is first identified and when it is publicly disclosed. So, often the case numbers that we get and that we release each day will then be followed up by a more detailed breakdown of the case information from the day before, because of the amount of time that it takes just to make sure that the teams are compiling that information and reporting that as accurately as possible. We certainly do endeavour to be as transparent with the information and with a whole variety of different statistics as soon as we possibly can be.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Can the Minister tell the House how many COVID-positive cases have been infectious in the community since the lockdown started?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): I can’t give an absolutely accurate account of that at this point. What I can say is if we look at our essential workers, for example, there are over 100 essential workers who have been identified as positive cases—I think, from memory, about 107. So far we’ve only seen evidence of four transmission events in the workplace. Those numbers do move around a bit, but those were the most recent numbers that I had to hand.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Yesterday or the day before, we were told that the effective reproduction rate (R rate) was less than 1, which is obviously good news. A couple of questions on that: is it still less than 1 today; is it being calculated daily; and, if so, why is it not being made public daily?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): I’m sure that the R rate could be included in the daily updates, if that’s what the member wanted. The advice that I’ve had is that the R rate continues to trend down.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Can I ask the Minister around contact tracing, which has been an area of concern for people: why did it take six days for the Public Service to start secondments from within the Public Service to public health units to boost up surge capacity for contact tracers?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): One of the things about the contact-tracing process when you’re dealing with a large outbreak is that the overall number of contact tracers required continues to grow. We don’t necessarily need as many contact tracers in the beginning, when you’re chasing down a smaller number of cases, but as that case number grows it’s important that we surge that workforce, and that’s exactly what’s been happening.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): To the Minister in relation to that, I think he’s touched on an issue that people are concerned about, which is the lack of planning for this outbreak, and I’d refer him to the remarks of Philip Hill, who most recently conducted a report for the Government in relation to contact tracing, saying, and I quote him, “We previously warned in each of the three previous reports since mid-2020 that New Zealand would struggle to deal with a significant outbreak if capacity wasn’t increased substantially. We have not seen how this has been addressed since the report submitted in early June this year.” A lot of people are very concerned that despite repeated warnings by a variety of experts since the lockdown last year, not enough effort has gone into increasing surge capacity for contact tracing. What is his response to that?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): I would say to judge the system based on its results in the current outbreak. So if we look at the overall number of close contacts that have been identified, recognising that we are differentiating between the closest contacts and other close contacts, we’re talking about nearly 32,000 identified so far. Now, that’s over a 14-day period, so that is well more than the 1,000 a day that some of those earlier reports were identifying we needed the capacity to be able to contact trace.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Does the Government have an updated version of what’s become known as the “Ayesha Verrall metrics”, which is how people can essentially assess how the Government’s doing? Obviously, I think everyone recognises the April 2020 numbers are out of date now, or the metrics are out of date, but what are the new metrics?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): We haven’t necessarily agreed a final revised set of metrics. We continue to use those metrics as they were identified by Dr Verrall. It’s important in the way that they’re reported that we differentiate, I guess, between the very early phase of an outbreak and the bit that we’re in at the moment, where more regular updates are required that remove from the statistics some of those earlier numbers, because those earlier numbers can be distorting of the overall performance of the system here and now.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): A couple of questions on alert levels. If contacts in the South Island continue to test negative, when will the South Island move down alert levels?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): The Cabinet will make further decisions on that next week. I generally am very reluctant to crystal ball gaze and forecast what might be in those decisions, but, of course, if we continue to see no cases outside of the upper North Island, that’s very encouraging, and that’s certainly something that Cabinet will be looking very closely at, but we’ll also be looking at the testing results for those contacts that have been identified who are currently isolating outside of the upper North Island. We want to make sure that they have all been tested and that we’ve got all of the results for that. I think the last thing anybody wants to see is that we go down alert levels and then find that another positive case or two pops up and potentially increases the risk profile. We want to eliminate that possibility as much as we can before any alert level change.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): How many people are still at home waiting to be transferred to an MIQ facility?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): That number does vary. I think the latest number this morning was that it could be sitting around 50 to 60 people that are awaiting transportation. There’s a couple of things in that. There are various parts of the process—and we’ve been working to make sure that we understand every part of that process, including the bit between referral and MIQ, getting the notification and then MIQ getting someone to go and pick them up and transfer them to quarantine. There can be a lag in some parts of that process, and we’ve been working to identify where the potential delays in that process are so that they can be remedied as quickly as possible.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Does he have any numbers on just how long on average people wait between testing positive and having to be transferred to MIQ? I know it may not be possible to work it out on average, but even just a guestimate for about how long it takes?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): No I don’t, but I can certainly give the member a breakdown. The vast majority of people are there within 48 hours, but I just don’t have the statistical breakdown, but certainly happy to find that.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): I understand Pasifika make up a large proportion of the people we’re talking about here. A couple of questions in relation to that. Are there translators available on site if required? Has there been a requirement for the translation of documentation? And what welfare checks and services have been put in place for this community?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): In answer to the question around overall translation, yes, translation is provided where necessary. In terms of the documentation, the welcome pack that people get when they come into MIQ has been translated into a number of languages. Samoan is one of those languages that it’s already been translated into. We are looking at whether there are other Pacific languages, given that there are a number of Pacific people involved in this current outbreak, that it should be translated into as a matter of priority. But I can confirm that translation is available in a variety of different languages, even if the hard packs of materials aren’t translated into every conceivable language at this point.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): We’ve been told by high sources that the Government’s obsessed with the source investigation into the Crowne Plaza. Can he provide an update to the House on how that’s going, and is there a current working hypothesis on how the case got from the Crowne Plaza to case A?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Look, I can assure the member that there is a lot of emphasis going on finding out exactly what happened at the Crowne Plaza. As the Minister responsible for MIQ, of course, I want to get to the bottom of that because it’s one of our larger MIQ facilities, and I want to be able to put people into it again, and that will be a lot easier once we know exactly what has happened there—if, in fact, we can find out exactly what has happened there. There are a variety of different scenarios that are being explored, and I’m not willing at this point to put my penny down on one of them as being the most likely.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Was he surprised to learn that the Crowne Plaza passed all its infection control audits most recently as June?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Yes I am. The one additional risk that has been identified is that one of the physical barriers in the atrium didn’t go all the way to the ceiling. That’s been remedied. One of the things that they’ve been testing is to make sure that in imposing, effectively, an airlock by bringing the barrier all the way to the ceiling, we’re not increasing the potential flow of air from one space to another through the air conditioning system. So they’re in the process of testing all of that at the moment. In terms of the alleyway down the side of the facility that people are concerned about, I would note that there is a solid barrier between the alleyway and the exercise area.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Why did it take an outbreak for the Government to commence an investigation of infection control in MIQ in the light of the Delta variant, when Delta has been in our MIQ facilities for some months now?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): I completely reject the member’s assertion in that question. Regular audits of infection and prevention control in every one of our MIQ facilities are being done all of the time, and they are always taking into account the latest science regarding all of the different variants and also what we understand about the existing variants of the virus that we have been dealing with. Those audits are being done by infection prevention and control experts who are versed in the latest information and the latest research.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): The member might reject it, but I’m just merely quoting both him and Dr Bloomfield, and I think also the Prime Minister, who has said that the Government will be doing a review of MIQ facilities in the light of the Delta variant. But notwithstanding that, can I ask about Bluetooth tracing. We’ve all been told for many months now, “Turn on your Bluetooth and use it.”, and now it turns out in this outbreak that Bluetooth is not being used as part of the contact tracing. I think many people are surprised at that. Why is that the case?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): The contact tracers will use the best information that is available to them. Bluetooth is one of the tools that we supply to them. They will make judgments about whether the data that they’re getting out of Bluetooth or out of the QR code scanning or out of other methods is the best data to use in the context of a specific case investigation.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): So can he say, hand on heart, to New Zealanders and the House right now, “Turn on Bluetooth.”, in light of the fact that we have a very large outbreak with a high number of close contacts and Bluetooth has not been used, as I understand it, since 17 August as part of the contact tracing?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Yes I can. I can say to all New Zealanders that there are a whole variety of things we ask them to do as precautionary measures in the event that we need to obtain that information, including scanning QR codes if they’re in the South Island, for example. One could say that because we’re not sending out current push notifications to people in the South Island, they shouldn’t scan their QR codes; they’d be wrong if they were making that assertion. Having Bluetooth turned on adds an additional tool to the tool kit, and it doesn’t cost people anything. It doesn’t mean that they have to do anything extra, other than one thing that takes about 30 seconds to do.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Final question, on saliva testing. Dr Bloomfield said a week ago the Government was going to talk to private sector partners for, potentially, saliva testing. What has happened to that, and why has the Government not used it as part of this outbreak?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): We are using saliva testing, and that includes for those who are on a regular testing cycle. So they can access saliva testing now, and hundreds of our border workers are taking up the opportunity to do that. And we continue to look at how we can continue to scale that up.

Debate interrupted.

Sessional Orders

Leave to Re-establish Epidemic Response Committee Declined

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave for the House to re-establish the Epidemic Response Committee on the same terms as it resolved on 25 March last year.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that taking place? Yes, there is.

Leave to Adopt Rules for Remote Participation in Sittings of the House Declined

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave for the House to adopt a sessional order to allow the remote sittings of Parliament based on the draft plan as presented to the Business Committee.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? Yes, there is.

Ministerial Statements

COVID-19—Alert Level Changes

Debate resumed.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to, first of all, thank the Minister for COVID-19 recovery for his comments and also give, on behalf of ACT, our most heartfelt condolences for those people who are suffering the effects of lockdowns—those people in small business, where people feel enormous stress about their future; those kids who are missing out on educational opportunities; those people who need healthcare and risk being displaced as hospital capacity is reserved for potential COVID cases. New Zealanders have played an extraordinary part, following the rules, getting vaccinations when they’re available, and to some extent using QR code scanning, but there remain a number of questions about the Government’s response and, in particular, whether or not the Government could have done far more in the past 18 months in order to prepare for the current Delta outbreak, and questions about what it will do next to ensure some greater certainty in future.

I’d like to put a few questions to the Minister, particularly in relation to vaccination. The Minister said on 22 August that there were 750,000 doses in the country, having just received a total of 380,000 that weekend. A week later, the Prime Minister told us there were 840,000 doses after an additional 320,000 were received. I’d like the Minister to explain how you can have 750,000, use twice as many as you received, and end up with 90,000 more than you started with?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): It’s very easily answered: we don’t hold all of the vaccines in a central store. There are two different numbers here: there’s the number of vaccines in the country that have not been used and the number that are being held in the central store. At the moment, we have over 300,000 in our central store but nearly half a million are out, distributed around our vaccination centres, and have yet to be used.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): How, then, does the Minister reconcile his statement that there were 750,000 doses in the country when the Ministry of Health recorded only 459,000 in the central store on the same day?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Because not all of the vaccine doses are stored in the central store; some of them have already been distributed to vaccination sites.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): So is the Minister now telling us that there are half a million distributed to vaccination sites at any time, and, if so, can he tell us how many are in the country today?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): I don’t think the member has been listening to the answers that I’ve been giving him. I just indicated to him that we’ve got just over 300,000 in our central store and just under half a million distributed around the country at our vaccination centres. Of course, our vaccination centres are doing a phenomenal rate of vaccinations at the moment, so I cannot give him an up-to-the-minute update of how many they are holding versus how many they have just administered.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Why won’t the Government simply publish both numbers if they know them and are able to announce them at press conferences?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): As I’ve indicated to the member—and, again, if he perhaps listens to the answers, he won’t need to waste his questioning time—because the answer to that is quite clear: we don’t have up-to-the-minute information because we are not asking the vaccination centres to report the number of vaccinations they are doing every minute.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): The strategic advice from Professor Sir David Skegg said that New Zealand will have more options for responding to COVID-19 when the vaccination programme is complete. I asked Professor Skegg earlier last week what he meant by the vaccination programme being complete. He said that he had not defined it, instead leaving it for the Government to define. I wonder if the Minister could explain what it is that he thinks of when he talks about the vaccination programme being complete, and how will New Zealanders know it’s complete if there is no vaccination target?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): The epidemiologists have been very clear that setting a numerical target—particularly a numerical target as low as some Opposition members have been suggesting—is not necessarily the best way forward for New Zealand. Our goal is unambiguous, which is to ensure that every New Zealander who is eligible has the opportunity to get a vaccination by the end of the year and, as we can do so safely, expand eligibility to additional population groups—to younger New Zealanders. The member and the House will have seen that the Government recently made a decision around that, to extend to the 12-plus age cohort who weren’t previously eligible, and we’ve done that once we have been convinced that it is safe to do so.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): On what date did the Government first begin discussing with other countries borrowing Pfizer vaccine doses in case of New Zealand facing a shortfall? Was it earlier this year, was it this month, or was it within the last week?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Our discussions with Pfizer and with other potential supply partners around vaccine access for New Zealand have been ongoing. I don’t believe it would be in the public interest for me to reveal all of the intricacies of those discussions.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): We are not asking for any intricacies; just was it in the last week, the last month, or earlier this year that those discussions began?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Discussions have been ongoing over the last year around vaccine supply.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Were those discussions in relation to borrowing additional Pfizer vaccine doses from other countries?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): There have been discussions with other countries since the beginning of the vaccination programme around vaccination supply. All countries have been grappling with this. Of course, our Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade network, our political leaders, and others have been in discussions around vaccine supply since before vaccines were even approved.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Has he, his officials, or anybody in the Ministry of Health at all—or the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, for that matter—offered to pay additional money to Pfizer, as Canada has done, to get additional doses faster? Have they discussed with AstraZeneca getting additional vaccine doses in the last two months? Or is it the case, as the Prime Minister alluded to this morning, that it is not possible to have vaccines from other suppliers, because the supply chain just isn’t set up to distribute them?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): In answer to the question around AstraZeneca, the New Zealand Government remains committed to a Pfizer-based vaccination campaign at this point, and that is what we are absolutely focused on.

In terms of the issue around Canada, what the member refers to is some discussions that the Canadians undertook with Pfizer late last year, when the Pfizer vaccine was still in its very early stages of production, to increase production in order to facilitate access to a very limited number—and we are talking hundreds of thousands of doses, not millions of doses—in the early part of their emergency vaccine approval process, which is not something the New Zealand Government has done. I have had conversations directly with representatives of Pfizer to discuss this issue. Pfizer have been very clear: their production, the production that they have of the vaccine, is fully committed around the globe and they are not willing to offer rich countries the opportunity to pay more in order to displace countries who cannot afford to do that—which suggests that big pharma has a higher ethical and moral standard than the ACT Party does.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Ah, well! Of the 17 cases announced today that were not in households with existing cases, can the Minister tell us how many of them were infected after level 4 conditions commenced? And if he doesn’t have access to today’s numbers, would he be able to tell us how many of the cases that have been reported from outside existing infected households were infected outside that household since level 4 began?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): No, I don’t have that information in the form that the member asks for. Dealing with data around case investigations is always one of the big challenges when you’re dealing with an outbreak of the size we’re dealing with, where there’s over 600 cases. The key thing, I think, the public would want assurance of is that the people who need to know the various information about each one of those 600-plus cases do know that information, and that they are providing information to us in as timely a manner as possible to support decision making. I don’t have the particular breakdown of data that the member has asked for.

SPEAKER: The time for the Opposition is concluded. There is an opportunity for reply if the Minister wishes.

Defence Force—Involvement in Evacuation from Afghanistan

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Defence): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to make a ministerial statement relating to the New Zealand Defence Force’s (NZDF’s) involvement in the evacuation from Afghanistan.

Tuatahi māku ka tangi atu ki ngā aituā maha ka pā ki roto ki tēnei tūāhuatanga, haere atu rā koutou.

[Firstly, I wish to mourn the many who have died, having been caught up in this situation, may you rest in peace.]

First, I wish to acknowledge those who have passed throughout this terrible time. I want to acknowledge the more than 3,500 NZDF and other agency personnel and veterans and, in particular, the 10 New Zealanders who lost their lives during the 20-year deployment to improve regional security and development in Afghanistan.

I would also like to acknowledge the opportunity today to speak to recent events in Afghanistan. I welcome the interest of the public and members of Parliament in the significant and complex developments in Afghanistan over the previous weeks. These are important issues, and ones that will continue to impact the global community for months and years to come.

On 19 August, I and a group of ministerial colleagues whom Cabinet had appointed with powers to act for this operation approved the deployment of an NZDF C-130 Hercules aircraft and up to 80 NZDF personnel, some to operate on the ground at the Kabul airport and the remainder to be based out of an airbase in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

We had NZDF personnel on the ground at Kabul airport within four days of the ministerial decision to deploy our Defence Force to support the international efforts to evacuate and resettle civilians from Afghanistan. These personnel were able to get to work executing the instructions of Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) and Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment colleagues, making this a truly interagency effort.

That is an exceptionally fast response, considering the complexity of the operating environment and the unfolding situation at the time. This demonstrates the high levels of training that the NZDF maintains to deliver its primary output of military operations to the Government and people of Aotearoa New Zealand.

During the deployment, the NZDF C-130 Hercules and crew made three evacuation flights to and from Kabul airport, succeeding in evacuating a number of civilians from Afghanistan, as part of the wider coalition effort.

I also want to specifically commend the bravery, tenacity, and resilience of our ground forces who operated from the heart of Afghanistan at the Kabul airport throughout the deployment. These personnel made an extremely valuable contribution. Of particular note are the outstanding efforts of our special forces personnel, including a female engagement team, located at Kabul airport. This team made contact with approved evacuees and guided them through the crowds to points on the perimeter where they could be brought into the airport, secured, and safely evacuated.

The NZDF deployment concluded its operations out of Kabul airport on 26 August. The US had signalled that the military airlift would conclude by 31 August and that partners would need to depart days earlier than this, as the final days would be reserved for the US’ withdrawal of its significant numbers of personnel.

The threat of terrorist attack was also a factor in the decision to conclude our activities out of Kabul airport when we did, as highlighted by the Prime Minister and the Chief of Defence Force in their media stand-up on the matter on Friday, 27 August. By that time, MFAT had advised people not to come to Kabul airport. Sadly, that threat materialised in the early hours of 27 August, New Zealand time, with the heinous act of terror perpetrated by the Islamic State in Khorasan Province that we witnessed outside the Kabul airport mere hours after the NZDF presence had withdrawn.

I want to reiterate the Prime Minister’s statements on Friday in relation to this. We condemn this despicable attack on the innocent trying to flee to a better life, and on those trying to escort them safely to their flight to freedom. New Zealand’s thoughts and aroha are with the families of the civilians and US personnel who, sadly, lost their lives.

It is important to recognise the close cooperation and partnership with our closest defence partners throughout this deployment, including the US, Australia, the UK, and Canada. It is clear that without the US’ leadership and forces on the ground at the Kabul airport, the evacuation would not have been able to occur. The contributions of the UK and Canada were also central.

But I must especially recognise the true comradeship and partnership between our NZDF deployment and the Australian Defence Force deployment. We have jointly provided airlift for each other’s evacuees, supported each other on the ground in Afghanistan and in the UAE, and we have benefitted hugely from this cooperation. This deployment has shown that the Anzac spirit is alive and well.

I would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the stalwart support and hospitality of the UAE Government in permitting the NZDF to operate from the UAE for this deployment. I spoke with my UAE counterpart last week and can confirm the close and meaningful defence relationship we have with the UAE.

The military-led evacuation effort from Afghanistan has now concluded. We were not the masters of this time frame and we did all that we could do to evacuate people within the time that we had.

We knew this was a risk, given the short time frame of the international evacuation, and the Prime Minister mentioned this last week. And I know this is a weight that rests heavy on all the agencies who formed part of the truly interagency New Zealand contribution to the Afghanistan international military evacuation.

We are not turning our backs on those still in Afghanistan; we will continue to see how we can support those seeking to leave Afghanistan. However, that will no longer be a military-led effort which the NZDF will feature so prominently in. It will also be within a much larger international effort that New Zealand will be a part of.

Finally, I would like to conclude by again acknowledging the bravery and service of our Defence Force personnel who have conducted this deployment under incredibly difficult circumstances. I know that I speak for all New Zealanders when I state how proud I am of what they have achieved and how they have demonstrated the force for good that Aotearoa New Zealand is on the world stage.

SPEAKER: Order! Before I call the Leader of the Opposition, I didn’t want to interrupt the Minister, who went about a minute over his time. I will give both Opposition leaders the opportunity to have a little longer as well.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the New Zealand National Party to express our heartfelt sorrow for the tragic loss of life due to the terror attack at Kabul airport. Our condolences go out to the families and friends these victims leave behind and to all those who’ve suffered needlessly from terrorist attacks in Afghanistan and elsewhere. There is nothing that we can say today that will bring the comfort that they need, but what we can do is continue to speak up and condemn such senseless, cowardly violence whenever and wherever it occurs. New Zealand will always continue to speak up for basic humanity, for human rights and democracy, for the right to religious freedom and freedom of expression, for women’s rights and the rights of children. I can now add to that the rights of artists, the rights of those who say the things that regimes don’t want to hear, and the right to live free from violence and fear. And so to those who perpetrated this attack on these freedoms, we condemn you absolutely. We will have no truck with you.

Equally, to the brave men and women of our Defence Force who have served in Afghanistan and elsewhere, we express our sincerest gratitude. I can add to that the brave men and women of the New Zealand Police who worked so tirelessly to help build and train the Afghan national police. Your hard work and professionalism under such harsh conditions is something that all New Zealand should be proud of. The difficult situation facing the Afghan people today does not mean that the amazing work that you have done over the last 20 years was for nothing, as some have suggested. Your work saved lives. You built infrastructure. You built schools. You built water systems. You enabled young girls to go to school. That counts.

One of the great privileges I’ve had in my time in politics to date has been being able to be with you in Afghanistan, visiting with New Zealand Police and also with our Defence Force. I’ve seen some of the work and the successes you’ve had in places like Bamian Province and I’ve seen you working in Kabul. There was a time when travelling in Afghanistan and Kabul where our SAS personal protection officer said to me, “Look out the window, Minister.” I looked out the window and I saw hordes of people, complete chaos, people seeming to just somehow make their way through life, and he said, “Now look at those young girls. They’re in school uniforms. They’re going to school. That’s why our job counts.”, and by goodness, that was why their job counted. They made an opportunity that would not have been there otherwise.

But the fact that we were forced to leave behind many of our Afghan allies, people who risked their lives to support our Defence and Police personnel, is extremely concerning. There’s a humanitarian crisis of historic proportions happening in Afghanistan, and it is concerning that the Government seems to have been caught so unprepared. It is a stain on our work in Afghanistan. The political situation in Afghanistan has moved quickly, but it should have been no surprise that something like this would happen. The Prime Minister here indicated in February this year that New Zealand would withdraw our forces from Afghanistan. The people left behind may well be the drivers, the labourers, the interpreters, the cleaners, and the cooks—innocent people to whom we owe a debt. Some wrote directly to the Prime Minister in May this year, and it’s been reported that the immigration Minister rejected many of the applications to come to New Zealand as recently as July. The lives of these people are now at risk, but the Government hasn’t explained why those pleas were rejected.

Other countries have been evacuating these people for months, and it seems we’ve waited too late. So there are some questions that deserve an answer from the Minister. Why was the evacuation not completed weeks ago, given the withdrawal of troops was signalled early this year?

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Defence): Thank you for the question. The fall of the Afghanistan Government occurred far quicker than any of the intelligence predicted. Even in early August, a week before the Taliban seized Kabul, US officials were still assessing that a swift Taliban takeover would still take approximately 90 days. New Zealand, along with the international community and partners, worked with the best intelligence we had at the time decisions were made. We have responded to this unfolding humanitarian crisis as quickly as we could.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition): How many Afghan people who supported our Defence Force were unable to be evacuated?

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Defence): I thank the member for the question. The numbers that were evacuated from the airport in Kabul are currently still being processed. We’ll have a clearer indication of those final numbers in the coming days, I’m sure. With respect to those who we know worked with the Defence Force, we have continued to stay in touch with them. We know that, for some, even getting to the airport was particularly difficult and weren’t even in the vicinity of the airport. In fact, some had already reported to us that they were still in the Bamian Province. The Prime Minister made it clear that our commitment is still to those people, and we’ll continue to do what we can as a country to support the efforts to evacuate more people out of Afghanistan alongside our multinational partners.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition): With our Defence Force effectively exiting in May this year, why was a decision not made to bring out those interpreters and others who’d worked with our Defence Force?

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Defence): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, our first attempts to take out some of these people were back in the time of the member’s Government, and at that point in time the eligibility criteria were smaller than the eligibility criteria that this Government chose to operate by, which saw this list actually grow. In fact, some people are talking about just simply interpreters, but because of the definition that we used for the eligibility criteria, we see the inclusion of interpreters, engineers, mechanics, and others on to this list. We will continue, as I’ve said, to work with our multinational partners to ensure that we exhaust avenues to evacuate not just the people that we’re talking with respect to those who worked with or alongside the New Zealand Defence Force but of course others who have the ability and visas, etc., to come to Aotearoa New Zealand.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition): Does the Minister accept that under the previous National Government, when efforts were taken to then bring to New Zealand interpreters, we were leaving in Afghanistan troops?

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Defence): Sorry, I’m trying to work through that question, actually. What I’m quite clear on, with respect to those who worked alongside the New Zealand Defence Force and the numbers that we were looking towards this deployment—I want to talk to this deployment because it’s the one that I made my statement on—our deployment to evacuate as many people as we can, I stick to the list that we, as the New Zealand Defence Force, had, with the extended eligibility criteria that we decided on as Cabinet. But I want to say to that as we look towards how we might do ongoing support with respect to evacuating not just that list but others who tried to flee Afghanistan and come to New Zealand, we’re committed to continuing to support action there, and we’ll do that alongside our multinational partners.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition): So why did the immigration Minister reject an application for resettlement in July, as has been reported in the media?

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Defence): I ask that member to direct her question to the Minister of Immigration. I will say, however, that from the time that our Government considered the evacuation process, the numbers in the people who were coming through, the numbers that were coming to be a part of the list, was a fluid number, and it continued to rise. But, otherwise, to the specific case that she talks to, I ask the member to refer her question to the immigration Minister.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition): Did he ever ask his colleague, the immigration Minister, why he rejected an application for resettlement in July, as reported in the media?

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Defence): I continue to have ongoing discussions with my colleague the Minister of Immigration, but I can’t speak to that particular case. He and I have several conversations—quite a number of conversations, actually—on the matter of the interpreters and others who were identified in the New Zealand Defence Force list.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition): Has the Government made any attempt to communicate with the Afghans that we’ve left behind, and have those communications been successful?

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Defence): The answer is yes, and we will continue to do that in our attempt and our effort to support them to evacuate from Afghanistan.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition): Will the Government allocate any of our refugee quota specifically for the Afghan people who we have left behind?

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Defence): That decision is probably left for not me as Minister for the New Zealand Defence Force, but I will say, as part of our efforts with respect to our multinational response to continue evacuation from Afghanistan and the resettlement of refugees, we will continue to work with our multinational partners, including the UN.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition): Have any New Zealand citizens been left behind?

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Defence): As I indicated earlier in one of my answers, a number of the evacuees are still being processed, and the numbers will be clear on who exactly was evacuated. From there, we’ll have a better sense of who was left behind.

SPEAKER: I’m going to apologise. I forgot to ring the one-minute warning, so I will give the Leader of the Opposition a final question.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, Mr Speaker. So to the Minister: Minister, are you saying that you don’t know if any New Zealand citizens have been left behind? If you don’t know, can you tell us? Otherwise, can you just tell us how many have been left behind?

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Defence): I’ll reiterate my answer that the numbers that were evacuated from Afghanistan are still being processed by our officials in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Immigration New Zealand. Once those numbers have been settled, I’m sure we’ll have another discussion then.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I join, with ACT, in offering very sad condolences to those who have already been slain by this awful regime, for those living in Afghanistan who now face an uncertain and brutal future under that regime, one devoid of many of the human rights, particularly for women and girls in Afghanistan, that had been hard fought and hard won, at great sacrifice not only by the Afghanis but also by the New Zealand Defence Force and our allies over nearly 20 years.

It also is an event that has wider implications—one of them about the fragility of liberal democracy. The way that we live is a magnificent way to live, with universal human rights and respect for the dignity of the individual regardless of their beliefs or identity or choices, but what has been shown in Afghanistan is how, even with 20 years of enforcement, it can vanish in only a matter of months. That is something for those of us around the world who cherish liberal democracy and universal human rights to reflect on, probably for a long time before we can make much sense of it.

It also raises questions around the New Zealand Government’s response. We have a number of interests in Afghanistan—one of them is an indeterminate, you just heard, number of New Zealand citizens who may be there. The other is many Afghanis who risked tremendous amounts—in fact, they risked their lives—to help the New Zealand Defence Force, and their fate, and what it means for the representation of New Zealand and our Defence Force doing business overseas in the future. Who would trust New Zealand given what has just played out? The Government was aware of the plight, it knew that these people were endangered, and now it’s saying, “Well, it happened faster than we thought.” That is certainly true—faster than anyone thought—but the question that should be put to the Minister, and I’ll put it to him soon, is when did the Government plan to end airlifting people out and what date did it believe that was before?

There are also serious questions around immigration, and these have been summed up today by Justice Cooke, where he says, “I also accept they have an arguable case.”—this was in Afghan Nationals vs the Minister for Immigration and Chief Executive of Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment—“As I understand the allegations the applications were no longer processed because the introduction of the Covid-19 border controls meant that the applicants would not be able to enter New Zealand if their applications were granted. But when the evacuation attempts commenced only those who had actually been granted visas qualified for evacuation. I accept that there is an argument that this outcome is not rational. The visa applications were not processed because the applicants could not enter New Zealand, and yet they were not eligible to be evacuated because they did not hold a visa. That is a catch 22 that may not be consistent with the lawful exercise of the statutory powers.” Well, that’s a tremendous amount of understatement by the judge there.

I think the Government needs to answer a few questions. When did it plan to evacuate New Zealand citizens and those who helped our Defence Force? What is the pathway forward? Will there be special exemptions so that those who do manage to escape Afghanistan can live lawfully in New Zealand? Will there be a refugee exemption for those who helped the New Zealand Defence Force and to help restore our international reputation with them and others we may encounter in the future? And does the Minister take any responsibility for any failings of the Government in this regard or is it the fault of other Ministers, such as Immigration?

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Defence): Thank you, Mr Speaker. There are a number of questions there and I’ll attempt to go through some of them. I’ll also outright refute some of the assertions made in that member’s contribution. The trust and the reputation and integrity of the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) internationally is strong and continues to be, despite the assertions made by that particular member.

I can say that the NZDF did not employ anyone after April 2013 when the Bamian provincial reconstruction team closed. Afghan interpreters played a critical role—yes, we agree—in the operation of New Zealand’s provincial reconstruction team in Afghanistan. In 2012 and 2013, the New Zealand Government provided groups of Afghan interpreters who had worked for the New Zealand Defence Force and Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade in Bamian Province with an assistance package, which included the opportunity to resettle here in New Zealand. Resettlement was offered to interpreters as they were considered to be at the highest risk of Taliban retribution and reflected the service this group provided to the New Zealand Government during that time. The opportunity to resettle to New Zealand was also extended to the interpreter’s spouse and dependent children. Financial support was also provided to local staff who were closely involved with the New Zealand Defence Force and New Zealand Police in Bamian but who did not venture around the province with the NZDF and were therefore deemed to be less directly associated with the NZDF.

New Zealand agencies and those of our partners had seen an increase in inquiries from locally employed contractors seeking resettlement outside of Afghanistan in recent months. Might I also note that there were also offers of financial support to allow some of those who were involved either directly or indirectly with the New Zealand Defence Force resettlement packages within Afghanistan, which I understand a number of them took.

Another part of the question made by the member was around the decision to start evacuating people. Commercial flights still operated right up until the time when the US troops decided to close down the airport to use only for the evacuation efforts of a multinational evacuation operation. So any assertion from that member that we sort of turned the switch on only to make evacuations at that point in time are completely untrue. Evacuations and commercial flights continued up until the time the US troops secured the airport.

I also want to say that one doesn’t have to be in New Zealand to process an application. They can actually make representations to process an application for a number of visa classifications to be able to come to New Zealand here, and I know that this Government and the officials in particular—Immigration New Zealand and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs—continued to work with these people and continue to do so today. They did so before we started the evacuation operation. They did so during the evacuation operation, which is why some of the intel informed our people to explain to the people who are trying to get to the airport not to come because of the threats associated with it, and I will reiterate the point: we continue to communicate with these people to see how we can assist even more evacuations out of Afghanistan.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I’d make one brief comment: the Minister has attempted to interpret my comments as denigrating the reputation of the New Zealand Defence Force; I think it is fair to say that that reputation is legendary. Kiwi soldiers in a range of theatres have been recognised as more trusted and humane than from other countries on many occasions. It is not my intention to in any way denigrate them. My point was that the abandonment and plight of those who helped the New Zealand Defence Force in this case won’t have helped that reputation.

I ask the Minister: does he believe that the reputation of the Defence Force has been damaged by that abandonment, and, if so, what is his plan to fix it?

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Defence): No.

SPEAKER: Right. No reply?

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

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

SPEAKER: Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK:

Petition of Wendy Baker requesting that the House encourage all councils to have formal certificates of appreciation available for volunteers

petition of Wendy Baker requesting that the House urge Creative New Zealand to encourage more street art and murals in rural areas

petition of Ritwik Sharma requesting that the House urge the Government to ensure Immigration New Zealand can process permanent residency applications within 12 to 14 months

petition of Ehab Takawi requesting that the House urge the Government to remove the requirement for partners to be living together to apply for a partnership visa

petition of Bill Wollerman requesting that the House urge the Government to replace the five verses of “God Defend New Zealand”

petition of Esther Hansen requesting that the House urge the Government to stop the proposed level 2 and 3 curriculum changes to visual arts subjects, and

petition of Jade Varney requesting that the House urge the Government to take action towards ensuring that adequate mental health facilities and support are available to all New Zealanders.

SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee.

Papers have been delivered to the Clerk.

CLERK:

Health and Disability Commissioner, Statement of Performance Expectations 2021/2022

Government Response to Interim Report of the Regulations Review Committee on Complaint about the Fisheries (South Island Customary Fishing) Regulations 1999 and Certain Declarations of Mātaitai Reserves

Government Response to Referral of Morteza Sharifi’s Petition to “Limit diplomatic relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran”, and

Te Tumu Paeroa, Office of the Māori Trustee, Annual Report 2021.

SPEAKER: I present the report of the Controller and Auditor-General entitled The Government’s preparedness to implement the sustainable development goals. I also present the report of the Ombudsman on the inspections of managed isolation and quarantine facilities under the Crimes of Torture Act 1989. Those papers are published under the authority of the House.

Select committee reports have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK:

Report of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on the Financial Sector (Climate-related Disclosures and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

reports of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the

Controller and Auditor-General, Annual plan 2021/22, and on the

report of the Controller and Auditor-General, Management of the Wage Subsidy Scheme

reports of the Health Committee on the petition of Belinda Hodson and the petition of Neil Harding

report of the Justice Committee on the petition of John Creser

report of the Māori Affairs Committee on the Moriori Claims Settlement Bill

reports of the Petitions Committee on

further petitions relating to COVID-19 immigration and border policies

petitions of Deborah Waxman, Ehab Takawi, Pete McDonald, Sarah-Jane Cairns, Simon Fleming

report of the Primary Production Committee on the Briefing into New Zealand Winegrowers

reports of the Regulations Review Committee on the

Complaint about Code of Welfare: Commercial Slaughter, issued under Animal Welfare Act 1999, and on the

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Required Testing) Amendment Order (No 3) 2021 and the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Air Border) Order (No 2) Amendment Order (No 9) 2021

report of the Social Services and Community Committee on the Social Security (Subsequent Child Policy Removal) Amendment Bill, and

reports of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee on the

inquiry into congestion pricing in New Zealand, and the

petition of Rachel Firman.

SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading. The report and annual plan of the Controller and Auditor-General, the briefing report, inquiry report, complaint report, and the COVID-19 orders are set down for consideration. No bills have been introduced.

Speaker’s Rulings

Allocation of the Call—COVID-19 Alert Levels 3 and 4

SPEAKER: Members, just a brief ruling. While the House is sitting with parts of the country at alert levels 3 and 4, I will apply my discretion about giving the call in debates slightly differently. If a party does not wish to take a call and has not assigned it to another party, I will not give that call to another party. This will mean that members who do not wish to speak in the debate will not need to come to the Parliament or to the Chamber to do so. My reason for doing that is to minimise movement to the buildings and within the buildings to those that are absolutely necessary.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

1. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statements from earlier this year in relation to COVID-19 vaccines, “We absolutely accepted we wouldn’t be the first rolling out, because the equation in New Zealand is so different” and “I support the fact we have been later in the pecking order”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): I stand by my statements in full. Rather than read them out, I would summarise by saying that our approach has been focused on saving lives—that included in our public health strategy but also in securing vaccines. Yes, there has been constrained supply, and not every country has received vaccines at the same rate, but as we’ve received them, we’ve been rolling them out, and we’ve ramped up considerably. But that doesn’t change the fact that we’ve had a very different starting point than many other countries in terms of the public health impact of COVID-19 on our populations.

Hon Judith Collins: Why is New Zealand last in the OECD for people who have received at least one vaccine dose, and 120th in the world?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’m not sure whether or not the member is using the most up-to-date data, because, of course, we’ve had over 500,000 doses delivered in the last seven days, which means we’re now in a position where 50 percent of the eligible population has had at least their first dose—27 percent of the eligible population are fully vaccinated, and that takes into account the age range change of those down to the age of 12. I think another really important point to make is that we are just at the point where we’ve seen that really large steep ramp up of our campaign. That’s because the larger deliveries that we expected to receive came for us through September, but predominantly are in October, and based on that we’ve now surpassed the peak rate of Canada, of the UK, of the USA. I understand that the only ones that have been higher, we are now on par with, and that is South Korea, and we, of course, have not finished our scaling up.

Hon Judith Collins: Is New Zealand last in the OECD for people who have received at least one vaccine dose?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No, not according to the latest information that I’ve been provided.

Hon Judith Collins: Why did she wait until 29 January this year to confirm New Zealand’s first vaccine order?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, the member knows that we ran a programme of accessing or seeking supply and purchase arrangements with more than one pharmaceutical company and more than one vaccine. I think it’s easy to forget that, actually, last year, many countries were purchasing vaccines before they’d even completed clinical trials, and we were in that position too. So our approach was to seek vaccines that were across different technologies, and, therefore, one, for instance, RNA vaccine; one of a more traditional variety that led to us seeking Janssen, Novavax, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca. We then made a decision later on in the campaign that our view was that purchasing for the totality of our population with one option was the best way to go for our delivery campaign. We have that with Pfizer—over 10 million doses, the bulk of those being delivered in October. The biggest difference, though, between us and many other countries is that they started rolling out their vaccines under emergency approvals, rather than full approvals. Our focus was ensuring that we had the confidence of New Zealanders, so we used a full Medsafe approval. That, alongside supply, explains some of the differences in the roll-outs between different countries.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Can the Prime Minister confirm that advanced purchase agreements for all four of the vaccines that she mentioned were entered into last year, and that the purchase order the Leader of the Opposition referred to was a formality required to enable delivery that could only be completed after Medsafe had approved the vaccine for use in New Zealand?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I can, and that was actually the basis of a rather confused line of questioning a few weeks ago. Those arrangements, of course, you can see that we entered into in advance of when some of those then order placements were made, and we started our roll-out only, if I recall, the following month, thus demonstrating that that was more procedural.

Hon Judith Collins: Does she agree with modelling from Shaun Hendy that shows a Delta outbreak would be smaller and the lockdown shorter if we had 50 percent rather than 25 percent of people fully vaccinated?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, our goal is to vaccinate as many people as possible as quickly as possible. I’ve just shared with the member some of the latest data, taking into account our eligible population going down to the age of 12, in which we see 51.7 percent of the eligible population having received at least one dose and 27 percent having been fully vaccinated. But Mr Hendy would not be implying that at that vaccination level that the member has just shared that we would not have an outbreak. In fact, many epidemiologists have raised the fact that we need the highest rates of vaccination possible to reduce down the chances of outbreaks and the devastating hospitalisations and severe illnesses that we’re seeing in other countries. I would also point to the fact that countries that have had vaccination programmes running for many, many months, like the United States, is now experiencing daily hospitalisations of 100,000. The last time they reached that was when they had their peak in their last winter. So it is just simply wrong to say that if you have months of available vaccination that you prevent outbreaks. You’ve got to reach every corner of your community to the best of your ability if you are going to be successful in reducing those numbers.

Hon Judith Collins: Would the current outbreak be smaller and the current lockdown shorter if we had more people vaccinated?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’m not an epidemiologist, so I’m not going to model on the fly, but as I just explained to the member, even with those countries where you do have vaccinations that have been available for months, we are still seeing hospitalisation rates that rival past outbreaks. And from what our experts have shared with us, that’s because it’s not necessarily about the percentage, but whether or not you have enough people across different age demographics, different communities, different geographic areas, different ethnicities. That’s got to be our measure of success in New Zealand, and that is what we’re driving towards.

Hon Judith Collins: What does she say to the New Zealanders who trusted her to get them vaccinated but woke up to the news yesterday that we may run out of vaccines?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That that portrayal by the Leader of the Opposition is incorrect.

Hon Judith Collins: Did the Government ask Pfizer to slow down delivery of vaccine so, as her COVID response Minister told Newstalk ZB in June, “we don’t end up with a whole lot sitting in the freezer.”, and is her Government now asking them to speed it up again, as her associate health Minister told media yesterday?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member is sharing factually and misleading information. We have over 10 million doses of Pfizer for our country’s roll-out. That is more than the number of people who are even eligible for a vaccine. What the Minister for the COVID-19 Response was referring to was, as we reach the point where all of those vaccines are delivered, how can we ensure that we see no wastage for the fact that we have more doses than we have people who are eligible to receive them, and we have expiries for vaccines for the RNA vaccine that are, at best, four months. I wish that the member would pay more attention to the detail of the Minister’s statements, rather than misleading people.

Hon Judith Collins: What did she mean when she said, “It’s not a matter of running out. We need to have a little less demand.”, and can she rule out delaying vaccination appointments to achieve this?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I referenced this to the fact that we have enough Pfizer vaccine to cover our entire eligible population. We, of course, have wanted to receive them as early as possible. And to the question that David Seymour asked earlier on in ministerial statements, we have repeatedly sought from Pfizer to see if we can receive them as early as possible, and you’ll see from the ministerial diary some of those engagements with Pfizer on that matter. As a result of that, yes, we haven’t received them necessarily as early in the programme as we would like, but rather than receiving in the latter part of quarter four, we are receiving them across the course of October. So that is something that is beneficial to us in the long run, although, of course, we would have wanted them as early as possible. So the issue that we’ve had, of course, in this month, is we are receiving weekly, to date, deliveries that are over 300,000. That has enabled us to deliver, roughly, 350,000 a week. During this period, we have purposely created surge capacity. So that’s increased the number of people who have been coming forward, so it’s been more like 500,000. If we are unable to bring on extra supply, as we are seeking to do, the worst-case scenario is we simply go back to the plan we have of continuing to deliver over 350,000 a week.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement that “with Covid raging outside our borders, and new more transmissible strains emerging, we have had to both make continual improvements to strengthen our border while continuing to plan and prepare for managing any resurgence in the most effective way possible.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes. Delta has been a game-changer, and so, of course, that means that we’ve needed to change our plan. Since the last nationwide lockdown, the all-of-Government group and the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Ministry of Health have worked with all relevant agencies across Government to make continuous improvements to our alert level system and our response framework. These changes have been made in anticipation of the possibility of variants of concern—noting, though, that Delta and some of the research around Delta has really only emerged in recent months. These changes, though, include extensive use of whole genome sequencing; waste-water testing; boosting surge testing capacity; contact tracing capacity; requirements for face coverings; ongoing refinements to public communication and messaging; updates to the NZ COVID Tracer App and Bluetooth tracing; pre-departure testing; and improving managed isolation management, including additional testing and cohorting. As I said, as COVID has changed, we have too.

David Seymour: When she said there were 840,000 doses of Pfizer vaccine onshore in New Zealand, did she understand that at least 700,000 of those must be outside warehouses in the distribution network or her and Chris Hipkins’ numbers are impossible to reconcile?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The Minister has already shared the breakdown of those numbers. And, yes, I’m aware, of course, that some are held centrally and, as you would expect, some are distributed across the nation ready for distribution every given day that our vaccination centres are running.

David Seymour: Was a contract awarded in May to deliver up to 20,000 saliva tests a week, and, if so, what has the Government done since then to plan and prepare to deliver up to 20,000 tests a week in light of the fact only 49 were done in the whole of month of July?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If the member wishes to put on notice specifics around when contracts are awarded with private labs, he should feel free to do so, and I’d be happy to come back to the House with specific details. But to come back to the principle of the question—which is, essentially, are we bringing alternative methods on stream?—the answer is yes. We’ve been using it at our managed isolation facilities. Of course, the member will know, because we’ve talked about this in here, it’s been sitting alongside the nasal swabbing. What we’ve been having discussions around is, if we’re going to increase the frequency of testing, how can we use saliva as the replacement so that we aren’t causing that ongoing discomfort and sometimes damage? Important to note that the saliva testing we’ve been using is still a polymerase chain reaction. So whilst labs with extra capacity and so on can process them quickly, it’s not an instant test, but it does have the same level of accuracy that you would expect, and that’s really important for our programme.

David Seymour: Why was waste water being tested at only 26 sites weekly at the beginning of this outbreak and subsequently had to be scaled up by a factor of four during the outbreak?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: So the waste-water testing and the decisions around that, as I understand, are predominantly taken between the Institute of Environmental Science and Research Ltd (ESR) and the Ministry of Health. Of course—

Hon Member: It’s their fault!

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No, not at all. I simply point out that where waste-water testing occurred is not a political decision; it’s a decision made by our public health advisers and by ESR. As you’ll see, where we have waste-water testing—and, as I understand it, it is quite a difficult and onerous exercise, as it’s been explained to me—but where we might have concern, then you might go in and start doing additional waste-water testing on much smaller areas. So when we got Warkworth, we then had a breakdown of over 20 waste-water samples that were taken across different sites in Northland to add additional information. But sometimes those single sites then point you in the direction of subsites that you should then go and test within. So those are decisions ESR and Health make.

David Seymour: Was Newsroom correct when they reported that the Government hasn’t used Bluetooth tracing since the first day of the outbreak, and is this an example of planning and preparing for the resurgence of COVID-19?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: According to the information that I have from the Ministry of Health, of course, there’s the Bluetooth function, and then there is the QR code, which we also use for notifications. I understand that since Tuesday, 17 August, when we had case A first identified, QR notifications had been sent to more than 3,900 devices that had scanned a QR code at a location of interest in the relevant time frame. So you can see it is something that we’ve used, but, of course, it’s reliant on people using it and scanning in wherever they go, in order for us to send those notifications out. For Bluetooth, so far fewer than 10 notifications have been activated or sent, and, again, that will just simply be reliant on how many people have activated Bluetooth on their phones. However, we continue to train public health unit staff in the use of Bluetooth as part of contact tracing and so on, and I understand that 330,000 app users enabled Bluetooth tracing since 17 August. The one final thing I would say is that it is one-way. So our contact tracers don’t get people’s information, because of privacy reasons. We don’t get the information. So we still undertake contact tracing exercises so that we can follow up with people and ensure they are getting tested. These are additional layers that help us, but they don’t necessarily give us all of the certainty we would like when we’re contact tracing, because of those privacy reasons and the way they’re used.

David Seymour: Was the contact tracing system prepared for the current outbreak, and does she agree with the statement that having to train 800 contact tracers after an outbreak is like trying to train an army after an invasion?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No, I disagree with that analogy entirely. As the member will be aware, we, of course, have surge capacity for our contact tracing. So, essentially, what happens in an event, of course, is that we can use our national contact tracing system to spread across our public health units across the country to support a unit if they do have a particularly high number in their area. We can then bring on additional support for things like ongoing contact with known contacts, welfare checks, those additional pieces of contact for large numbers. So we had 30,000 contacts where we needed to do symptoms checks, and so on. That surge across our call centres led to us having over a thousand people that were supporting those calls, but, of course, we used our public health units to do those really critical things like symptom checks with those who are symptomatic and are close contacts, and case investigations.

David Seymour: Is she aware that the aged-care sector has a shortage of over 900 nurses, and what has the Government done to prepare to have adequate, or at least some, managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) availability reserved for boosting the health workforce?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I notice this is quite contrary to the primary question, which asked about the continual improvements to strengthen our border. MIQ use is absolutely for the purposes of ensuring that we do not have a resurgence of COVID-19 within our borders, and so it has been a critical, critical tool. Unlike Australia, which has taken in a third of the people that we have, we’ve been maintaining, in some cases, between 4,000 and 5,000 people coming in every fortnight at our borders, and have worked very hard to do that safely. We do have those in healthcare as critical workers who are able to enter into New Zealand despite the fact that we have our closed borders, because we recognise that some parts of our health system are constrained.

David Seymour: Does she agree with Chris Hipkins’ statement to the House earlier today that the vaccination programme will be complete when everybody eligible has had an opportunity for a dose, and, if so, when does she believe that will occur on her current forecasts?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, as we’ve said, the bulk of our vaccines arrive across the course of October. And from this week, everyone from the age of 12 and over becomes eligible to book and access vaccines, and we will continue to do everything we can to make the vaccine as accessible as possible. That includes innovating, it includes trying to take the vaccine out to those rural and isolated communities, targeting our campaigns for harder to reach communities, but we’re also reliant on every single New Zealander, every role model in this House, every community leader, any person of influence to encourage their communities to be vaccinated as well. We can do our bit, but we need everyone to do theirs in ensuring that as many people as possible are vaccinated.

David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If I may finish my answer.

SPEAKER: Point of order, David Seymour.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I hadn’t finished my answer.

SPEAKER: No, I know you haven’t. He has a right to have a point of order. It’s very unusual that he’d have a point of order which is valid, and if he is deliberately disrupting the Prime Minister with an invalid point of order, it will be serious.

David Seymour: Well, first of all, Mr Speaker, just in response to that comment, the last time I raised a point of order while the Prime Minister was speaking, you upheld my point of order and asked her to properly address the question. I was simply making the point that I asked when people would have had an opportunity to be vaccinated. The Prime Minister’s now been speaking for a long time about community leaders encouraging people to be vaccinated. The question is about the Government’s capability to offer an opportunity, not about whether or not people are willing to take it—it’s completely the opposite, in fact.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I answered—

SPEAKER: No, sorry. Very easy. I have a slight struggle dealing with both my hearing aids and my mask at the same time. No, that’s a very simple matter. Any judgment as to the length and relevance of the Prime Minister’s question is one for me to make. The member knows that, and, if he does it again, it will be the end of the supplementaries. The member’s given up anyway—OK. Question No. 3, Dr Shane Reti.

David Seymour: No. Point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I—

SPEAKER: I’ll just get you to hang on a second. [Speaker adjusts hearing aids]

David Seymour: I want you to hear this, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Well, I think it’s appropriate that I do, though I’m not quite sure that I want to!

David Seymour: I hadn’t given up; I’d simply used up the questions that I wanted to use today, and I ask you: how does it help the order or the esteem of this House for you to make comments like that?

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. I shouldn’t have made the comment. Question No. 3, Dr Shane Reti.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. I’d like to seek leave of the House to complete my answer to the member’s question so I may fully satisfy the member’s question, as was my intent.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that taking place? Sorry, I’m working my way back through the process now. No, I have called the next question so we will move on. And I apologise. What I should have done when I turned down the point of order was to go back to the Prime Minister. It was my error and I apologise. That’s sort of two in a row.

Question No. 3—Health

3. Dr SHANE RETI (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Health: How many people per day have had a planned inpatient procedure delayed during the current lockdown, if any, and how many of these were for cancer surgery?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): At this time, the priority of the Government and the Ministry of Health, as kaitiaki of the health and disability system, is to support the district health boards in responding to COVID-19. As we’ve seen globally, the Delta variant of COVID-19 creates an acute threat to individuals’ health and, as well, to health systems. Reporting on delays caused by the current lockdown is not possible because DHBs have not yet reported data to the Ministry of Health. This data is not available on a real-time basis, and is reported in arrears. We will have a clearer picture of what has been done and what has not been done in August, once the data is coded in October.

However, the Ministry of Health is working closely with DHBs to support their response to the August 2021 outbreak and is monitoring the impact that alert level 4 lockdown is having on service delivery. At this stage, I can report to the House that district health boards have estimated that there were approximately 1,300 planned care cancellations in the first week of alert level 4, the majority of which are in the northern region. However, all DHBs have reported disruption to their services. Regarding the proportion of these cancellations that are related to cancer services, the Ministry of Health does not have real-time information on this either. However, I am advised that clinicians are generally reporting there is strong focus on ensuring that cancer patients continue to receive the care they need, and that, while some treatments may have been rescheduled, the vast majority of essential cancer treatments, such as specialist appointments, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and surgeries have been continuing as expected. Cancellations of services, when they happen, are aligned with guidance from the Ministry of Health and consider urgency and clinical risk of patients. Members of this House should be aware that urgent and non-deferrable care is carried out under all alert levels.

Dr Shane Reti: How long will it take to clear the backlog of in-patient procedures that have been delayed by the current outbreak, and what actions has he taken to speed this up?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I refer the member to the answer to the primary question, where I said that the data on delays to planned care in this particular lockdown—the August 2021 lockdown—has not been evaluated or calculated yet, and we won’t until reliable data is available in October. But we have dealt with the consequence of lockdowns on planned care in our hospital system, and that is why, last year, as a result of the lockdown in March and April last year, as well as subsequent lockdowns in Auckland, this Government appropriated $282.5 million over three years to assist DHBs to clear those backlogs.

Dr Shane Reti: What actions has the Government taken in the last six months, if any, to minimise disruption to in-patient procedures in the event of a COVID outbreak like we currently have?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Part of the $282.5 million appropriation last year, as well as a $90 million appropriation this year and a further $50 million for additional facilities—that is to say, infrastructure for DHBs—was precisely so that DHBs have the means and capability and capacity to clear surgical backlogs.

Dr Shane Reti: Can he give examples of what criteria are used to determine what planned surgery will proceed during the current lockdown and what will not proceed?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I think I made it clear in the answer to the primary question that urgent care will continue regardless of alert level. When it comes to cancer surgeries and cancer treatment, then clinicians will make the judgment, understand that there is a level of urgency, and will be guided by the advice of all of that team making up a person’s medical support for the particular condition that they’ve got. But those are clinical judgments that are made all the time and are being made across our health system right now, even under alert level 4.

Dr Shane Reti: How is the criterion to delay surgery different under the current coronavirus outbreak compared to previous coronavirus outbreaks, if at all?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’m not aware that the criteria, such as they are, that relate to deferring planned care under alert level lockdown scenarios is any different now than it was before. These are, in the end, clinical judgments that are made by the health professionals attending to people who need that help. There are some people who, inconvenient as it might be, will experience some disruption and delay. There are others for whom there should not be and there will not be deferral or delay, because their condition warrants treatment and attention straight away.

Dr Shane Reti: Has he requested any additional funding to help bring hospital wait-lists back to levels prior to the current outbreak, and, if so, how much?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As a consequence of the $282.5 million investment that this Government made last year, as well as the $90 million appropriated this year, as well as the $50 million given to enhance infrastructure and facilities for our DHBs, the backlog caused by previous lockdowns across our health system have been clearing at a pretty good pace. Until we know the data arising out of this particular lockdown, which won’t be available until October, we won’t know what the additional backlog is, but there is the means and support there to continue the exercise of clearing hospital backlogs.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Finance: What is the estimated direct cost to the Crown of the change in COVID-19 alert levels since 18 August 2021, and how does that compare with the unallocated portion of the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I am advised that it is not possible to quantify the direct cost to the Crown of the change in alert levels at this time as that relies on many variables, including the length of time that alert levels rise for and the impact on tax revenue and how much of that is temporary or permanent. However, what I can say is how much money the Crown has spent on schemes since 18 August up to today. In the case of the wage subsidy scheme, it has paid out $876.3 million, supporting 205,509 businesses and protecting 781,364 jobs, including 98,339 self-employed people. As of the beginning of today, the resurgence support payment has paid out $378 million, covering 122,231 applications. In addition to that, around a million dollars has been spent supporting the leave support scheme and short-term absence payment obligations. I would note at this stage that that figure, which adds up to around about $1.25 billion, is tracking a bit behind the estimate of around $2 billion of cost per fortnight for these schemes when we are at alert level 4.

In answer to the second part of the question, there is still sufficient room in the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund (CRRF) to support our ongoing response to the Delta variant. As I told the Finance and Expenditure Committee last week, there was a little over $5 billion unallocated in the CRRF at Budget 2021. There is also additional funding of just over $1 billion allocated for business support that had not been spent and can now be spent, and I am now advised, to update from what I said at the Finance and Expenditure Committee, that there is approximately an additional $3 billion of unspent funding in other allocations in the CRRF that is available to be spent. In closing, I’d also note that the CRRF is not the only funding source to help deal with our ongoing response. Agencies are also looking to use their existing baselines, and, in addition to that, if there is a need to top up the CRRF, we can do that without going above forecast net debt figures due to the exceptional performance of the New Zealand economy, providing significant fiscal headroom to do so.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: So when he told the Finance and Expenditure Committee last week, “We have the money that we need to pay the bills of the Government, including what we need to do for the wage subsidy scheme.”, was that confidence because he knew he could go back to the taxpayer and dip into their pockets, given that the wage subsidy scheme is now 60 percent higher than the imprest supply bill No. 1 had appropriated?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, that is not what I meant. I was answering a question that member had put forward—actually, perhaps his colleague Mr Bayly had put forward—about whether or not we had the cash on hand to make the payments we needed to make. We absolutely did have that. In addition to that, I provided him in my answer today that there are sufficient resources within the CRRF to deal with the support scheme payments that the Government is making.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: When will the $50 billion set aside for the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund run out, and how much more will he need to borrow for next week’s second imprest supply bill?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member is confusing two things there. One doesn’t borrow money, per se, for the imprest supply bill. In answer to the first part of the member’s question, as I said in my answer to the primary question, we have sufficient resources within the CRRF to deal with the payments in the wage subsidy scheme and resurgence support payment that we have made and that we will make over the coming weeks.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Given that answer, can he confirm that the imprest supply provided just $1.642 billion for COVID response, and how does that compare with the $2 billion per fortnight that he’s just told the House it’s costing for this lockdown?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The imprest supply bill is, in effect, a way of making sure that the Government has cash on hand to be able to make the payments the Government needs to make before an appropriation bill is passed through Parliament. As I said in my earlier answer to the member, there is sufficient funding in the CRRF beyond anything to do with what cash might need to be made available for it.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Why has he spent so much of the $50 billion COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund on non-COVID - related projects rather than actual COVID costs?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I reject the assertion that lies behind the member’s question, and he can refer to material that is now publicly available, I believe, on the Treasury’s website, which shows that the vast bulk of expenditure from the CRRF has gone in social development, which is indeed the support schemes that we provide, such as the wage subsidy scheme; support through Inland Revenue, which is indeed the support we provide to businesses through the small business cash-flow scheme and the resurgence support payment; well over $5 billion that’s gone out to the health system; and further support for the education system, transport, and other areas in our recovery. I’ve already said in this House a number of times: there are two Rs in the CRRF—“response” and “recovery”—and we’re supporting both.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: So will he commit to showing the discipline needed to spend COVID money on COVID-related costs and not on things like three-quarters of a billion dollars on three waters reform?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I will commit to is a continuation of the Government’s work to make sure we support the response and the recovery. What I won’t do is what the member’s party committed to do, which is spend up to $8 billion worth of the CRRF on tax cuts and his pet transport projects.

Question No. 5—COVID-19 Response

5. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: How many doses, by month, of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine are yet to be delivered, and are reports correct that the New Zealand Government asked for vaccine shipments from Pfizer to be delayed beyond September 2021?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): In answer to the first part of the question, under our current agreements with Pfizer, we’re expecting 1.6 million doses of the vaccine to be delivered in September, and the remaining balance of our 10.1 million doses to be delivered during October. Agreements entered into from the beginning of the year had set delivery numbers for each quarter. The Government has been given delivery numbers week by week for each month, roughly a month ahead of that time. In answer to the second part of the question, categorically no. At no point have we ever asked Pfizer to slow down deliveries. In fact, all of our discussions with Pfizer around the timing of deliveries have been around trying to bring forward deliveries to get them into the country earlier.

Chris Bishop: Why did he say in June this year that New Zealand is not “paying any particular price” and “the overall cost to New Zealand … is relatively negligible” for the slow vaccine roll-out, and does he accept that a country-wide level 4 lockdown has an enormous cost to New Zealanders economically and socially?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I completely reject the overall assertion in the member’s question that if we had a higher rate of vaccines at the moment, we wouldn’t necessarily be finding ourselves with the current restrictions that we do. Other countries that do have higher rates of vaccination than New Zealand have still had to implement public health measures in response to outbreaks of COVID-19.

Chris Bishop: What steps, if any, has the Government taken to try and get the 1.6 million doses—that he’s just mentioned due for delivery in September and the balance due in October—delivered sooner than now, given other countries have managed to do just that?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think, if the member had listened to the contribution I made earlier in regard to the ministerial statement, he will know that we have been in regular communication with Pfizer, seeking earlier deliveries of our doses. Pfizer have consistently indicated to us that their production is fully committed to orders that they are fulfilling around the world, including their commitment to deliver at least 40 percent of the doses that they are producing to developing countries. Pfizer have also been very, very clear that they would not be willing to bump any other countries in order to increase the delivery of doses to countries that can afford to pay more.

Chris Bishop: So, in light of that answer, what is his explanation as to why New Zealand has the slowest or the second slowest, depending on how you cut the numbers, vaccine roll-out in the OECD? What actually is the reason for that?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: New Zealand is one of the few countries in the world that is only using one vaccine at the moment. We made the decision early this year, around January, February, to not use the other vaccines that we could have had available to us this year, because we chose to increase our orders with Pfizer and use only Pfizer this year. All of the science, so far, has backed up that decision. That is not a decision that I have regretted. We were very clear at the time we made that decision that we would have to wait until the second half of the year for the bulk of those vaccines to be delivered into New Zealand. I believe that Pfizer and ensuring that we have one vaccine delivered through New Zealand was worth the wait.

Chris Bishop: So is he basically telling the House that the Government has made a conscious and deliberate decision to take longer over the vaccine roll-out in order to make sure that everyone can get a dose of Pfizer as opposed to a cocktail or variety of other vaccines?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think we made it very clear earlier in the year, when we announced that we were only going to be using Pfizer this year, that that would mean that the bulk of our vaccines would be delivered in the second half of the year.

David Seymour: When the Minister said earlier that having a higher vaccination rate wouldn’t necessarily reduce lockdowns, is he telling the House that the advertisements which appear to promise New Zealanders that if they get vaccinated then we won’t have as many restrictions on things such as tangi are wrong or misleading?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No. It is possible to have two different ideas in play here. One is, overall, will the number of restrictions that we are subject to reduce as a result of a higher vaccination rate? The answer to that question is yes. Will there potentially still be a need for some restrictions, in the event of significant-scale outbreaks in future? The answer to that is yes. Is the nature of those restrictions potentially going to change? And the answer to that question is also yes. Has Delta changed the overall dynamic around vaccines? The answer to that question is also yes. So there are a variety of different factors at play here. But it would be wrong to say, for example, if we accepted a low-ball target—like the 70 percent of eligible population target that some have been suggesting—that would not give us the level of population coverage required to avoid things like the lockdown we’re dealing with at the moment.

David Seymour: Why does the Minister believe that vaccination will mean we can use fewer restrictive measures against COVID in the future but having a higher vaccination rate now would have had no effect on the current restrictions?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There will be a range of different things that influence the decisions that the New Zealand Government—whoever the New Zealand Government is—gets to make in the future around COVID-19. Rates of vaccination in New Zealand will be one of those things. Rates of vaccination around the world will be another one of them. The rate of presentation of the virus at the border will be one of the factors at play. The number and size of potential outbreaks in New Zealand will be one of the things we deal with. Additional variants of the virus will be one of the things that we deal with. Overall, the message to New Zealanders, though, is that the higher the rate of vaccination we get, the greater our possibilities. That is what the advertisements say, and that is absolutely true.

Chris Bishop: Can he guarantee that every booking currently in the vaccine booking system will be honoured over the next couple of months, and no booking will be cancelled or delayed due to a possible shortage of supply in the next couple of months?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In the way the vaccine roll-out has been scaled up, we have been focused on making sure that we honour all bookings in the booking system. What we may find ourselves in the position of doing is, if we cannot increase supply in the next five or six weeks, we may find ourselves having to restrict ourselves to those vaccines that have been booked, and scale back some of the additional capacity that’s being brought online over the last few weeks.

Question No. 6—COVID-19 Response

6. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: Is he satisfied with the operation of the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 9) 2021?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Overall, yes. Like all aspects of the response to this outbreak, the recent order that I signed two weeks ago was established to prevent and limit the risk of outbreak or spread of COVID-19, with the overall goal of keeping New Zealanders safe. I note that, in the last two weeks, we have made a number of amendments to the order where it’s been necessary to respond to the needs of people while managing the risk posed by COVID-19. I accept that there will always be opportunities, however, for improvements, acknowledging that our approach to COVID-19 has been one that’s been purposefully built to be adaptable to change when that is required.

David Seymour: Does the Minister know how many new infections have been transmitted between bubbles, under this order, in the last two weeks of level 4?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No, I don’t have an accurate estimate of that at this present time. That is one of the things that our contact tracers will identify as they continue to work their way through case investigations, but the key priority for our case investigators—and I think this is very, very important—is to limit the onwards spread. So they need to be forward-looking in their case investigations first, and then, of course, they will look to provide us with other insights and information as it’s possible to do that.

David Seymour: How many cases of transmission between bubbles under alert level 4 in the last few weeks is he aware of that have been confirmed?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don’t have that number. What I can tell the member, in terms of the numbers that I do have, is that with each new case that’s identified each day, we’re seeing that the number of new locations of interest that those cases are throwing up is getting down to a very, very small number, which suggests that it is existing exposure events that are being identified—further cases flowing from existing exposure events—rather than new exposure events. That is encouraging. We still do see, in some of the new cases coming forward each day, exposure that pre-dates the level 4 lockdown, and I think that’s significant. We’re seeing an increase in the number of cases that are within a household bubble—within an existing household bubble—with no contacts outside of that household bubble. As I indicated to the member earlier, we have around 100 essential workers who have been infected—I think 107 was the most recent number that I was given. Within that, we’ve only seen four potential exposure events within the workplace that have flowed from those things. So, again, that is encouraging. Four is four too many, but that is a relatively low number relative to the 107 essential workers that have been identified as testing positive.

David Seymour: How can he be satisfied that the current alert level 4 orders are working if he doesn’t know how many inter-bubble transmission cases there have been, and the whole point of a level 4 is for people to remain within their bubbles to the extent possible?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Perhaps if we were doing this via Zoom, rather than with all the distractions of the parliamentary debating chamber, the member might have listened to my previous answer where I addressed that.

David Seymour: Why does it make sense for people to drive past their beloved butcher who is going broke, in order to stand in a queue with many other people at a supermarket?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Other New Zealanders, those who are not in this debating chamber, are being asked to limit their movements, which is absolutely essential.

Urgent Debates Declined

Defence Force—Involvement in Evacuation from Afghanistan

COVID-19—Alert Level Changes

SPEAKER: I’ve received a letter from the Hon Judith Collins seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the Government’s decision to deploy a C-130 and accompanying personnel to support international efforts to evacuate foreign nationals from Afghanistan and an in principle decision to provide residence to Afghan allies. I have also received a letter from David Seymour seeking to debate the decision of Cabinet to raise the COVID-19 alert levels to level 4 across the country on Tuesday, 17 August in response to community transmission of the Delta variant of COVID-19. Both are particular cases of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. Each matter is significant. However, members have had the opportunity to question Ministers on them following ministerial statements. The applications are therefore declined.

In accordance with a determination of the Business Committee, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 3.51 p.m.