Wednesday, 8 September 2021

WEDNESDAY, 8 SEPTEMBER 2021

WEDNESDAY, 8 SEPTEMBER 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 interests, we acknowledge the Queen and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.

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

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

SPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK: Petition of Lucy Mclean requesting that the House urge the Government to invest in doubling the number of clinical psychologists being trained for registration.

SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee.

A paper has been delivered for presentation.

CLERK: Southern Response annual report for 2021.

SPEAKER: That paper is published under the authority of the House.

A select committee report has been delivered for presentation.

CLERK: Report of the Justice Committee on the Harmful Digital Communications (Unauthorised Posting of Intimate Visual Recording) Amendment Bill.

SPEAKER: The bill is set down for second reading.

The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills.

CLERK:

Civil Aviation Bill, introduction

Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill, introduction

Taxation (Annual Rates for 2021-22, GST, and Remedial Matters) Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.

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 all of her Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Mālō e lelei. Yes, in particular, I want to acknowledge our work around the vaccine roll-out, and I want to note that as of last night we’ve administered over 4 million doses nationwide, and what an exceptional effort, given it’s only taken us 14 days to reach this milestone after we hit the 3 million doses milestone. I want to acknowledge everyone who already had a vaccine or booked a vaccine and encourage everyone else to go to bookmyvaccine.nz to book now.

Hon Judith Collins: Was the Minister for Social Development and Employment correct when she told media on Sunday that the Government wasn’t ready for the current lockdown?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would be loath to have a Minister taken out of context and without seeing the full statement. What I would say is that it was only the week prior that very publicly we were making statements around what would happen if Delta arrived on our shores—that’s in the public domain. Minister Hipkins was part of that forewarning and foreshadowing that if we were to see a situation like this we would move into a level 4 environment, so I don’t think it’s fair to say that there wasn’t thought given to that kind of scenario.

Hon Judith Collins: Why did it take until around 10 p.m. last evening to issue the health order spelling out what rules would apply to businesses opening this morning under the new level 2D?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The Minister for COVID-19 Response could walk the member through the health order processes that are applied any time that we have to make an amendment to a COVID order, and that has happened from time to time because we have made decisions based in real time from what we were experiencing and seeing during an outbreak. As I explained, possibly in the House or possibly in a previous stand-up, some of the research that we’re seeing out of Delta is only since June—it’s not as extensive as some of the other variants. We are aware, of course, now that aerosol transmission is an issue with Delta and we’ve had to amend our alert level settings as a result of that, and we’ve seen that in our real-time experience. The public health advice that we received on variations of that nature to alert level 2 came through on the Sunday prior to announcements, and that is why the accompanied orders would be in sequence with that.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Cabinet tries to convey to the public, through the Prime Minister, as quickly as possible, decisions that it has taken, and that the formality of putting the legal framework in place—the amount of time that that takes—will depend on how long it takes the Parliamentary Counsel Office to draft it?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That is absolutely correct. So the time line for, for instance—keeping in mind that the orders around mask wearing, where the discussions there and the decisions by Cabinet predated this particular outbreak. So the mask wearing decisions had already been taken. The decisions around where people would be required to keep record keeping—those had already been taken. The only ones that were new information around alert level 2 relate to the physical distancing as a proxy for density in public buildings—so, for instance, museums, libraries, and so on. They’ve been brought into alignment with retail and malls. And the other was the overall cap on the number of people in those hospitality venues. So those were the new pieces of information. Public health advice was provided on the Sunday, a Cabinet decision on the Monday, we communicated straight away in the afternoon, and then the orders, of course, are completed and drafted.

Hon Judith Collins: Why did the Government not develop and consult on the new level 2D rules three weeks ago when it was clear New Zealand had a Delta outbreak, or even two months ago when the Strategic COVID-19 Public Health Advisory Group stated that new, more transmissible variants were likely to enter New Zealand?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Ah, I believe I’ve actually already really answered the question in some of my previous responses. First of all, the research into Delta isn’t nearly as comprehensive as some of the other variants. Yes, we know it’s more transmissible but we have, in real time, in this outbreak, seen—for instance, through the locations of interest that we’ve had—people where we haven’t been able to determine an epidemiological link but we’ve only been able to determine a link via the fact that two people were at a location of interest. So that’s really reinforced, in that evidence through our public health units, the fact that aerosol transmission is very real. So that has formed some of the basis of that public health advice. So that consultation, you’re right, did not take place, because that is something that we saw in real time in this outbreak. As soon as we received that public health advice—I got that on the Sunday afternoon. On the Monday morning we reached out to the Hospitality Association. I absolutely accept that it was not a large amount of time, but that was soon after we received that advice, and it was even before Cabinet took a decision on that advice.

Hon Judith Collins: Then why did she tell Radio New Zealand a month ago that we would have greater mask wearing requirements under a future level 2, but only release the new level 2 rules late last night?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That’s actually incorrect. New mask wearing was communicated some time ago at the beginning of the outbreak. Yes, the decisions had been taken beforehand, but we have shared those new rules prior to just yesterday, so that’s not correct.

Hon Judith Collins: So what’s not correct—did she tell Radio New Zealand a month ago that there would be greater mask wearing requirements under a future level 2, or didn’t she?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I absolutely stand by my statements, yes. We made public the fact that we were considering greater use of mask wearing and scanning. Both those things were in the public domain, that we were considering them. Where the member is incorrect is to say that those new rules were shared for the first time yesterday.

Hon Judith Collins: Will any support be provided to businesses when the whole country is operating at a new level 2D?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We do have an issue at the moment where—well, not an issue; one of the consequences of the current criteria for the wage subsidy, specifically, is that some part of the country has to be in alert level 3 or 4 to enable eligibility then in other parts of the country. So that is an issue that we’re considering in light of the fact that we’re very likely in the future to have a situation where Auckland is no longer in those alert levels, but may, of course, still have ongoing need for support. So that’s something that we’re working through at the moment.

Hon Judith Collins: When will the Government consider or complete work on a rental support scheme for businesses suffering under current lockdowns?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, the member seems to be neglecting the fact that we not only have the wage subsidy, we have the resurgence payment. The resurgence payment was not available in the first lockdowns we experienced. That was an acknowledgment that it was a support for employees, but the resurgence payment directly supports fixed costs and is able to be sought and applied for by those businesses who have both at the same time. So that, I think, has provided some additional support, as has been sought.

David Seymour: Will the Government give any consideration to extending the resurgence payment—as lockdowns continue week after week—from a one-off payment to a payment that is made further times as the length of the lockdown continues?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As the Minister of Finance has said, these matters are under consideration.

Hon Judith Collins: So is the Prime Minister saying that there’s no consideration being given to a specific rental assistance for small businesses as opposed to simply the one-off payment that she’s just referred to in support?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: There’s, of course, two ways to look at this. One is the way that we support businesses who may be seeking arrangements or agreements with their landlords. That’s obviously something that we’ve worked through before when it comes to direct financial support. The resurgence payment is a way to support businesses with fixed costs, and as I’ve just answered to the leader of the ACT Party’s question, we have been giving consideration as to the ongoing role, or otherwise, of the resurgence payment.

SPEAKER: Before we come to question No. 2, I’m just going to note that there are currently too many Labour members in the House and at least one of them will leave. [The Prime Minister exits] I don’t want it recorded that I threw out the Prime Minister!

Question No. 2—Health

2. Dr SHANE RETI (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Health: What was he referring to in the House yesterday when he said that there were some DHB preparations that could have been done “a little better”, and what things, if any, could have been done a little better at Middlemore Hospital?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): In relation to the first part of the member’s question: as I said yesterday, there were gaps in relation to DHBs, who could have done a little better with fit-testing of masks and preparing and maintaining surge capacity in ICUs by ensuring additional nurses were trained and available to work in our ICUs if called upon. I want to reiterate that our health system has done an extraordinary job of stepping up and keeping New Zealanders safe through testing, vaccinating, and caring for COVID-19 patients, alongside maintaining capacity to care for other patients as required. In relation to the second part of the member’s question: Counties Manukau DHB has responded extremely well to the call to prepare for COVID-19 outbreaks. They actively participated in regional and national readiness preparation work. The DHB has confirmed that as of 30 June 2021, it had trained another 123 full-time equivalent nurses for ICU cover, and it has reported that 80 percent of its staff have been fit tested. In relation to the COVID-19 - positive patient on a ward in Middlemore Hospital, I’m satisfied that the clinicians at Middlemore Hospital made clinical decisions that they based on the best information they had at the time.

Dr Shane Reti: How many coronavirus contacts of any type have arisen from the coronavirus-positive man placed in a shared room at Middlemore Hospital?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Well, we know that 29 Counties Manakau DHB health personnel have been stood down as close contacts, we know that another three patients who were in the room that the chap at the centre of this event was in at the same time are regarded as close contacts and are isolating and are being tested, and we know that there are family members who have been tested, as well. I don’t know the precise number, but those are the classes of people who constitute contacts to this case.

Dr Shane Reti: Given that answer, how many casual contacts and close contacts have arisen from the positive coronavirus case at Middlemore Hospital?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I don’t have those numbers, but what I can say is that the public health response has been assiduous and diligent, and those who are required to isolate and to be subject to testing for a period of time have been isolating and will be tested.

Dr Shane Reti: Were other people put into isolation rooms the same day as the coronavirus-positive man waited in a shared room for his test result, and, if so, can he explain why this person wasn’t placed in an isolation room?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The clinical judgment made at the time, on the basis of advice received by front-line clinicians working in the real world and real time, was that at the time that this person presented with a fever and was tested for COVID, it was to leave him where he was. The judgment was that that would be sufficient to contain any risk that he presented. He returned a positive test. He and others in the four-bedroom room were moved to isolation rooms, but, in the end, the clinicians on the job at the time made the judgment they did with the information and advice that they had.

Dr Shane Reti: Was an isolation room available for this man?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I have read reports to say that none was; I haven’t had that verified. I am not the front-line clinician in this case, nor, for that matter, is that member. I trust and I back our front-line clinicians to make the judgments that they do in the circumstances that they are in in the middle of a pandemic.

Dr Shane Reti: Does he accept that, ultimately, he is responsible for the coronavirus situation at Middlemore Hospital, and not health staff?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I don’t think I’ve heard a more ridiculous question in this House in the short time I’ve been in Parliament. In the end, we have a health system that has geared up to respond to the biggest pandemic the world has seen—I was going to say “this century”, but perhaps even for longer than that, and our health system has responded well. The one hospital that I think might be regarded as being at the centre of the pandemic in terms of response and in terms of keeping its staff safe, its patients safe, and its community safe is Middlemore Hospital, and they have done an exemplary job. The clinicians, in the circumstances that they’re operating in and were operating in at the weekend, made the best judgment they could with what information they had, and the circumstances as they now are what they are.

Dr Shane Reti: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was: does he accept ultimate responsibility?

SPEAKER: Well, I probably should have stopped the Minister after his initial comment, because he had answered the question right at the beginning, and probably in a way which was not entirely parliamentary. But he made it very clear what his view was on that.

Question No. 3—Health

3. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Health: Is he satisfied with the response at Middlemore Hospital following the identification of a COVID-19 positive patient?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): I am satisfied the clinicians at Middlemore Hospital made clinical decisions they had based on the best information they had at the time. The team at Counties Manukau District Health Board is experienced and provides high-quality clinical care. The DHB is managing a large proportion of positive patients and they are experienced in handling this. I’ve been advised by the Ministry of Health that all appropriate measures were complied with in relation to this case. I’m confident the DHB has a rigorous approach in place for the screening of potential COVID-19 - positive patients. However, I note that reviews of this event are being undertaken to ensure that this situation does not happen again. Whenever an issue arises, clinicians and managers review and make any improvements that may help avoid repetitions of unfortunate events. This is for all things in medicine, not just COVID-19. It is normal practice, and it’s why we have such a good health system.

David Seymour: Why wouldn’t the Minister believe two of the four patients in that room who have contacted me—one directly and one through a relative—saying that the patient was coughing and spluttering and obviously had COVID-like symptoms all morning?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I have taken advice from all the sources who have supplied it to me, which does not include people meeting the descriptions that that member provides. In the end, I have taken the advice of clinicians who were there, and the judgments they made. The basis of that is that the patient in question presented to the emergency department, was screened—as every person presenting to that department is—questioned about whether they’d been at locations of interest, questioned about any symptoms that they may have experienced or were then currently experiencing, and they judged that that patient was not under suspicion of having COVID. Throughout the time of that patient’s stay in the following 15 or 16 hours, the patient developed a fever, and at that point a clinician determined that it was appropriate that that patient be swabbed for COVID-19. Subsequently, a positive test was returned. The only symptom that has been referred to in all of the advice I’ve received is that the patient suffered a fever, and that was what prompted the need for a test.

David Seymour: Does the Minister believe those other patients who said the patient was clearly symptomatic are confused or misleading me?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I make no judgment on any source of information that member has. I rely on the information that I get.

David Seymour: What actions would the Minister take if he discovered that the testimony of those patients was correct, and he had been misled in the information he’s received that the patients did not show any COVID symptoms?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’m not going to get into hypotheticals. I’ve been very clear that the clinicians who were at the front line dealing with that patient on Saturday evening and Sunday morning and during the day on Sunday made the best judgments they could with the information that they had. The reports I’ve received are credible and reliable and I accept them.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Finance: Will he commit to criteria for undertaking spending under the authority of the second Imprest Supply Bill for 2021/22; if so, what will those criteria be?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): As the member I’m sure is aware, there are already conditions attached to the authority granted under an imprest supply bill. This is because every Government going back to 1989 has had multiple imprest supply bills in each financial year, and the process around them is well established. Specifically, any expenditure incurred under the authority of the Imprest Supply (Second for 2021/22) Bill will need to be appropriated by Parliament before the end of the 2021-22 financial year. Authority under an imprest supply Act also only relates to the period a particular Act is in force. The authority granted by the first imprest supply bill for 2021/22 is repealed by the passing of the main appropriations bill. The second imprest supply bill, which is generally passed alongside the main appropriations bill, as we intend to do later today, is generally repealed by the supplementary estimates bill. If the member casts his mind back some months, he will recall that we did just that on Budget day 2021. For further assistance in this particular point, the member may find the current edition of McGee an invaluable resource in this regard.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Will he be using imprest supply to fund initiatives under the guise of responding to COVID-19 that are neither related to responding to, or recovering from, COVID-19, rather than using the main Estimates of Appropriations?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The imprest supply bill contains, as it always has done, a number of different matters. This includes demand-driven needs within departments. It also includes tagged contingencies that come to fruition, and it has always included a buffer for unexpected expenditure. As the member is aware, COVID-19 is an ongoing matter, and it is quite possible that it will be needed to use some of the funding authorised under the imprest supply bill to deal with COVID response and recovery?

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Was funding for three waters unexpected expenditure requiring imprest supply authorisation last year?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Funding for three waters came under the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question wasn’t “Which fund was it paid from?” My question was: was it unexpected expenditure?

SPEAKER: All right, I’m going to ask the Minister to elaborate.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It was expenditure that was required to support the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund. I would need to go back and check whether it was appropriated in the appropriations bill or in the imprest supply bill. Regardless, it ends up in the Estimates. It ends up as part of the parliamentary process for which there can be scrutiny of that expenditure.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Will he commit to COVID spending only of the nature of wage subsidies and resurgence payments through imprest supply, and not things like horse racing and public interest journalism?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Firstly, those matters, by and large, were dealt with in May 2020, through the Budget, through the appropriations bill. Those things were required because, at that point in time, as COVID had only just hit New Zealand shores, its impact was uncertain. If the member casts his mind back to that period, a number of publications, including one such as the New Zealand Listener, were going under and there was an outcry around New Zealand for the Government to do something. The member is applying 2021 hindsight to a 2020 issue.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he accept that taxpayers may be forgiven for thinking that he has used COVID-19 to initiate all manner of non-COVID spending between Budgets, and can taxpayers look forward to this not happening again this financial year?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What taxpayers can look forward to is once again the Government stepping up to make sure that we support New Zealanders through COVID-19. Yes, the wage subsidy and payments around that, and also payments to businesses through the Resurgence Support Payment, and those payments that we make through our Ministry of Social Development, will form the core of the response, as they have in the past. But, also, this Government has an obligation to make sure we support all New Zealanders through this, and we build the basis for recovery. The fund the member is talking about, which he is conflating with the imprest supply Act, is the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund. It has always had two R’s in it, and we will continue to focus on both the response and the recovery.

Question No. 5—Housing (Public Housing)

5. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing): Why did the Government prohibit residential rent increases last year in response to the outbreak of COVID-19, and will it do the same this year?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing): Since the 2020 lockdown, the Government has made a number of changes to the Residential Tenancies Act in order to better support renters. This includes limiting rent rises to once a year. This came into force in August, after the previous lockdown. If a tenant thinks that their rent is too expensive and not in line with market rent, then they should go to the Tenancy Tribunal to request a rent reduction. The Tenancy Tribunal is continuing to operate and is hearing matters by phone, rather than adjourn as it did last lockdown. Anyone who has had a reduction in income due to COVID-19 or is struggling to pay their rent or other housing costs should contact Work and Income to seek what support is available.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does she agree with the advice she received from officials that the new once-a-year limits on rent increases do not prevent unaffordable rent increases; they only standardise them?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Minister, the purpose of that clause was to prevent multiple increases in rent, to prevent unexpected increases in rent, which obviously would be very challenging for somebody when their income was reduced.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Can she confirm median rents have increased approximately 8 percent between the end of the 2020 rent freeze and the start of the most recent COVID-19 outbreak, a time when interest rates have declined?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Minister, I can’t confirm that information. What I can confirm is in the most recent Stats New Zealand rental price index for June 2021, the stock measure of rental prices increased 3.1 percent and the flow measure 4.9 percent.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Has she seen reports that two-thirds of people who rent saw their income drop due to the COVID-19 lockdown, and, if so, what initiatives has the Government taken to respond to the needs of those people?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, a number of initiatives: obviously, the wage subsidy scheme, the support that’s being provided through programmes like the COVID income relief payment that followed on from the lockdown last year. For low-income earners, we’ve seen the increases to benefits and also access to other supports there—Work and Income.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Can she confirm that not all renters will be eligible for the Ministry of Social Development’s Work and Income hardship support that she’s referenced?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I can confirm that not every person who rents would be eligible for that. That’s correct. We have some people on very high incomes in New Zealand who do rent. But what I can say is that support is available for those on low incomes and those who are struggling to make ends meet.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Is she concerned that the current Residential Tenancies Act is allowing significant rent rises and leading to increased inequality as a result of the COVID-19 lockdowns, and will the Government do anything about it?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Minister, the Government and the Minister constantly keep an eye on what’s happening in the rental market and how the Residential Tenancies Act interacts with that.

Question No. 6—COVID-19 Response

6. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: When did he first receive advice on the new requirement for essential workers crossing the Auckland border to have had a test in the last seven days, and is he satisfied with the planning done for an outbreak of the Delta variant of COVID-19?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Discussion on how to ensure that any internal borders are as safe as possible have been ongoing since the current outbreak began, and that involved discussion around testing. I first received formal advice from the director-general regarding surveillance testing for essential workers crossing the proposed level 4-2 boundary on Saturday evening, 4 September. Cabinet then agreed on Monday that essential workers would be required to be tested within the last seven days before crossing an alert level boundary into and out of an alert level 4 area. In regard to the second part of the member’s question, yes. This is the first occasion we’ve required a level 4 - level 2 boundary split, and the work completed over the last five days has shown that the system remains robust and adaptable due to the changing nature of the virus. The Government has and continues to work closely with the sector on the implementation of this process. My ministerial colleagues have been in regular discussion with the heads of the sector. I’d like to acknowledge the efforts of everyone involved in this piece of work, including the sector, who have been particularly responsive in creating workable solutions to these challenges. Like all aspects of our response to COVID-19, we continue to look at our processes and we continue to adjust as necessary.

Chris Bishop: Why was advice regarding requirements for essential workers crossing the Auckland border only received and considered by him on Saturday, 4 September, when the prospect of a Delta outbreak has been widely foreseen for some months in New Zealand?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Because the specific requirements around an internal border, of course, can only be formalised and shaped up once we know the nature of the internal border that is likely to be required, whether it’s a level 3-4 border, a level 2-4 border, and so on. Scenario planning for a variety of different scenarios around COVID-19 outbreaks has been happening over the last year and a half, but it’s very difficult to finalise advice for specific plans if you don’t know what the specific situation you’re dealing with is.

Chris Bishop: In that scenario planning that has purportedly taken place over the last 18 months, was a scenario considered in which Auckland would be at level 4 and other parts of the country would be at level 2 and there would need to be testing done for essential workers crossing that border, and, if that was done, why was the preparatory work not done in relation to that testing so it could be rolled out quicker than three days before it was finally promulgated?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: A wide variety of different scenarios had been planned for, including the potential for there to be a variety of different alert levels in different parts of the country. It is difficult to finalise any of that until you know the exact facts of the situation that you’re dealing with and where the risk is, what the risk is, the nature of the risk, and how best to contain it.

Chris Bishop: How will essential workers prove they have had a test within the required time frame, and what will be the turnaround between a test being taken and proof of a test being provided to workers?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Workers crossing the boundary will need to produce evidence of a test within the last seven days. The officials are working with employers about the easiest way to facilitate that. Ultimately, it would be good to get, as much as possible, an automated system for that. In the meantime, I suspect it is going to be a piece of paper that gets produced at a checkpoint. In terms of the turnaround time for tests, we’ll be working hard with employers to make sure that testing is widely available to all those who need it, which may involve standing up additional testing sites, certainly involves using a variety of different testing methods, including saliva testing and nasopharyngeal and throat swabs.

Chris Bishop: Why is saliva testing at the Auckland border for essential workers still a few weeks away and not ready to be rolled out when an existing provider is already in place for saliva testing in New Zealand?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The existing provider is currently focused, or has currently been focused, on rolling out saliva testing in our managed isolation and quarantine facilities and at the border. I've already indicated to the member and to the House before that I would’ve liked to have seen that completed well before now. I think the indications I had back in July were that it would be in place for all those on a seven-day testing cycle towards the beginning of August. Clearly, that has not happened, and I’m disappointed that that has not happened.

SPEAKER: [Member stands to seek a call] No, the questions for the Opposition have been used.

Urgent Debates Declined

COVID-19 Response—Middlemore Hospital Patient

SPEAKER: I have received a letter from David Seymour seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the management of a now-known COVID-19 patient at Middlemore Hospital. I understand from the member’s letter that he was aware of this issue on 6 September, but sought to clarify some accounts before making his application. However, he could have applied for an urgent debate before the House sat yesterday. There was also an opportunity to raise the matter with the Minister for COVID-19 Response during the Estimates debate. The fact that a member does not raise a matter at the earliest opportunity may be taken as an indication that it is not of sufficient urgency to qualify under Standing Order 399, but it does not automatically rule it out.

The matter that the member wishes to debate appears to have been a possible clinical error. While Ministers answer to the House for the health system and the response to COVID-19, the concept of administrative or ministerial responsibility is narrower for urgent debates than for oral questions. The fact that questions have been addressed to a Minister does not necessarily mean that it involves ministerial responsibility on which an urgent debate can be founded—Speakers’ ruling 200/4, from Dr Smith and a more recent one. Having considered the matters raised by the member in his letter, I’m not convinced that it reaches the threshold that warrants setting aside the business of the House. The application is therefore declined.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Prime Minister): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

I want to start my comments today by reiterating something I said in the House yesterday about the people of particularly West Auckland who went through the traumatic events related to the terror attack at the LynnMall and the LynnMall Countdown. This, coming on top of being in alert level 4, will have added enormous stress to those communities. I want to say again, on behalf of the Government, that we express not only our sympathies to you, but ask that if there is any help or assistance that is required, particularly around issues to do with mental health, that people do reach out to the services we have. I in particular draw people’s attention to the 1737 service, which you can free text or call in order to get immediate access to speak to somebody who is a trained counsellor.

I also want today to thank the people of Auckland, again, for doing the heavy lifting for New Zealand in alert level 4. As we see alert level 2 roll out around the rest of the country, it can only be hard for those who are in Auckland to see that, and I want to send our thanks, our aroha, and our support to the people of Auckland for what they are doing.

The good news is that alert level 4 is working. We are seeing the number of cases each day steadily coming down, and with a Delta outbreak—the kind of outbreak which we have now, which is so much more transmissible than we have seen in earlier incarnations of the virus—that result is one that shows that having an alert level 4 in our system makes a big difference. So we are asking a lot of Aucklanders, but we also know that what they are doing is making a difference for all New Zealanders.

I also want to acknowledge that times are tough for some businesses, in particular in the Auckland region but also around New Zealand. That is why the Government has stepped up, once again, with the supports that we have—in particular through the wage subsidy scheme, and in total the two schemes have delivered over $1.5 billion of support to 371,224 organisations or individuals. In addition to that, the resurgence support payment has now dispersed over half a billion dollars to businesses around New Zealand. We recognise that these payments do not pay the whole wage bill. These payments do not meet every single cost, but they are the contribution that the Government can make on behalf of taxpayers to support businesses, to support employees to stay attached to those businesses, and to come out the other side of COVID-19.

We know this works. We know this approach works because it’s what we did in the first outbreak, and what we saw as we came out of that first outbreak was the rebound in the New Zealand economy. That means, unlike many other countries in the world, we saw ourselves back with a rate of economic growth comparable to what we had going into COVID-19.

We saw, and we have seen, unemployment peak at just over 5 percent and then settle at 4 percent—again, the rate it was before COVID-19. All of that has been as a result of the fact that New Zealand has been able to stamp out COVID-19 and live lives of normality that other countries are only just now contemplating going into. We have had that period of time where we have been able to operate with relative levels of freedom and with relative levels of economic prosperity that are high compared to the rest of the world. It is that that we are striving for again—to make sure that we get on top of this outbreak and get ourselves back to a stage where businesses can operate and where people and communities can go about what they need to do. It’s tough. It’s hard out there for many businesses.

As the Prime Minister said in the House today, we continue to consider what further support we can provide. For those in the community who are struggling themselves, there are support services available. Please get in touch with Work and Income. Work and Income is processing quickly applications for hardship grants and food support. We’re working in combination with Whānau Ora providers, with Pasifika health and community providers, to make sure that that support reaches the people who are in need.

Fundamentally, we knew from day one in this outbreak that the best economic response is a strong public health response. New Zealand has benefited from that over the last 18 months and I am confident we will do so again. Economic forecasters from banks around New Zealand are expecting that we will see a significant dip in GDP in the September quarter, given the circumstances we’re going through. But they then are forecasting the same kind of rebound that we saw in the wake of the first round of COVID-19 in New Zealand, and that is because the fundamentals of the New Zealand economy are strong. Our businesses are resilient no matter how tough these times are, and the Government is stepping up alongside, once again, to provide the supports that we need to make sure our economy and our society gets through this.

Just today, the Minister of Education has announced further support for hardship funds for students to make sure that any students who are struggling through this period of time can be supported, and they need to contact their tertiary provider. That additional $20 million comes on top of, I think, $30 million that has already been provided through those hardship funds. That is a recognition that for some students, they will find themselves particularly challenged by this situation. I would also remind those who are in that position that employers can apply for casual workers under the wage subsidy. Many students are casual workers, and there is support available if employers are prepared to apply on behalf of those casual workers through that scheme.

The Government continues to stand ready to support New Zealanders through COVID-19, and again, I particularly thank the people of Auckland for the hard work that they are doing on our behalf.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): I’d like to begin today with a few shout-outs, and the first, of course, is to the people in Auckland. While the rest of New Zealand woke up this morning to alert level 2, Auckland, of course, remains at alert level 4. I want to acknowledge that through our response to COVID-19, Aucklanders have done an awful lot of the heavy lifting. Auckland, and South Auckland in particular, are, of course, the gateway to New Zealand for most international arrivals, and in the good times that is good for Auckland and they do well out of that. But with regard to COVID-19, it has meant that they are at the front line of our COVID-19 response, and they’ve shouldered a disproportionate burden of the restrictions that have been put in place.

I particularly want to acknowledge everybody who’s stayed at home, who has followed all of the rules, who has done what we have asked of them, and has helped us to stamp out the virus from our community. Nobody wants to see COVID-19 taking off across the country in New Zealand, and we are all in debt to the people of Auckland for the sacrifices they are making to ensure that that doesn’t happen. So thank you to everyone in Auckland.

Thank you in particular to our managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) workers. This is one of the most scrutinised workforces in the country at the current point in time, but the recent survey results that I released this morning show that the people who are coming through our managed isolation and quarantine facilities—and bear in mind we’re talking about around 170,000 people coming into New Zealand through that pathway—have had a very positive experience. They found MIQ to be a very caring place where they are well looked after, and they found it overall a positive experience. I acknowledge that that’s a real accomplishment for our MIQ workforce, because no one particularly likes to be cooped up for two weeks in a hotel room, only able to get out and get fresh air when you are particularly given an allotted time to do that, and only being able to access a very limited range of services from the outside world. So, again, my thankyou to all those who have gone through MIQ, who have followed the rules, and who have behaved towards our MIQ staff with respect.

A particular thanks to our MIQ staff for the contribution that they are making. I know that that has not been without cost for them, and some of them have found some of that quite difficult—some of the personal reflections upon them, they’ve found quite difficult. So I acknowledge the sacrifices that they have been making, and I thank them.

I want to thank our vaccination workforce. Our vaccination programme has perhaps been one of the most scrutinised roll-outs of any programme across Government in recent times. I’ve confidently seen predictions from people that said that the National Immunisation Register was going to be a failure, and it has been a great success. I saw confident predictions that the booking system would be a failure, and it has been a great success. I saw confident predictions that the inventory management system was going to be a failure, and in fact it’s worked so well that we have one of the lowest vaccine wastage rates of any country in the world. As recently as a few weeks ago, there were confident predictions, including by a few members opposite, that we would fail to achieve 50,000 vaccinations a day, which was the target we were aiming for. Not only have we achieved that; we’ve done well above that.

The team who have been working at the front line, despite the fact that they have had people hurling abuse at them, particularly from the members opposite, since before they even started doing the vaccination campaign—we owe them a great degree of thanks. They have exceeded expectations. They have ensured that the vaccine experience is a positive experience for New Zealanders, and they deserve a huge amount of acknowledgment. The team that have built the systems around that deserve credit for building that system almost from scratch and having a system that has operated and provided a very positive vaccination experience to the 2.6 million New Zealanders, I think it is, at last count, who have already had at least one dose of the vaccine.

Four million doses of the vaccine have been delivered so far. The quantities continue to go out at a much higher rate than we had ever envisaged was going to happen, and members opposite said it was never going to be possible. In fact, the people who are doing this work have exceeded expectations, and they deserve full thanks. So to everybody involved in the vaccination campaign, I want to say thank you. They have done sterling work. The criticism that has been levelled at them regularly since before the campaign even started has been wrong. They’ve proven it to be wrong, and they deserve to hold their heads high, knowing that they have delivered an exceptionally successful vaccine roll-out to date, and I know that they’re going to keep doing that.

Dr SHANE RETI (Deputy Leader—National): I now know why we have been caught unprepared for the Delta outbreak. I now know why we have 30,000 people on overdue waiting lists. I now know why we have nursing shortages and pay freezes, and it is revealed in this Treasury document to Andrew Little released a few weeks ago that talks about this year’s health budget. The Treasury document from Treasury to Andrew Little states that the priority for health funding in Budget 2021 is ensuring that the health and disability system has resources. I want to repeat that: the priority for health funding in 2021 is ensuring that the health and disability system—the reforms—have resources. That is why we have been unprepared and where we are today.

The document goes on to say not to increase the minimal viable package for DHBs. It then goes on to say all manifesto commitments that are not highly time sensitive should be deferred in the future. That’s where the 20 mobile dental clinics that were promised this year have gone.

We don’t have enough ICU specialists because this Government made health restructuring the funding priority. We are building negative pressure rooms in the middle of a pandemic because this Government made health restructuring the funding priority. There are not enough nurses because this Government made health restructuring the funding priority. There are 30,000 people on overdue waiting lists because this Government made health restructuring the funding priority. People have been delayed their cancer treatment because this Government has made health restructuring the funding priority. There is no money for Pharmac cancer medicines because this Government has made health restructuring the funding priority. This Government has put all its money on a Hail Mary pass that is health restructuring, and while they’ve been distracted, we have caught coronavirus.

There are actually two answers to why we’re in the situation we are today. The first is that the Government didn’t secure the border and let Delta in. The second is that they have made health restructuring the funding priority. They have squandered money.

Squandered money—and now I want to talk about squandered time. Delta arrived in New Zealand in April this year—five months ago—and from then to now, this Government has squandered the time and we were unprepared. They were too interested in cycle bridges and Mongrel Mob methamphetamine programmes and health restructuring to protect us from Delta. In June, the Government’s own independent Roche report into the Valentine’s Day outbreak made several recommendations, including these three: one, immediately remove the “plus” classification for close and casual contacts because they are too confusing—immediately. What has happened? Have they been removed? No. In fact, another criterion has been added called “high risk”. Immediately in June was what the recommendations were. Not carried out—fail. Second, they were told to increase the number of people at the Auckland Regional Public Health Service by 25 fulltime-equivalents. I challenge the Government to say whether they have done this. Thirdly, the Roche report said increased system capacity and resourcing for an outbreak. The time frame was three months. That three months has passed—clearly a fail.

I want to move to vaccine targets. The Government won’t set a vaccination target, despite many other countries doing so. The Minister for COVID-19 Response tried to take us to task last week for suggesting a 70 percent minimum level might be suitable, saying that we were permissioning the other 30 percent not to have their vaccines. That a fallacious argument. They are target deniers.

I challenge everyone to go to the Ministry of Health web space right now and look up the flu vaccine, and here’s what you’ll see: the goals of the 2021 influenza immunisation programme are to vaccinate 75 percent of the population aged 65 and over. That looks awfully like a target to me for another airborne infectious disease, but it actually gets better. The goal is to improve influenza immunisation uptake for healthcare workers—vaccinate at least 80 percent of DHB healthcare workers. That looks awfully like a health target to me, and yet the Government is saying we won’t set targets for vaccines because the 70 percent you’re suggesting permissions the other 30 percent.

So I’d suggest to the Government, I challenge the Minister and the Prime Minister: come down and say their target of 75 percent to vaccinate for flu those over 65—are they permissioning the other 25 percent not to have the flu vaccine? Are they permissioning the other 20 percent of healthcare workers not to have the flu vaccine? Of course not. That’s a farcical argument and they are simply target deniers. They need to set a target where New Zealand can anticipate we might relax or better understand what the future looks like. Target deniers are what this Government is.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): As I so often am when that member Shane Reti resumes his seat, I am completely confused. Now, is that member complaining that we set targets or that we don’t set targets, because I’m just a little bit confused about why he offers examples of both. But what I’m even more confused about is why he, of all members of this House, would want to enter into an argument about comparative funding of the health system between two Governments. If you want to have a look at that member’s party in Government and funding health, it is an absolute disgrace. Barely $1 billion over nine years was put into new facilities and IT for the health system. No wonder why there are buildings now, including in the electorate that that member used to represent, that are literally falling down around health workers’ ears, and an IT system that is struggling to keep up. This Government, on the other hand, in less than four years has committed more than $5.5 billion just in that period alone in new buildings and IT.

Look what they did with mental health: nine years of sheer and utter neglect. They just did not listen to a single New Zealand citizen about the problems with mental health. Not like this Government. We went out there and we listened and we made the investments, and they are yielding good benefits right now.

But I want to take the opportunity now to acknowledge, actually, the healthcare workers of this country, because they are doing an absolutely tremendous job. They have inherited the legacy of the previous Government’s frankly criminal underfunding of the health system. They are wearing the cost of it, and we are doing the best we can to support them for it, but I want to acknowledge right across the health system, right across the motu, the work that our healthcare workers do. Right now in Auckland, of course, they are really under the pump. It is really in Auckland that has been the focus of the impact of the COVID-19 outbreaks for the last 18 months. It’s the Auckland health system that has borne the brunt of that, and Auckland healthcare workers. I hear them when they say it is really tough. It’s not acceptable that so many healthcare workers, when they finish their shift, finish fatigued, exhausted, sometimes distressed and reluctant to come back to work the next day. We are addressing that. There are a number of issues we need to do to address that, but I want to acknowledge that, because it’s their work they do day in, day out. All those healthcare workers at the Auckland metro hospitals Waitematā and Counties Manukau, and at the Auckland District Health Board are the ones who every day know and have to shoulder the risk of COVID-19 in their workplaces, and they’re doing a tremendous job.

So when we have incidents like the one we did have at Middlemore Hospital on the weekend, let’s just understand that particularly at Middlemore Hospital, where they have two COVID wards and where they have treated the largest number of COVID patients in the last 18 months, they know about infection prevention and control. They know what measures are needed. They make those clinical judgments day in, day out, dealing with the hundreds of patients who turn up there. They exercised their judgment on the best information they had on Saturday and Sunday in the weekend just gone. This is a system under pressure, but it is a system under greater pressure because we are still trying to catch up with the years of under-investment.

On the issues of workforce, I’m pleased to report to this House that the negotiations with the nurses on pay equity are now under way, because we know that that is a significant issue nurses have been talking about for many, many years. Actually, it’s been an issue for generations, and this is a Government that is getting on and dealing with it, working with nurses and their representatives to do that. We are working with nurses on reviewing the Safer Staffing Accord that we entered into, lifting numbers so that nurses knew that when they turned up to work, knew that when they were working their shifts they would have the cover and the support that they need. It isn’t working everywhere, and some DHBs have been remiss in not completing the roll-out of it. We need to know why. We need to know what more needs to be done so that working in our hospitals as a nurse is a safe place to be.

We need to continue to work with other clinicians and fill the gaps that we know are there for those other senior clinical roles. We need to work on the long-term issue of developing that future pipeline of health talent. We know that it is there. One of the great benefits of Health NZ, when we come to implement that—and I know Dr Reti is not a fan of it, but, actually, in every meeting I go to with health workers and senior clinicians, they all say, “Can we just have it quickly? Can you bring it on, because this is going to offer us great benefits.” One of the benefits it will offer us is the means and the scope and the heft to actually do that long-term workforce planning, engage with the colleges, engage with the other professional organisations, engage with the training organisations so we can actually start planning in the long term for where we’re going to get that future workforce from.

I salute the New Zealand health system workforce. They are doing a tremendous job under difficult circumstances, and we will continue to work with them to have their back.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I do want to acknowledge that pretty much everyone in Aotearoa’s mind right now is on the COVID-19 outbreak and the pandemic, and that makes absolute sense. But we also have to consider that climate change is a problem that is not going away, and now is the time that we have to be taking action—not only to keep ourselves safe in the pandemic but to respond to this absolutely urgent climate crisis that is only getting worse year by year.

Yesterday, the Government announced the next three years of spending in the National Land Transport Plan, which is the Government’s budget for transport, excluding things like the New Zealand Upgrade Programme, and excluding the COVID recovery fund. Now, the vision is good. What they want to achieve is good. We want a transport system that enables people and goods to move around New Zealand in a climate-friendly way, and there are opportunities to do that in a way that improves public health and that makes our streets more lively and lovely and safe so that our kids are free and independent to explore their own neighbourhoods, to get around under their own steam.

We have the opportunity to give people and businesses in New Zealand real options, so that they aren’t locked into using a car for every single trip they need to make. The opportunities there are that that’s better for the climate but also that that costs them less. We have a transport system that at the moment where Government, if it’s only investing in roads, it means that people have to have a car to get around, and they have to spend a lot of money on a car. They’ve got to spend a lot of money on fuel, and we have to use up a whole lot of land in our urban areas to park the cars, three-quarters of which is empty at any given time.

So the announcement yesterday from the Government: while it tried to signal a big change in direction and a real commitment to giving people those options and taking action on the climate crisis, unfortunately, it is really not the transformation that we need. If we look at the percentages, a billion dollars over three years is to be spent on active transport improvements. That is a huge increase on previous years, but it’s still insufficient. It is less than 4 percent of the transport budget.

The Road to Zero safety improvements—I’m very proud of those—are $3 billion. That’s 12.5 percent of the budget, and absolutely that needs to happen. There’s $7.2 billion on operations and maintenance of our network—that’s walking, cycling, local roads, regional roads, and State highways. That’s about 30 percent of the budget. Of course we have to continue—that’s a huge amount of money. That’s the amount that we have to spend just to maintain the network that we currently have. But, unfortunately, public transport, at $2.3 billion for infrastructure—that’s less than 10 percent of the budget. Compare that with local, regional, and State highway new roads, which is $6.6 billion, or nearly 30 percent of the budget—that’s 27.5 percent of the budget.

Now, ultimately, adding new roads to our existing road network doesn’t solve our problem with congestion; it adds to it. If we plan all of our new housing just around highways, then the people who live in those new housing developments are going to be stuck in their cars, getting on the existing network, making traffic worse, increasing emissions, increasing cost. So while it absolutely makes sense that a huge percentage should be spent on safety and maintenance of our existing road network, it doesn’t make sense that we should be spending so much more on new roads rather than on new public transport, new active transport, and new rail, which would actually give people and businesses the option to use something different.

Climate-friendly transport options in this are less than 25 percent of the budget. They’re less. They’re less—they’re a minority of the new capital spending. If we break this down by new capital spending—new projects—59 percent of that is on new roads. So it’s simply not going to make the difference, and I’ve heard lots of Opposition members saying, “Oh, tradies can’t use bikes or public transport.” No one is saying they should. If you look around at peak time, at a congested time, the majority of cars will have one person in them. They won’t be moving heavy equipment. Those are the opportunities we have to improve our existing road network for those who need to use cars and trucks.

When we give people real options, we know they use it. They’ve done it in Auckland. We had very high public transport patronage in Wellington before the last Government. The last National Government screwed everything up, which it’s going to take some years to fix, unfortunately.

Ultimately, what’s good for people, what’s good for the planet, is also good for the economy, and this is an area where there shouldn’t be any right-left debate. The Green vision makes the most sense. That’s what we want to see.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Immigration): Mālō e lelei, Mr Speaker. Can I please start my contribution by acknowledging the community of West Auckland after the attack of last Friday. It was a horrific and horrendous attack, and our thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and their families and the community, and the emergency service workers who attended to that incident last Friday afternoon. As the Prime Minister has said on Friday and in subsequent opportunities, in terms of an immigration sense, and, as the Minister of Immigration, I say that everything was done, every possibility was looked at, in order to try and detain and deport the individual, but that was frustrated by the process around the appeal of his refugee status. Again, I would like to reinforce the message that the Deputy Prime Minister gave, which was that if anyone from that community or from the whānau and friends of victims needs support, there is support available. He mentioned the 1737 line and also Victim Support. So I would reiterate that that support is there for those who may still be feeling the effects of the events of last Friday.

Can I also acknowledge, as many have, everyone in New Zealand who has pulled together, again, over three difficult weeks to get us to the point where we are. Many colleagues have acknowledged the people of Auckland, who are still living in alert level 4 and bearing the burden of staying home as many other New Zealanders are able to venture out into level 2. Again, to our friends and whānau in Auckland, we thank you for the continued efforts to make sure that we are collectively safe from the ravages of the Delta virus. Can I also acknowledge all those who have worked tirelessly in Auckland, as we speak to them sometimes on a daily basis—the likes of the Auckland Regional Public Health Service and all the health workers who are working extremely hard to make sure that we can contain those numbers.

We are heading in the right direction, and the evidence of that is being seen, because the number of cases is dropping dramatically, and the likes of the number of vaccines that are being administered to New Zealanders is rising rapidly. As the Minister for COVID-19 Response, my colleague Chris Hipkins, mentioned earlier in the general debate, I think it’s just a little over four million doses of the COVID vaccine that have now been administered. I believe, I think, the number was about a little over 2.5 million first doses to New Zealanders in a very short amount of time, and we want to thank everyone who has been contributing to that effort to get New Zealanders vaccinated.

Last night, I saw on Seven Sharp a lovely story about a vaccination centre being run close to Auckland Airport, and it wasn’t just those people who were administering the vaccine who were being hailed as heroes; it was also the people doing the administration, the crowd control, and the car control around that testing station who were making sure that the people who were getting that vaccine in a difficult time were experiencing it in a way that took away the stress of the experience of having to line up and wait. For some of those people getting vaccinated, it was about making sure that they were keeping the kids who were in the back of the car happy, and it’s all those kinds of things that I think are making sure that New Zealanders are taking up the vaccine and having a good experience doing it. So can I take my hat off to all those workers, from the people who meet people at the front gate all the way through to the people who are actually injecting the COVID vaccine into New Zealanders.

Can I also acknowledge all the other people who have worked through alert level 4 settings in the past. It’s the likes of our supermarket workers, who, when we go to alert level 4, have to make sure that we are fed and watered and still continue to work, and I think we shouldn’t underestimate how much more difficult that has been under this level 4, with Delta—and also, as many have said, our health workers, as well. We’ve spoken a lot about those who are working within the COVID vaccine roll-out, but there are also the GPs’ practices that continue to work to make sure that the rather mundane things that get dealt with in alert level 1 continue to get dealt with in alert level 4. I had to go to the GP at alert level 4, and, again, it was a different experience, but, again, it was welcoming for them. So I would like to take my hat off to everyone—

Dr Shane Reti: Pharmacies—shout out to them.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: All of those—pharmacies, etc. I’m not sure if I’ve got enough time in my five minutes, but I take my hat off because New Zealanders have again stood up to make sure that we can get through this, and it’s early days yet, but the indications are that we are.

Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): I too would like to join others in thanking our essential workers and all those who have laboured during the level 4 and level 3 restrictions to keep important services going—in particular, the people that went to service stations, and who are working in dairies and in our supermarkets to make sure that the food was there for people to buy and to be fed. A particular heartfelt thanks to all of the nurses and others in the vaccinations centres that have done more than has been asked of them to make sure that New Zealanders could get the vaccinations that they need. I also want to recognise New Zealanders who have sacrificed, done everything this Government has asked of them over the last three weeks, in their homes, with their businesses closed, not going to work, unsure of how long they would be there for. It’s important we recognise that Kiwis, again, have done what the Government has asked of them for the good of all other New Zealanders.

I also want to be very clear there is only one reason that New Zealanders have been asked to sacrifice again, and that’s because of another failure in a system that is meant to keep them safe. That failure this time was not at the border, or it was not at a washing facility to do with the airport; it was at a managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) facility in Auckland. I read in the newspaper today that the Government has said, after an exhausting search, they have not been able to find how this got out of MIQ. They know that it did. It didn’t just come over the border from Australia. It was in MIQ—the place, actually, that has been set up to make sure that those who return to New Zealand, who have a right to come back here, actually are free of COVID before they come into the community.

It’s also because of the very slow roll-out of the vaccine. I’m very pleased that actually the Government is about to announce that they have borrowed—they have borrowed—vaccines from other countries so that every New Zealander that wants to be vaccinated can be vaccinated as quickly as they need to be, because there is only one way to make sure New Zealanders are safe, and there is only one way to make sure we don’t have the same wide-ranging restrictions of a level 4 or level 3 lockdown: it is to vaccinate New Zealanders. It has come too slowly and there have been too many excuses.

My responsibilities in this Parliament, as well as to the electorate of Rotorua, are for economic development and small business. Today, businesses continue to do it hard in every part of New Zealand. You see, for everywhere but Auckland, we have had two weeks of level 4 and one week of level 3, and now there’s new level 2 with additional restrictions, where businesses have not been able to trade. They have taken on debt. You have mums and dads who live in our community, that go to work every day, and they go to work to be able to earn a living, to employ others, to provide for their children. They pay all other bills before they pay themselves, and they’ve had to borrow against their houses to get through. In Auckland, they’re into now their fourth week of level 4, with a number of weeks yet to go.

These are hard-working businesses that need help, and the help, whilst there, has in many cases not been fast enough. For Auckland, we feel for them, but it’s not enough for the Government to say, “We feel for them.” A week ago in this Parliament, I asked the Minister of Finance if he would join with us to look at rental support for businesses that are affected because of COVID in level 4 and level 3, and now I ask again in level 2. He said at the time that he would look at it. Sadly, a week later, there is no announcement from the Government, other than the resurgence payment, which is a one-off payment that was there to help for that. Last week, the resurgence payment helped with last week’s rent, but the rent is due again this week and next week, and those bills are piling up.

These business people need the help of the Government throughout the country today. A year and a half ago, in the first lockdown, we made the case for rental support for small businesses and landlords—many of them small businesses themselves. There was no support from the Government, other than an announcement of arbitration services, and there are still no arbitrators, because they couldn’t get them. It wasn’t in place. These businesses have continued to build up debt. They haven’t been able to trade their way out of that debt. The harm was done to them in the last lockdown of last year, or the subsequent restrictions in Auckland, when there was more restrictions put in place because of lapses around MIQ at the border. They desperately need that help today.

When you have in Auckland and other parts of the country hospitality businesses saying they will not pay their GST unless they get help, it’s not because they don’t want to pay their tax—they are taxpayers—it’s because it is a plea to the Government for help before their businesses close. I make this plea to the Government again on behalf of these businesses, who are doing everything asked of them: they need support with rent and other support if you still want them to be there once they come out of the level 2 lockdown.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Conservation): Mr Speaker, tēnā koe otirā ki a koutou i raro i tēnei tuanui i tēnei ahiahi. Ka nui aku mihi ki a koutou mō tēnei wā o te Mahuru Māori. Tuatahi, ka whiu atu i ōku nei whakaaro ki ngā whānau, hapū, kaimahi, ringa raupā i ngā whānau, hapū katoa kei roto i a Aotearoa i tēnei wā.

Tuarua, ka huri ōku nei whakaaro ki ngā tāngata ki Tāmaki-makau-rau i tēnei wā, ki a koutou e noho haumaru ana i te kāinga mō tēnei wā o te taumata tuawhā. Me titiro mātou ki a koutou i tēnei wā. Ka nui aku mihi ki a koutou mō tō koutou kaha i tēnei wā.

Heoi anō e, me whiu anō i ōku nei whakaaro ki a rātou ki Tāmaki-makau-rau. Kua haramai te ua i te tīmata o te wiki kua eke nei. Kua haramai te waipuketanga. E 78 ngā whānau e kore e hoki ki ō rātou kāinga i tēnei wā. Heoi anō kei a koutou ki Tāmaki-makau-rau i tēnei wā kua kitea e mātou tō koutou kaha i ērā atu wā e tino taumaha, he wā tino taumaha ki a koutou.

[Mr Speaker, greetings to you and to everyone in the House this afternoon. I greet you all during Mahuru Māori. Firstly, my thoughts go out to the families, the subtribes, the workers, the hard workers in all the families and subtribes of Aotearoa at this time.

Secondly, my thoughts turn to the people of Auckland at the moment, to all of you staying safely at home at this time in level 4. We must look to you at this time. I thank you for your strength in the current circumstances.

Again, my thoughts take me to those in Auckland. The rains came at the beginning of the past week causing flooding. There are 78 families unable to return to their homes at the moment. And so, to those of you in Auckland right now, we have seen your strength at other times when you have found yourselves in difficult circumstances.]

I’d like to reiterate the comments of those within this House this afternoon who have started our contributions this afternoon by turning our thoughts to those that are in Tāmaki-makau-rau at this time. Whilst we have, I guess, the liberated freedoms to be here in level 2, our friends and our relations that are doing the heavy lifting for us in Auckland have had to undergo a fair bit in the last week or so. Of course, there was the traumatic time on Friday as those that went to do their shopping had to endure the attack, the unreasonable and irrational attack of hatred, on Friday at the West Auckland mall.

I also too want to acknowledge the 78 families that have been displaced from their homes as a consequence of the flooding just at the outset of the week last week in Auckland. Ordinarily, that would’ve probably preoccupied a lot of the nation’s attention because it was quite a significant event: 78 people out of their homes, either red-stickered or yellow-stickered. I want to acknowledge all of the emergency management teams that have wrapped around those families and will continue to wrap around those families for some time as a consequence of that flooding event.

So, the terrorism, the flooding, and those families that are still in alert level 4—I want to reiterate the commendation of my colleague Minister Little, who recognised and said in this House that the number to call or text for those that need it is 1737, if people are feeling like they need to turn to somebody to have a little talk to.

As we turn as a nation to how we can turn away and come out of the alert level 4 that our friends in Auckland are in, and as those of us in the rest of the country are now enjoying some more freedoms at alert level 2, we know that a fundamental component to turning the tide in terms of our country’s response is ensuring that we get our vaccination rates up. So I want to acknowledge those front-line workers: the vaccinators, the nurses, all of those that are wearing the complete regalia as they entertain us, as they make us feel safe, as they make us feel calm as we go through those vaccination stations. To date, 2.3 million New Zealanders are completely vaccinated—what an immeasurable effort that those at the front line have undertaken. Over 3.5 million doses have been administered throughout the country. Last week, over half a million doses were administered, and I can’t but thank those that were on the front line doing that.

But there are a lot more vaccination rates that need to be lifted. I just want to give a little pop shot to my mate David Seymour—maybe we should see less of those actions trying to takahi on the mana of those trying to get those vaccination rates up. Tēnā koe.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is good to have our Parliament back. To see the people in Government standing on the same carpet as the rest of the Parliament, so that not only the people that have voted for them but all New Zealanders can see their representatives asking questions and sometimes getting answers, is what democratic accountability is all about.

We’ve heard just today that the Government does not know what went on in Middlemore Hospital. They’ve believed the officials that told them it was all ka pai, but they don’t believe the patients who tell them the person was clearly symptomatic.

We’ve heard from people representing businesses up and down this country who are running out of working capital. Having borrowed to get through the last lockdown, they may not get through this one to be there for the recovery, and we’ve heard that the Government is “under consideration” when it comes to extending the resurgence payment for those businesses that are really under pressure, and those business owners have borrowed against their house in order to get this far.

Then we heard that the Government only started taking advice about saliva testing at the border a few weeks ago. They had 18 months—now, the Speaker’s asking Kiritapu Allan if she could put her mask on, I think. Only a few months ago, or a few weeks ago, in fact, the Government started to think about what it might take for saliva testing at the border—only a few weeks ago. They had 18 months—the world’s longest nap. People are enormously frustrated at a Government that had so much time, did so little, and pursued so many other avenues during that time. We’ve heard in questions from Shane Reti about what the Government was doing. It was focused on its restructuring of the healthcare system in the middle of a crisis.

It’s good to have our Parliament back, and we’re going to need representative democracy to solve a lot more problems. This Government was elected on fixing housing. It was elected where there was a real problem with educational inequality and underachievement by all New Zealand students, with our scores going down against our competitors around the world every time there’s an international test for 20 years. That contributes to a major problem with productivity, and low productivity means that we can’t afford the things that people come to the steps of this Parliament and ask for, such as pharmaceuticals for patients in high need.

How has the Government gone on those challenges? Well, about as well as it’s gone in being prepared for a COVID outbreak. Did people hear—this is why it’s so good to have Parliament back—how the Minister for COVID-19 Response really thinks about this issue? If anyone criticises his response, apparently we’re criticising the workers. No, we’re not. We’ve never criticised the hard-working doctors and nurses and essential workers that have saved the Government’s bacon time and again through this COVID saga. But the Minister is now so defensive when he’s dragged down on to the floor of this House like every other representative of every other New Zealander—we get to see their true colours.

We’re going to need to solve these problems of productivity growth, of housing supply, and of declining educational achievement and even educational attendance. Those are the kinds of challenges that New Zealand needs positive, practical solutions for in the months and years to come, and isn’t it great to live in a democracy where every person can elect a representative of their choice—sometimes different from mine—to go and speak for them and ask questions on the floor of this House? That gives me hope that our little country can work through its differences and overcome its challenges. What a wonderful day to live in a parliamentary democracy. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): E te Māngai, tēnā koutou katoa, he mihi mahana ki a koutou.

[Mr Speaker, greetings everyone, warm greetings to you all.]

I’d like to take the opportunity of stating that these are indeed hard times for New Zealand and New Zealanders, but we have never seen us working together as we are right now. That working together comes in many different forms, with people playing their part in different ways. Whether that’s going to get your vaccination, whether that means staying home, whether that means being an essential worker, everyone in New Zealand is currently doing their part, and what we are seeing is community and Government working hand in glove, working closer than we’ve ever seen before, to make sure that the needs of people are met and to make sure that the mahi gets done where it has to be.

I’d like to mention, up front, Auckland right now, Auckland at the front line of our COVID response, and Auckland which has been doing the heavy lifting as part of our response to COVID-19. I’d like to acknowledge that it’s difficult for families who remain in level 4 right now. I can tell you myself that trying in a day to complete home-school learning, cooking, cleaning, working from home, and keeping the household running is no easy feat, either time management - wise, physically, or mentally, and I’d like to acknowledge all of those parents and families in Auckland who continue to do that hard work every single day.

But it’s even harder on New Zealand businesses, and at that point I think it’s important to acknowledge not only all those businesses in level 4 in Auckland but all of those in level 2, such as hospitality, who continue to have to operate but with limited capacity. Again, we have the Government working closely with our community to make sure needs are met when we need them to be. The wage subsidy has been a lifeline, as it was in our previous lockdown, as it is now. I’d like to take the opportunity to make it clear that those businesses outside of level 4 are still eligible to receive the wage subsidy. I know there have been questions in my own area, but just if Wellington region is in level 2, if businesses are able to demonstrate that 40 percent decrease in revenue, they are still eligible for the wage subsidy, and should continue to apply. The resurgence support payment is also in place, and that enables those who have shown a 30 percent decrease in revenue to also receive additional support. On top of that we have the Leave Support Scheme, and also the COVID-19 Short-Term Absence Payment, to help businesses keep running and to keep staff being paid when they need to be.

But where there are still gaps—where there are still gaps in our community that need to be filled—what heartens me the most is how we have networks of people coming together to make sure families are fed, and that’s where I see the real community work being done on a daily basis. Back on 28 August, we saw that the Minister for Social Development and Employment, Carmel Sepuloni, announced a $7 million boost for strengthening food security networks right across the country under level 4. The extra funding helped to distribute food for another 60,000 food parcels and 10,000 wellbeing packets, and those providers and those community networks helped to distribute those to where the need was met.

It was really important to see that lessons were learnt off the back of our last lockdown. Those community groups, whether they be marae, Salvation Army, community providers, or food banks, they had established food networks and worked together in order to distribute to those families where they needed it, and they knew where their people were. So it’s been heartening to see in the Hutt Valley, where I see Kōkiri Marae, we’ve seen Ōrongomai Marae, we’ve seen the Salvation Army, we’ve seen the Lower Hutt food bank, and also fantastic work done by Common Unity in Waiwhetū—the work that they do to provide packages and get those out to people in need. It’s important to note too that we still have families in emergency housing, those in facilities where they do not have cooking abilities, at times, so having those community groups who prepare food and bring it out to people enables families to continue to be fed at times when it’s uncertain what the levels will continue to be.

It is a hard time for New Zealand, but I’m heartened by the level of close community work, hand in hand with the Government, to make sure our people are looked after, to make sure businesses are receiving the support that they need to keep going, and to make sure that people continue to be vaccinated, because that is our way forward from here. Tēnā koutou katoa.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Mr Speaker, thank you very much. Can I first acknowledge the hundreds of thousands of parents around the country who are breathing a sigh of relief that schools will open tomorrow. They’re looking forward to their kids getting back into school.

SPEAKER: Some schools.

MATT DOOCEY: Some schools, they are. But there are still hundreds of thousands of parents who are breathing a sigh of relief, and, as you say, Mr Speaker, I also want to acknowledge those still in lockdown and the stress and the anxiety of being in lockdown for an extended period. Research does show that there are elevated levels of distress the longer someone is in lockdown.

Can I also acknowledge our hard-working small business operators and our tourism operators. Recent research in New Zealand showed that 50 percent of our small-business operators had identified mental health concerns, as did 35 percent of our tourism operators, and, of course, I’d like to acknowledge our very hard-working and committed mental health workforce that even through the lockdown is going in and every day providing valuable support, treatment, and therapy to some of our most vulnerable New Zealanders.

So what is stress? Well, for me it’s the ability or inability to deal with the stress and anxiety in your life. Mental health is how you cope with those stresses. Some people have the resilience and some people don’t. So what has this Government done for the last year in mental health since the last lockdown? One thing I can point to is the very well-known and proven All Right? campaign that led a mental health promotion campaign in Canterbury after the earthquakes and was funded to deliver a nationwide mental health promotion campaign in the last lockdown over a year ago. Their funding was cancelled this year, in July.

It is interesting that in response to parliamentary questions the Minister of Health believed that wellbeing had dipped slightly during March and April 2020 in alert level 4 but quickly recovered as alert levels decreased and then returned to pre-COVID levels. Maybe that’s the reason why we haven’t had any increase in mental health support since the lockdown in 2020. Yet the research by Dr Susanna Every-Palmer from Otago University showed that we have still an escalated level of emotional distress in the community even when lockdown levels were reduced and restrictions in place were taken away.

We still have an extremely high level of emotional distress in the community, and the Government comes out in the last 10 days and announces $1 million for young people in Auckland. Well, granted, that’s OK—$1 million for young people in Auckland. How do we know this Government will deliver that $1 million, will spend that $1 million? Of course, they’ve got form in this space. Two years after Budget 2019, they announced a lot of money for mental health. After two years, they’ve underspent that budget by $50 million. They’re sitting on $50 million of mental health funding.

Let’s look at other services they’ve promised. In the front-line mental health service, how do we know that $1 million is going to end up on new services on the ground? The front-line mental health services were trumpeted in 2019—they were putting mental health workers in GP practices. Over 2½ years later, there are still 75 percent of GP practices where there is no mental health support—75 percent after 2½ years. What about the support they were going to offer our most vulnerable transitioning out of mental health in-patient facilities? They promised to support 100 people out of our in-patient facilities. How many did they reach after one year? Three. But it still cost them $1.8 million, and I challenge the Government: where is that money being siphoned off to by the bloated bureaucracy of mental health officials in Wellington?

One year after the lockdown in 2020, here we are again: high rates of emotional distress, but no support from this Government.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I’d like to wish mālō e lelei to our colleague Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki, the personal face of the lockdown. Last year, she lost her mother during level 4, this year she lost her father during level 4, and families throughout New Zealand will all have stories like that, and an inability to grieve in this case. I’m not one to stand here and deny the Opposition their job to oppose, but it does bemuse me that they get up and talk about how difficult it is for people sitting at home, and then spend the rest of their speeches ensuring that they undermine all the efforts to reassure them and to make sure this country remains the best-responding country to COVID, and I think what we really need and require to do for people at home is to give some reassurance that the systems do work.

I’d just like to turn our attention to what happened last week in West Auckland. Many speakers here, commentators, and the media have looked at the actions, particularly, of my ex-colleagues, the police officers who were on the ground there, who within 60 seconds stopped that incident. I have nothing but sympathy for those six people who were badly injured in the meantime, but just consider how bad that incident could have been but for the fact that the system worked.

Now, to take nothing away from my ex-colleagues on the ground there, but really to look for the confidence in this country that the whole system worked—that we had those officers on the ground at that time when that individual chose to grab a knife and go on the offensive. Now, a lot of things had to work for that to happen. For a start, we had to identify this individual. In 2016—and this goes cross-Government—this individual arrived in New Zealand and he was identified. That meant the system worked.

I compare that with the other terrorist in New Zealand who arrived here having been weaponised overseas, having been radicalised overseas, and it was the failure of those agencies to identify that. By the time he was here, he was intent on what he did. Compare that with here—we identified this individual, he then came into the system, and we have now become aware of the fact that he went into prison. He came out, and every part of the State—every action the State could take—was used. He leveraged the very system—the very freedoms that he was seeking to destroy—and that was actually how he ended up needing all the resources of the State to be focused where they were at that particular time.

So we can take confidence that the system did actually work, and that’s a confidence that New Zealanders can take. OK, focus will go on the legal system. Maybe things could have been done, but I think it’s important we actually look at the history, and I’ll acknowledge the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon Judith Collins, who at that stage was the Minister of Justice, and I have some sympathy for her, because we’ve got to remember at the time—I’ll put some names in here: Ahmed Zaoui. Remember the outcry when we tried to do something about that individual and the agencies were put under complete focus?

Remember Operation Eight? Again, without going into details, this was a system where the law clearly showed that preparation wasn’t close enough for the Terrorism Suppression Act to be used. However, it wasn’t fixed because right through the system, we didn’t really have the context—no Government had the context—to be able to do the fix that we’ll now do.

So if I can give some comfort to those six people who were injured—and it will be no small comfort for them and their families. However, we now have the context to ensure that we do put in a fix for this, and the system will do it.

For the same way, I’d like to come back to the COVID system. We do have the best system in the world. How often have we heard ill-informed commentators talking about what’s happening in the UK, what’s happening in Singapore? There were 41,000 cases in the UK yesterday, and 1,200 cases in Singapore last week, and growing. These are the countries that we’re being pointed towards.

So in the time left to me, I’ll say for anyone listening at home, and for those in the Opposition who are going to take the opportunity to undermine the system, to just sit back and think we are lucky to be in a country where it is no accident, firstly, that we had such a very good result last week in West Auckland. We’re having a very good result in our COVID response—the best in the world. Have confidence in our systems. It gives me great confidence to stand here and ask people to take confidence that we are doing this right.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Estimates Debate

In Committee

Debate resumed from 7 September on the Appropriation (2021/22 Estimates) Bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Rt Hon Trevor Mallard): The House in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2021/22 Estimates) Bill. There are five hours and 27 minutes left remaining in this debate. All votes are available for debate, but only the Minister of Immigration and the Minister of Justice will be available to speak to the indicated portfolios. The first call in each debate will be offered to the chairperson or member of the committee that’s considered the Estimates most closely related to the Minister’s portfolios. The Estimates debate should be relevant to the Government’s current spending plans as contained in the Estimates of Appropriations. The question is that the votes contained in the Estimates of Appropriations 2021 stand part of the schedules—in this case, immigration.

Immigration

IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wanted to kick this off in the absence of our chair, Marja Lubeck. I’m the only person who’s available from the Education and Workforce Committee, which Immigration lies under.

I first wanted to start off by acknowledging the challenges that COVID-19 has brought to us as a nation, but also the extra challenges for our migrant community and also our businesses. This is the reality that COVID-19 has created for us—it’s not something that we wanted. So we acknowledge the burden of the suppression of the families, and the lack of our businesses to bring skilled labour from overseas has created extra challenges for us as well.

With that, considering time constraints, I just want to go straight into the question. But first I want to acknowledge the Minister of Immigration for his constant engagement with the committee, constructively. He constantly came in front of the committee and answered questions. There was no reservation and he generously gave up his time. So I commend him for that.

With that, I go to my question. My question is, we are aware that the Government is considering measures to rebalance New Zealand’s immigration policy settings, as we look to reconnect with the world. What can the Minister tell us about the principles that will underpin this work?

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you. I’ll start with a few questions around the Government’s Afghanistan response, and I’ll ask why were Afghan nationals who supported the New Zealand Defence Force, including interpreters, only granted critical purpose visitor visas—and here is one of them—valid for six months, and not residency; and, further, what will happen to those visitor visa holders who are stuck in Afghanistan when their visas expire, and will they be given residency?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Immigration): Mr Chair, thank you. And can I thank Mr McDowall for the question. The critical purpose visas were issued to the people he has spoken about because it was the most effective and efficient and quickest way in order to get those people to New Zealand. A check of the residency process will be undertaken now. I think—if I recall, and it may have been at last Friday’s select committee meeting—Mr McDowall asked me about the letter that was sent, or, essentially, the communication that was sent to those people around the critical purpose visa. I think I said I’d go away and get a response for him—the form letter is the form letter that is usually sent out for a critical purpose visa, which I understand—he said at the meeting—may have sounded a little harsh. I think officials acknowledge that and have made moves to amend that. Everyone was working at pace, but that is the form letter that is sent to people who are granted critical purpose visas. So I think that may answer that question.

To answer, I think, the second question that the member asked: we are doing everything that is possible to make sure that people who do have valid visas, who are either in Afghanistan or have made their way outside of Afghanistan, are able to make their way to New Zealand. We’re doing that in a number of ways—obviously, in the first phase, the evacuations that were taking place and ceased about a week and a half ago; but also, Cabinet will soon consider what other options in terms of our refugee programme we may be able to extend, as well as any humanitarian efforts that we may be able to make to welcome more people from Afghanistan here. The criteria for that, and some of the logistics behind that in a time of COVID, and also some of the challenges of making sure we can settle some of these people here are being worked through for officials, and, hopefully, we’ll be able to make some decisions about that soon.

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Why were 24 women who were supporting the New Zealand Defence Force as paramedics, teachers, and even clearing landmines and improvised explosive devices in Bamiyan Province declined emergency visas?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Immigration): There were very clear criteria that were made by Cabinet as to those who would be eligible, certainly in the first tranche of applications that have come through. I have not seen each of those individually, but the Defence Force, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and Police were responsible for triaging those applications, as to whether they met the strict criteria that Cabinet had made. If the member has some of those cases that he believes did meet the criteria, or maybe haven’t been through the process with either the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade or Defence or Police, then I would like to see those.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. I note from the Budget documents that there has been no reduction—in fact, a small increase—in Vote Immigration for this year. Not surprising—that’s normally what happens in normal circumstances. But these are anything but normal times. Can he confirm data from the Immigration New Zealand website that in the past year, and despite the retention of all of the staff and all of the costs, more than 700,000 fewer visas have been processed in just three categories: international students, temporary work, and visitor visas? And if that’s the case, to what work have those staff been put if they weren’t processing those 700,000 visas?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Immigration): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Pre-COVID, as the former Minister of Immigration will know, usually—I think in the year between June 2018 and June 2019, there were 1.3 million visa applications, and that, during COVID, has dropped to about a half a million visa applications. So that one example reflects the change of volume that Immigration New Zealand has had in processing certainly visa applications.

The member will also know that when the border closed, we also set up a border exception process in order to allow those businesses who needed critical workers to come into New Zealand to be able to do that. There are very strict criteria for that, in the two ranges that we have. There are also the likes of class exceptions and also the likes of family reunification applications that need to be looked at. None of these application processes were needed before the border was closed, so Immigration New Zealand has had to reorient a number of its processing staff into the likes of making sure it can process the likes of border exceptions. I’ll get the number soon, but it is a rather large number that we’ve been able to bring through of both workers and also their partners and families in order to make sure that those critical businesses can have the labour that they dearly need.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’ve got a range of questions for the Minister, and he might want to get a pen ready. I’ll go through all of them now on behalf of my colleague, the portfolio holder.

So starting with the assessment and processing services, the Green Party is interested in whether the Government has set any new residency targets that will aim to clear the assessment and processing backlog. Particularly mindful of some of the context of migrants having paid visa fees and their visa applications sitting unprocessed for months, and recognising and being interested in hearing more about the process to digitise that process. So acknowledging that in the first lockdown there were thousands of applications that just got stuck, and I understand that in this situation during this level 4, another 27,000 visas have been unable to be processed, and really keen to see that we’re future-proofing that to avoid that kind of problem in the future.

Also interested in, and acknowledging that, immigration is really important for us as a country. It’s about how we get skilled workers to fill the gaps that we have here. It’s about family connections. It’s about actually telling people and communities who have played a really important role in our country that, actually, we recognise that history of closeness between us as people.

So we’re interested in wanting to hear about the plans for family reunification and how he will retain workers that are from non-visa waiver countries and are unable currently to be reunited with their families because they don’t meet the living together criteria. When does he expect to have a pathway for family reunification? That’s on the top of a lot of people’s minds and their hearts at the moment. Does he think the current settings that create barriers for visa holders from non-visa waiver countries is fair? Linking to that, in its review of immigration settings, will the Government be considering an amnesty for overstayers; particularly in light of the Dawn Raids apology, the COVID outbreak, and labour shortages—feels like a pretty compelling argument for an amnesty to us.

Then, also looking at some of those barriers, that inbuilt discrimination in the system. We’ve been raising the concern, and there’s a petition in front of Parliament around the ableist settings within our legislation. Just on one aspect of that, we understand that the Minister’s indicated that he’s expecting to receive advice on recommendations of a review of the health requirement in relation to HIV and we’re wondering when we might expect to hear more about that; hoping to see that gone.

Then—you might be pleased—the final set of questions is around addressing the temporary migrant worker exploitation. We’re just wondering if the Minister is confident that all investigations into exploitation are being done with the full participation of the exploited workers. We’re wanting to make sure that it’s a real investigation informed by their experience and, with a concern we had about the migrant exploitation protection visa only lasting for one month, whether it’s meaningful, whether workers are able to transition to meaningful employment when it’s such a short period of time, and how does the Minister expect to use the employment relations services Budget allocation to address migrant exploitation in light of the recent allocation increase? Done.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Immigration): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’ll try and address most of those questions if that’s okay.

In terms of the migrant exploitation, there’s a new visa available for workers who believe they may have been exploited. There’s also an investment of $50 million that I think we announced about halfway through last year in order to increase resources to ensure that those migrants who believe they are being exploited have a safe way in order to bring that to the attention of the authorities and also to make sure that there’s the resources to make sure that any allegations of exploitation are properly investigated.

To the point that I believe she has been making on—that she made for her colleague around the status of HIV status with immigration settings, the latest information I have there is the regular review of the health conditions that are looked at when we assess visa applications is very soon, I believe, going to be delivered to myself and the Minister of Health, and we can make decisions there. I won’t pre-empt anything, but as part of that regular review, we will look at those kinds of issues.

In terms of family reunification, I understand the difficulties and the pain that that has caused to many migrant families as a result of us closing the border. What I would say is the same messages: we are always looking at those settings, and our availability of being able to reunite people in New Zealand with their partners and their children offshore. We understand the pain but we are very much constricted by the capacity of the managed isolation system to be able to make commitments to bring cohorts of people through to New Zealand and to reunite with their families, and—as you would imagine—that is difficult with the current situation with managed isolation, especially at this time of this Delta outbreak.

Just quickly, because I want to make sure that other people get an opportunity to ask questions as well, is very recently we said we were looking at the issue of residency. Obviously, the alert level 4 situation has put some of those opportunities to have those discussions on hold to some degree, but we hope very shortly to have a message for those people who are waiting and also some certainty for people who would like to see a pathway to residence because of their time here in New Zealand.

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Why has Residence from Work been put into the general residence processing queue when it should be a priority? And the reason I ask that is that Residence from Work is supposed to be a reward for having a particularly skilled job that can’t easily be filled locally, and applicants have to wait two years to apply for residency anyway. Now that this category has stalled, their visas are expiring and they have to renew them. Residency through this route can take four years. It never used to be like this. My question to the Minister is: why has Residence from Work become such a mess, and what is he going to do about it?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to follow up on the answers to Jan Logie’s questions around family reunification.

I heard the Minister say that he was “always looking”. Frankly, what those people want isn’t looking; it’s acting, and for him to say in respect of residence that COVID lockdown has affected his ability to make decisions around residence and, particularly, the expression of interest pool, which has been suspended now for 19 months is, I think, a bit of a cop-out. The Minister said that he reoriented some of the staffing resources, and, indeed, that would have been the case, but he didn’t reorient them to the residency pool. He was reported as saying in April this year that the decisions around the reopening of that pool were soon, and we’ve heard the words “soon” and “very soon” quite a bit lately, including in the select committee last week.

So I would like the Minister to provide those applicants with much more certainty about what “very soon” means and to inform the committee about when he intends to make those decisions. Has he taken a Cabinet paper already and was it deferred for more work, but, firstly, when are we going to hear?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Immigration): To Mr McDowall’s question, they can still be prioritised. I think if they’re earning twice the median wage and are a registered occupation, then those people who have applied for residency can have their application brought up out of the queue and prioritised, and that is happening.

To Mr Woodhouse’s first point, around family reunification, I would stress the difficulty of being able to give what I think most families want: some certainty around when their family members can be reunited with their loved ones here in New Zealand. It very much depends on our ability to bring those people through our managed isolation system. The former Minister will know that there is huge demand from New Zealanders, who have a right to come back to New Zealand. There is huge demand from sectors who would like to bring critical workers into the country, and also there are families who want to be reunified too. All of those groups have to bring people through 14 days of managed isolation in order to keep the country safe. That is a non-negotiable. Unfortunately, in those difficult situations, the Government has had to make some difficult decisions. We don’t enjoy making those decisions, but we have to make them in order to make sure that our managed isolation capacity is manageable, to give certainty to people across the board, and that is, again, a difficult decision to make.

One of the other things I think we also have to do is, when we make these decisions, we have to be mindful of the numbers of people that will be eligible for those spots, and manage that across a period of time. As the member has seen, especially with the last outbreak, that is very difficult when you don’t necessarily know all the inputs.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. I would point out to the Minister of Immigration that, actually, families are being reunified. They’re being reunified because the individuals who are already here onshore are leaving the country. So my first question is: does he have any data on the number of highly skilled workers who have left New Zealand because the Government’s policy prevented their family members from joining them?

The second questions are around, effectively, the reset speech that the Minister gave—or Minister Nash did on his behalf in April—putting an emphasis on skilled migrants, but since then, there are over 3,000 doctors and nurses and 600 teachers stuck in the queue. Many of those have given up on New Zealand and gone to places like Canada and Australia because of the Government’s inertia. Does he agree the speech and that inertia are not only highly inconsistent but actually hurting New Zealand?

My third question is: has he had a discussion with the Minister of Health about the calls by intensive care clinical leaders, including Dr Carr, that says that bed capacity in our ICUs on a day-to-day basis, including trained staff, hasn’t increased in the past 18 months, and the degree to which immigration policy and that inertia might be a driver of it?

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Can the Minister explain the delays in the skilled migrant category processing, given that no expressions of interest have been selected since April 2020, and tell us what plans there are, if any, for Immigration New Zealand to address these delays in this category and return to, say, 90 percent completed within six months, as opposed to the 27 months at present? Secondly, does Immigration New Zealand think it is feasible to invite the more than 11,000 expressions of interest to apply for residence when selection resumes, and how long will it take to process those applications? My final question on residency is: is the Minister considering shifting the skilled migrant category application process to being online-based, given the sophistication in document verification technology that is available today?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Immigration): To address the last question, eventually yes. I think the immigration system, as many in this hall will know, has been paper-based for some time, and that has caused logistical issues even experienced during the latest lockdown, around the processing of residency visas under alert level 4. So moves are afoot, under the debt programme, to make sure that much more of the visa process, or application process, can be moved online to make that a much more streamlined process. And in the age of COVID, making sure that we can continue to do that processing work when people are working at home.

To try and address a number of the questions that have been asked by both Mr Woodhouse and Mr McDowall, at the risk of agreeing with Mr Woodhouse about some of the statements I have made, I think the demand for the likes of the retention of workers has increased over many months. And to the question that his colleague Erica Stanford asked at the select committee last week about what we could do about particular cohorts of people who might be looking for residence, my response to her was there is more than one cohort or sector that would like to have a clearer pathway to residence, because of the situation that we’re in now, and also, I think, for the long-term stability of the workforce in the future. The Government is looking at that as a wide and broad issue as opposed to an issue just about a particular sector.

I think I may have answered some of those questions. I think I may have forgotten one of the ones that Mr McDowall has asked. I might let him ask it again.

IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, while our borders continue to be closed, business have expressed more than a time that they are affected by worker shortages. What are some of the measures you are implementing to take the pressure off and help them to make the most of the onshore workforce?

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Just to clarify the questions that I asked, since requested, it was regarding processing times for the Skilled Migrant Category and getting back to 90 percent completed by six months as opposed to 27 months at present. Furthermore, is it feasible that they’re going to be able to say to 11,000 Expression of Interest (EOI) people—people that have lodged EOIs—that you can apply for residence?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Immigration): The reason why the wait times have increased are a number, and the first one is that in terms of what the forecast was for applications for residency, that was well above what was forecast. So the ability to process an increased demand, or a higher than expected demand, has meant that people have had to wait later. Also, to a degree, as I mentioned to Mr Woodhouse, there has been a reorientation of some processing staff and the ability for us to process those residency applications, because of that, has also been affected.

I think another question he asked, also, is: is there a way to make sure we can expedite the processing of residence applications? My understanding is that over time, the criteria or the checks that have to be done to pass the muster for residency have grown considerably, and I have asked to find out if there are ways to streamline that process but also to make sure that we keep the robustness of that process within the system in order to make sure that we can give people the level of service that I think they would like.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. I would like to ask the Minister three final questions. I think they’re very important. In the basket of things he is looking at but so far not acting on is this very concerning issue of the children of temporary migrants who have completed their secondary education but can’t go on to tertiary study without paying extortionate fees—well, not extortionate, but they’re very high—and can I implore him to act on that in the same “very soon” time parameters? In fact, could he give the committee an update on that?

Secondly, I note from the Budget documents that the memorandum account, which was severely overdrawn, effectively, was topped up, effectively, with a nearly quarter of a billion dollar transfer in the 2020 Budget—we’re at the end of that—but the projections are still for that to be back in the red by over $200 million by the end of this year. I’m in possession of the letter that the Hon Grant Robertson sent to the Minister, basically saying, “Don’t come back for more.” He says—I quote—“I consider that the decision not to cost recover these deficits from future fee payers is a significant policy matter that should be considered at Cabinet.” Now, the issue with that is that if it’s not going to be funded by the taxpayer, then future fee payers will have to pay a significant sum more than they currently are to top that up. It’s unfair to them. It’s unfair to the taxpayer to once again have to pay for a service that the overseas applicants should be paying for. How will the Minister reconcile that?

My third question is around satisfaction. The Budget documents show that, last year, one in four—according to page 147 of the Budget document—visa applicants was not satisfied with the overall experience of applying for a visa. That’s a big, big jump in what it had previously been. Is he concerned about that, and what is he doing about it?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Immigration): In answer to his first question, yes, we’re all wanting to make sure that we take care of the issue around people who have young children or young adults as part of their residency application. As the member will know, as part of that letter, I think, the Minister of Finance also asked us to undertake a cost review of the immigration system, and that is currently being done. And, in terms of the survey that the member said about the visa-processing system, I think moves are afoot to make that much more streamlined by moving more to a digital platform, away from the paper-based system that has predominantly existed up until recently. And, without knowing the particulars of that survey, that was the year when quite an increase of people who were applying for visas were being declined because of the border closure. So I’m not necessarily sure that the customer service, because of the border closure, was up to the standards that they would have hoped.

CHAIRPERSON (Rt Hon Trevor Mallard): Dr James McDowall—final question.

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Will the Minister consider enabling family members of our managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) workers who are on visas to have their visas processed offshore if necessary and get a border exemption? And another policy question: COVID has made it difficult for many couples to meet the living together requirement; will the Minister consider waiving that requirement for applicants who haven’t met that as a direct result of COVID? And, finally: why does the Minister wait until a sector is in a dire state regarding its workforce shortages before allowing workers—most recently, teachers—to bring in family? How bad does it need to get before the Minister decides to use family border exemptions as a carrot for workers to stay in New Zealand, and who does he want to give the stick to, and which sector is going to get the next carrot?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Immigration): I disagree with the framing that the member used for the last question. I will reiterate: the ability to bring people through the border isn’t stick and carrot; it’s availability of managed isolation capacity, and if the member wants to increase that and then put the robustness of the border protection of MIQ at risk, then he and his party should go out and talk about that policy a little more. So I think in terms of the first question—no, the second question, you mentioned MIQ workers, is that right? So I’m not sure what you’re talking in terms of that—are you talking about those who are on temporary work visas?

Dr James McDowall: Temporary work visa holders working in our MIQ facilities, who are split families—bringing their family members in.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Then, again, that policy decision very much rests on the capacity of managed isolation.

CHAIRPERSON (Rt Hon Trevor Mallard): That concludes this part of the debate. We now move on to the justice portfolio.

Justice

GINNY ANDERSEN (Chairperson of the Justice Committee): Thank you, Mr Chair. As the chair of the Justice Committee, I’d like to take the opportunity to briefly outline what the Justice Committee heard at the time the Minister appeared before us. We held a separate hearing with each of the three Ministers—so, with Minister Faafoi, Minister of Justice, but also with the Hon Marama Davidson as the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence, and also with the Hon Aupito William Sio as the Minister for Courts.

One of the main issues that was addressed straight away was what was in the Budget, and that included a significant increase in the amount of legal aid. We heard that in the 2021/22 appropriations, $234.563 million was spent in terms of that, and that’s around 38 percent of all justice appropriations. Members were eager to understand why that had increased, and the Minister explained that it was largely due to the complexity of cases, as we see those come before the courts. We also heard about Hāpaitia te Oranga Tangata, which is the safe and effective cross-sector initiative overseen by the Ministry of Justice. A key part of this is to reduce family violence and sexual violence, and the appropriation within that for family violence equates to approximately $13 million.

The committee also heard of key pieces of legislation that are coming up, which included repeal of the three-strikes law, hate speech legislation, as well as banning harmful conversion practices. Out of interest, that will be concluding—those submissions, which have been coming in thick and fast, will be concluding—at midnight tonight in order for oral submissions to commence. The committee also heard about the effect of gangs and organised crime on the justice system. There were members concerned about the increase of gang members. The Minister outlined that the Government responses were multiple, and two of those responses were the introduction of firearm prohibition orders, as well as amending the proceeds of crime Act to make the seizure of assets associated with organised crime easier to be done.

We also heard about one specific police operation, which was Operation Trojan Shield, which was concluded in July of this year. That particular operation saw that more than 35 people, including senior members of the Waikato Comancheros, the Waikato Mongrel Mob, and the Head Hunters—and that also saw that a significant amount of money and contraband were confiscated under that. It was a good reminder, the Minister stated to the committee—to the public—of the action that the ministry is taking to address serious organised crime in a range of ways. He did reiterate also that the Government is not only concerned about the number of gang members but also the amount of harm that that causes and the proceeds of those illicit activities and how that’s targeted. He also stated that while New Zealand has always had a gang problem, the influx of “501” deportees from Australia had made the situation far worse in terms of the type of behaviour we’re seeing in those gang members.

I would like to wind up by asking the Minister a question in relation to the current time we are in right now under COVID, in level 4 and level 2, and particularly to understand the impact that has upon our court system when they are not able to operate. So my question to the Minister is: the current COVID alert level restrictions—what impact have they had on our justice system, and how has our system appropriately responded?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. My question relates, actually, to the Supplementary Estimates of Appropriations that were tabled with this Budget, and it’s this: it relates to Vote Corrections, Vote Courts, Vote Justice, and Vote Police—they are all in the justice sector. There were supplementary appropriations from the COVID response and recovery fund—$1.1 million last year, and then $1.5 million thereafter, plus $3.5 million of capital for a prison-based industry focused on the assembly of affordable kitset homes provided by Kāinga Ora. Vote Courts—$6.45 million last year, rising to $10.9 million in 2023/24. Vote Justice—$6 million every year, starting last year and going on. Vote Police—$1.2 million and $1.4 million this year and next for strengthening the Family Court, based on the recommendations of the independent panel on the 2014 family justice reforms.

My question to the Minister is: why was that not part of Budget appropriations last year or this year so that they could be examined for the quality of their spend, and why was it believed that they would be COVID-related, when indeed the Family Court recommendations are seven years old? It strikes me as extremely odd and, frankly, lacks transparency. It may well be good-quality spending, but for it to be appropriated in a supplementary sense, without the scrutiny that we should be putting it through now, including through select committee, I think is an example of where the COVID response and recovery fund has been used for things that it shouldn’t have been used.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Can I begin by—sorry, I’ll remove my mask—thanking members for their questions. To go to my colleague Ginny Andersen’s questions, I would like to thank the Ministry of Justice staff who have been able to make sure that certainly those necessary court hearings have continued. Foot traffic through the courts at the moment is 4 percent of normal levels across the country, but the District Court has continued to conduct priority proceedings, and, obviously, workloads have been affected. My understanding is that the court events yesterday were just over 1,000, which is 40 percent of what it would normally be expected to be on a Tuesday. So I think from those figures it’s clear to see that (a) the ability of the courts and judiciary to keep the wheels of justice turning is happening, obviously at a much reduced level, but I think it is important that that is able to continue. I think some of the investment that was put in after last year’s alert level 4 settings, around audio-visual links that were able to be put into court rooms and linked to police stations in order for basic hearings to be held, has helped in order to make sure that those proceedings can continue as opposed to having people wait longer because of the alert level settings.

I will go to Mr Woodhouse’s question—I think certainly the last one. There were injections of funding that were necessary across the justice portfolios that he had mentioned in order to deal with some of the issues that came about because of the alert level settings of last year. A considerable amount of money was put into making sure that backlogs that came about because of the lockdowns were met in terms of judicial resourcing but also resourcing the administration to make sure that the cases I’ve mentioned that weren’t able to be heard because of alert levels were able to be dealt with in a manner that didn’t see those hearings protracted.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just a few questions for the Minister. I note that these are questions from our justice spokesperson, Nicole McKee, who would like to be here. But I’d like to ask: will any of the $13 million budget allocated in the vote for reducing family violence and sexual violence be intended to be used on projects or programmes initiated by any known gangs, gang members, or gang affiliates?

Another question is about the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA). They received $5.7 million last year and are only budgeted to get an extra $47,000, or $5.745 million, to help people who might have complaints about the conduct of the police. There’s widespread reports that their workload has increased, and I wonder if the Minister is satisfied that the IPCA will actually have enough money for people concerned about police conduct, if they need to do investigations.

Finally, the New Zealand Council of Victim Support Groups, also known as Victim Support—they’re receiving a moderate amount of $9.5 million to assist with victims of crime. ACT believes that justice policy should fundamentally be centred around victims rather than offenders, and I just wonder if the Minister really fought for Victim Support and the amount of money that they received. They seem to do a very good job, but I just wonder if the Minister is satisfied that Victim Support and, indirectly, the victims have adequate funding there.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): I have met with Victim Support. We spoke at an event that they held recently, and I think that they would quite happily tell me that they could use more funding. One of the focuses that I would like to have going into this Budget is supporting victims more, but I can’t make any commitments. I understand the pressure that the likes of Victim Support are under, and I believe that their budget may have been pretty steady for some time.

In terms of the Independent Police Conduct Authority, I think some of the work that they’ve done internally to triage some of the complaints within their own system is finding that they are having the ability to do the work that they think they should be focused on. So I think they’ve certainly done a lot of work internally to make sure that the case numbers or complaint numbers that are coming in can be dealt with in a way that they feel is fit, and having a better system of triaging is helping them out there.

To the first question, I’m sorry, but I don’t have that detail about the $13 million. But seeing the member has asked, I will find that out for him.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): So can the Minister confirm, or is the Minister saying he can’t confirm that that $13 million for reducing family and sexual violence will not be spent on programmes initiated by any known gangs, gang members, or gang affiliates? Is he saying he doesn’t know if it will go to gangs or not?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying I don’t have the information available for him at this moment around the $13 million that he has mentioned. I’ve said I’ll go away and find out—to the question that he asked—if any of that funding has been allocated to those groups that he has mentioned.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. The Minister might be relieved to know I’m going to break up my questions this time rather than give you a full barrage of them. Firstly, I really want to acknowledge that usually when we’re talking about justice, it’s about a crime that’s made it into the front line, and it’s usually a really emotive issue. But people don’t tend to connect to the workings of our court system and our legal aid processes in the same way. But they are at the heart of our justice system, the rule of law, and our ability to access our human rights, and are, really, I think, undervalued or under-represented in our public discourse.

We know that still currently the wait times and the expense of accessing the courts remains a huge barrier for many New Zealanders. The Greens supported, of course, significant lifts to community law centre funding and the human rights tribunal last term. But we do know that this is still not meeting the needs of marginalised people in our country at the moment. In particular, I’d like to raise the access to justice issues for disabled people, where legal aid rates are low, hours are low, and accommodations for people with disabilities are virtually non-existent. While additional funding was provided for disabled clients in care-of-child cases in 2019, all of that funding amounted to $150 per case. That’s about a half-hour of a lawyer’s time, which clearly is not even a drop in the bucket when it comes to ensuring the rights of those people.

Legal aid disadvantages disabled people as it is at the moment, and combined with high rates of discrimination, very low rates of employment, and poverty incomes, and to coin a phrase from a lawyer I spoke to working in this area, it’s an absolute disaster. So the Greens are really interested to know if the Minister is planning to review the legal aid policy, which was found to be unlawful by the Court of Appeal under Judith Collins as the justice Minister but is still in place, and whether the Minister is planning to restore the full mandate of community law to provide legal representation and resource them appropriately to be able to do that.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): One of the common arguments or issues that is raised with me whenever I’m engaging with stakeholders in the legal fraternity is the pressure that is on legal aid. We understand the pressure it is having on the legal workforce and also the pressure that it is putting on people who are seeking to access justice and get their justice heard in a timely and fair manner, which is why in the Budget we have put an increase of, I think, close to $48 million in the first year. I think the member may have spoken to that.

The likes of the Criminal Bar Association and the judiciary, whenever we meet, have been saying for some time, I understand, that the legal aid system is under pressure, and we continue to hear that. We were able to answer some of that call in this year’s Budget, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the call of the sector, and certainly those who are seeking to access justice, has been fully dealt with. So, again, it is one of the many challenges that we would like to deal with as we look at some of the long-term settings for access to justice, and making sure that timely justice has been given out as well.

I would also say that it’s not just legal aid issues that I think are causing delays in the system as well. I think there are some legacy IT issues within the court system, especially in the likes of the Family Court, which are causing delays to hearings and proceedings being brought to an end. And while there might be warring parents or guardians in those situations, we also have to be mindful that there are children in those situations. So it’s certainly something that, as the Minister of Justice, I’m taking a very keen interest in. That won’t be an easy fix, because something like scheduling and making sure we do have an IT system that can make sure we’re not just working on papers is not going to happen overnight within a system that has very much been reliant on papers in its operation for decades.

So it is certainly something that the sector would like to see, and, again, it’s one of the challenges that as the Minister of Justice I have at the moment—trying to get an opportunity to deal with that. But I certainly think making a start with those kinds of issues will help set a path for timely and effective justice.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. Another area—and I do just want to acknowledge what the Minister’s saying. From having sat in a Family Court and watched a police officer say that somebody was low risk, because it turned out that they hadn’t picked up the last page off the photocopier and they had somebody of a very recent arrest, it is timely—past time—that we digitise that process and get all the information in one place, and that is work, absolutely, to be commended.

I am interested also around what’s happened with the Government’s work on the sexual violence legislation, which was announced in July 2019. I’ve had a very keen interest in this piece of legislation, because the need for it was clearly identified in 2009. We know that our courts, at the moment, are actively causing harm to victims of sexual violence. It is harm where people describe this as worse than the rape itself, and that we have legislation that could go a long way—not all the way by any means—to fixing that, and I do not understand why that has not been brought back into the House and passed into law. I would love to hear that that will be coming into the House very soon.

I’m also interested to hear how the second stage of that work that was agreed by Cabinet in July 2019 around looking at introducing more tikanga-based processes, non-adversarial processes, into the court process—more investigating how we can introduce alternative processes outside of the court, as well as changing of the definition of consent—where that work is up to and when we can see that work coming to fruition. And acknowledging the connection to this around the Law Commission’s most recent work around the Evidence Act and the recommended changes to the family violence reforms—recognising the same trauma is happening in the courts for many of our victims of family violence. So I’m hoping that the Minister will be able to give me some reassurance that we’re making some progress.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Mr Chair, thank you very much. Just to the Sexual Violence Legislation Bill that the member has mentioned, it is still our intent to progress that as fast as we can. We’ve actually been having some discussions with her colleague about making sure we can make it as good a piece of law as we possibly can, and hopefully we’ll be able to deal with that issue there as well. I also think I’m contractually bound to mention that the legal fraternity—well, certainly the defence lawyer fraternity—has had some issues with that bill. I raised those at the Criminal Bar Association of New Zealand conference about a month and a half ago, and reiterated our principal position as to why we didn’t agree with their opposition to aspects of the bill. And I think that was a relatively respectful conversation that we had.

In terms of some of the alternative methods of being able to offer or process justice in the community—just realised I’ve got my mask on again. Sorry, Mr Chair. I think, for some years, actually, to be fair, and more recently with some more momentum, the setting up of alternative courts is looking like it’s really a way of the future. And I would like to pay homage to the judiciary, who are playing a leadership role in that as well. The member will know, because of where she’s from, that there is a pilot at the Porirua District Court around a youth list court, which I have attended a session of earlier this year. And the way that that operates and allows those people who are going through the court process, but also who may be taking someone or have been a victim during that court process, is much more grassroots and allows people to understand what they’re going through.

The procedures within the court, which can be foreign to most people in New Zealand, unless they’re there on a regular occurrence—and the aim of those courts is to ensure that people aren’t there on a regular occurrence. And instead of just being purely punitive, to also find alternative ways to make sure that they can get people back on the straight and narrow. The one example that I saw at the Porirua District Court really enthused me about what could happen when the court is made as understandable as possible. And I want to take my hat off to the judiciary who are leading it in many ways, as well as the Chief District Court Judge around Te Ao Mārama. I think it’s a great initiative that we have to try and put our best foot forward to try and find a way to support it.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It’s good to be back in the justice realm. I have a couple of questions for the Minister; the first is in relation to three strikes law. Is it still Government policy to repeal the three strikes legislation and, if so, how’s that tracking? Can we foresee a bill in the House at some point in the next year or so? That’s the first question.

The second is in relation to the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill, which colleagues have already raised, and that’s whether or not he is considering any further amendments to the bill, outside of what has been part of the select committee process when the bill comes back to the House and, if so, what are they?

Then the third question is in relation to alcohol law reform. I note—from looking at the members’ bills in the biscuit tin—there are, I think, now four pieces of legislation or four bills in the ballot that deal with various aspects of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012. One is to do with cellar doors and issues there; one is to do with restaurant off-licences—that’s my bill; one is to do with racing festivals over the New Year period—that was drafted by me but it’s actually in Ian McKelvie’s name; and I think his colleague Kieran McAnulty has a bill around Anzac day and Easter sales and things like that. So he’s previously said to me, as Minister, that he’s intending to review the Act. Is that part of the work programme for justice in the next year, and, if it’s not going to be a part of a wider review of the Act, is there potential for Government to pick up some of the very sensible suggestions that are in the members’ ballot around small but sensible changes to alcohol law?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): To the member’s first question: yes, and it’s going well. You may have noticed that at that Criminal Bar Association conference about six weeks ago I mentioned that we were hoping to bring in some legislation soon. That has obviously been affected a little bit by the House, but hopefully that can be done soon.

To answer his third question, yes, a review of the alcohol laws is planned for this term, so some of the issues that he has traversed with a number of the members’ bills that he has authored in the last term may get dealt with in that respect. The member will know the last time that piece of legislation was substantially amended, it was somewhat of a conundrum or a vortex of amendments, also. So we understand how much of a challenge it is in this place to amend those laws, but we fundamentally understand some of the concerns in the community around the harm that alcohol is causing as well, which don’t necessarily go to issues that are raised in the members’ bills that he has mentioned.

In terms of the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill, I believe that the select committee is going to be reporting back on that later this week. There are some issues that may have arisen out of the event on Friday that may be looked at in terms of amendments to the bill, but no decisions have been made on that yet.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. Before I go into the questioning, I would just like to give the Minister the opportunity to clarify that the sexual violence legislation wasn’t held up because of what I have to describe as hyperbolic and wildly inaccurate concerns raised by the defence, in contrast to two Law Commission reports; a pile of academic research, including in-court experience analysis; and decades of work. I really do hope that is not what the Minister said, particularly when the legislation is bringing in the broadening of the access to communications assistance that the Minister was talking about so positively. But I will get on to my next point, which was about the system and concerns around Māori being disproportionately targeted, and our evidence—though, actually, no, I will sit down and let the Minister respond, because he seems very keen. I’ll get to mine next.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): No, that wasn’t the intent of the comment. I will draw the member Jan Logie to the other half of the comment, where I said that we are working to make the bill the best it possibly could be. Ha, ha!

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, and I will go back to the Minister and just point to the very, very solid research base that went into that paper or went into the legislation as it was. But to my point around Māori being disproportionately targeted in the justice system, knowing that that’s at every step—they’re more likely to be spoken to by police and arrested, to be charged and convicted, then imprisoned at disproportionate rates for similar behaviour that Pākehā may engage in—Māori make up, as a result of that, 50 percent of our prison population, and wāhine Māori are now the most imprisoned indigenous women in the world. We know that this has huge repercussions for whānau and our entire communities, causing intergenerational harm. So I’m really interested to hear how the Government will be supporting Māori-led justice solutions and how these solutions will be resourced.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): A recent victims of crime survey also found that Māori are disproportionately likely to be victims of crime, as well. So it’s not just in the offending where there is overrepresentation; there is also overrepresentation in terms of victimisation.

I think it’s fair to say that off the back of the Hāpaitia conference last year in Porirua it was clear that there needed to be a circuit-breaker, and I’d like to acknowledge the work of my predecessor, the Hon Andrew Little, in that respect. I think it’s shown in some of the ways that we are working with groups, now, around the likes of criminal justice reform, where we know we really have to find solutions that are targeted for Māori to assist Māori to take some ownership of not just the reformation around being offenders in the court system but also having systems that ensure education, housing, other factors that go into a young Māori person’s life don’t point them towards a life that will find them in a courtroom. I think this is borne out by the relationship that we have with the likes of the Iwi Chairs Forum that we meet with on a regular basis. We want to see their lens across any policy, making sure that they understand and we understand their perspective, to make sure that there is that circuit-breaker for that decades-long overrepresentation around offending and, also, victimisation.

I guess it’s also reflected in some of the not necessarily Government-led but judiciary-led ways of working. Again, I would like to point out Te Ao Mārama, which is in its infancy, but also working with the likes of iwi to understand different ways of justice within communities where there is a focus on making sure that young Māori aren’t repeat offenders and are not repeat people within the justice system and coming back to courtrooms. I think the judiciary itself has noticed that there’s an issue and has taken a leadership role in that sense, and I would like to thank them for doing that.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. I do note the irony of the Minister lauding the iwi leaders forum. Various members of his political party have spent much of the nine years prior to the Government coming to office slamming the iwi chairs, but I do welcome his endorsement of them.

A couple of questions, following on from what he’s just said. Firstly, in relation to hate speech legislation, I do feel a little bit sorry for the Minister in terms of having to have passage of this. Where is that at? Because things seem to have gone suspiciously quiet in relation to it, since the big announcement two or three months ago now. So is it still the Government’s intention to proceed with legislation in relation to banning hate speech, or at least amending the existing law we have relating to hate speech, and, if so, what is the process and the time line in relation to that?

Secondly, just while I’m on my feet, a question in relation to alcohol and other drug treatment courts—completely separate from hate speech. One of the things that I think there is universal agreement in the House over is different treatment pathways for people with addictions. And as someone who has been to see one of the existing courts in Auckland—actually, alongside the now Prime Minister, when she was a member of the Justice Committee, four or five years ago, something that we were all impressed by, across the select committee, all parties on the committee. And I think there will be universal support across the Parliament for the expansion of alcohol and other drug treatment courts. In particular, can I put in a plug, Minister, for expanding something into the Wellington region or the Hutt Valley region, where meth is a real problem and where we could really do with some alternative pathways to deal with people with serious drug addictions like meth?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Sorry, again, in terms of hate speech, I believe that submissions have recently closed or are about to close on the discussion document for the hate speech proposals. The Ministry of Justice, I believe, is assessing those submissions as we speak. I understand there has been plenty of contributions from the public around that. So we’ll take a look at that information around the submissions and progress, as it is the policy of the party, that legislation.

In terms of alcohol and other drug treatment courts, I think you’ll probably have universal agreement around the effectiveness of them. I think maybe two or three months ago we were at the launch of the alcohol and other drug treatment court in Waikato. Resourcing allowing, we’d love to be able to roll them out in other areas, and I’m sure there’ll be a number of people in this Parliament interested in making sure that there were such resources available in the capital city.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker—just interested in terms of following up on the reform work that started last term, and acknowledging the Minister in the chair, Kris Faafoi, making the link to that as the pathway forward. Just taking off from the quote from the previous Minister in acknowledging that the old ways in terms of justice have failed us, that they’ve resulted in too little rehabilitation and therefore more crime while not doing enough to support victims. The Green Party would be really interested to hear from the Minister and whether the Minister will commit to law change with a focus on the Sentencing and Parole Acts that allows for alternatives to prison, using evidence-based alternatives to prevent recidivism, rehabilitate and reintegrate offenders far more successfully than our current system does.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): I’d more than welcome an opportunity to sit down with the Green Party to discuss such alternative methods around sentencing. I think I’ll reiterate the point that I made earlier: there does need to be a circuit breaker around the overrepresentation of some communities both in offending and victimisation. I think we’re slowly getting there. I fear that it will be, again, a political football, but speaking quite personally as someone who has either had family members or people he’s grown up with find themselves on the wrong side of the law, I think it’s high time that this place found the sweet spot that made available alternative methods and also other ways to make sure that drivers of crime are dealt with so we don’t see our courtrooms log-jammed with people, and we also see New Zealanders live the best and fullest possible life. I think for many generations that hasn’t been possible because of some of the raruraru that happens in this place, and I would like to see us move beyond that. Quite genuinely, I think, certainly at the Criminal Bar Association Conference earlier, I think, last month, there was a vein of that come through as well. So I think it’s not just politics. I think people have seen that there’s an opportunity here to deal with these issues.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I guess I’d just ask the Minister if he’d like to take the opportunity to connect that to the work—the connection between his work and the work that Minister Marama Davidson is doing around reforming the system in relation to family and sexual violence. Acknowledging that traditionally we’ve had a justice-based response to family and sexual violence, which has left things to the really last minute, until things have gone horribly wrong, before we’ve stepped in as a Government, and has also just created—like, that the system being adversarial is not acknowledging that those crimes are deeply relational, which provides a barrier for people reporting and people being sent to prison, while being protective in certain cases, actually can just amp things up and can be a disincentive in other cases. So I’m really interested in that talk to that broader work and the role of Justice in the work that Marama Davidson is doing.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Can I also acknowledge the work that that member, Jan Logie, did as under-secretary for that issue in the last term of Parliament. Having been a participant in many of the meetings that Minister Davidson has had around that project, I agree. I think what I have found welcoming and also positive, as that member will know, is the multiple agencies that are involved in that project. Again, I think to discuss and have options and remedies available for people in these situations, because they often start out as one thing and then turn into another—I think the best example that, I think, both of us would agree with is making sure that people have a good and safe home available to them, and making sure the likes of Kāinga Ora are part of those situations. Also, the likes of Corrections to make sure that if someone from a family is leaving a Corrections facility, they have somewhere safe to live, as well, to decrease the stress of reintegrating back into the community.

So, again, I acknowledge the work that Minister Davidson is doing. I think it is complex and complicated work, and I think she’s very soon getting to a point where that is going to become a real game-changer for some of those families. So I acknowledge the work that has been done to this point.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. My question to the Minister is in relation to the Te Korowai report, which examined family justice reforms. One of the key recommendations in that report-back from 2014 was in relation to child wellbeing. So my question to you is: how is the Government working to improve the experience of children and families as they go through the New Zealand justice system?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Look, I think one of the things that I’d really like to highlight is that a number of—well, most—people who are going through the Family Court process find the whole experience absolutely foreign. So they’ve got a high-stress situation within their family and then they get thrown into a courtroom situation where you’ve got legal speak and it can move at a pace where some people don’t necessarily understand what is going on right in front of them. And I’d like to thank the Minister of Finance for the funding that he has given in recent Budgets for the likes of Family Court navigators to help marshal people through, and those families through, and understand what the process is, and to make it as efficient and effective for those families as possible. This service is relatively new. I think, if I recall correctly, some of these navigators have only recently been appointed but will make a rather large difference to the Family Court process, which has deteriorated since the changes that were made in 2014. But the report that my colleague mentioned, Te Korowai, highlighted ways and recommendations in which we can make that process more effective for those going through that process. And, to date, we’ve been able to respond to some of those recommendations, and we hope to be able to do that more fully over time.

CHAIRPERSON (Rt Hon Trevor Mallard): The question is that the Votes contained in the Estimates of Appropriations for 2021-22 stand part of the Schedules.

Motion agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 10 and Schedules 1 to 5 agreed to.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Rt Hon Trevor Mallard): I report the Appropriation (2021/22 Estimates) Bill without amendment.

SPEAKER: The question is that the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

SPEAKER: In accordance with a determination of the Business Committee, the Appropriation (2021/22 Estimates) Bill is set down for third reading presently.

Bills

Imprest Supply (Second for 2021/22) Bill

Introduction

SPEAKER: I understand it is the Government’s intention to introduce an imprest supply bill.

CLERK: Imprest Supply (Second for 2021/22) Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: The bill is set down for first reading forthwith.

First Reading

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I move, That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2021/22) Bill be now read a first time.

SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

That the

Ayes 77

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question,Imprest Supply (Second for 2021/22) Bill be now read a first time.

Bill read a first time.

Bills

Appropriation (2021/22 Estimates) Bill

Third Reading

Bills

Imprest Supply (Second for 2021/22) Bill

Second Reading

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I move, That the Appropriation (2021/22 Estimates) Bill be now read a third time and that the Imprest Supply (Second for 2021/22) Bill be now read a second time.

It always surprises me when this current Opposition decide to vote against making sure the Government’s got enough money to pay for all of the things that they ask for every single day in this House, and then they come down here and they vote against actually having the money to do the things—to pay the nurses, to pay the doctors, and to make sure Mr Bishop’s got all of those people who he constantly encourages to get out there and do the vaccinations. Then, they come down to the House and say, “No, no, we’re not going to vote for that.”

Today, I am immensely proud to be in this House with the Appropriation (2021/22 Estimates) Bill at its third reading. What that is, for those who follow along at home, is, essentially, the initiatives in the Budget that we presented in May. I want to start this part of my speech by acknowledging the very hard work done by select committees to take the Estimates process through, to analyse the spending that the Government has in place, and then to make their reports back to this House and, indeed, to members of this House, and while I was less than charitable at the beginning of my speech, I can be more charitable now and thank the Opposition for the agreement at the Business Committee to undertake the process that we are now undertaking here in the House today, and to assure members who feel that they might have missed out on the committee of the whole House process that the Business Committee has agreed that that time will come again a little later in the year for those who haven’t had the opportunity to have input.

The bill in front of us today puts in place a Budget that focuses very tightly on the Government’s three priorities. They are the recovery of New Zealand from COVID-19 and building on that, they are making sure that we continue to reduce inequality, they are making sure that we get on top of a housing crisis that we inherited, and, fundamentally, they make the first and very important steps in what will come in the next few Budgets around the area of climate change.

In the interests of time, obviously, I can’t run through every single initiative in the Budget, but one thing I want to indicate is the importance that I put on the fact that this is a Budget that has increased main benefits by the greatest amount in a generation. This is a very much overdue initiative. It’s one that the Government is very proud to have put in place, and we did so knowing that we needed to make a difference quickly, so we brought forward part of that benefit increase to 1 July, and then we have got the remainder of it coming in, as would normally be the case, on 1 April. This will make a demonstrable difference in the lives of hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders and, as I say, it is not before time. We are very well aware that there are further recommendations from the Welfare Expert Advisory Group that we will continue to work through over time, but this does represent a very significant and important shift in giving some dignity and respect to those of our lowest-income earners.

Another very important part of this bill in terms of the response to and the recovery from COVID-19 is the significant investment in the area of infrastructure. That totals across the Budget period a $57.3 billion programme. That covers everything from our transport budget through to health, through to what we do in our schools, in our hospitals, and in making sure that we actually have a long-term plan and pipeline of work for infrastructure. This has been asked for time and time again by both the industry that does that work for us and the sectors in which we will spend it. It is a significant investment in certainty, but it’s also a significant investment in the productivity of New Zealand, and it is a very important element within this Budget.

As you would expect, there is a significant focus on the area of health. Not only is that important in terms of what we do for the COVID-19 response but also to make sure that we invest in the significant change programme that the Government has in the health sector, and it keeps the health system running. The total expenditure on health in this next financial year is some 45 percent higher than what was spent by the National Government in its last year in office, and it is a continuation of this Government’s commitment to making sure that we look after New Zealanders, their health, and their wellbeing.

As I also mentioned, climate change is an important element, and within this Budget we have quadrupled the amount of funding available for New Zealand Green Investment Finance Ltd (NZGIF). That is around $300 million extra to do what I believe is a vitally important role, and that is not only to recognise the obligations we have around climate change but also to look to the opportunities that exist for New Zealanders to be able to develop technologies that will help us reduce our emissions, and that is the role of NZGIF—that’s what they do. They crowd and private sector finance and they help make that happen, and that is a very significant part of this Budget.

As I said, there are many, many other elements of it that I don’t have time to go into today. But what the Budget also speaks to is the fact that the New Zealand economy has recovered extraordinarily well from the shock of COVID-19, to the point that we find ourselves in a position where net debt is significantly lower than where it had been forecast to be in both Budget 2020 and also—as we see from the Crown accounts to the end of the month of May—in Budget 2021 as well. We have seen an economy that has unemployment falling to 4 percent and also has growth back to where it was, going into COVID-19. This is a sign of the hard work done by New Zealanders over the last year, and there are many initiatives in the Budget that continue to support this work.

What we do know is that any Government operating in the COVID-19 era needs to be nimble and flexible, and as we put this Budget together, we were aware that there were risks that there could be a further outbreak of COVID-19. The COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund that we’ve created is a notional fund to guide our expenditure in response and recovery, hence some $5 billion remaining in it at the point at which the Budget was put forward. Obviously, since that time, we have now seen the outbreak of COVID-19, and so that money will be well utilised, as will some money that had already been allocated but had not actually been used, and, together, that money is helping support us as we support New Zealanders through initiatives such as the wage subsidy scheme and the resurgence support payment.

In the time remaining, I do want to talk about the second imprest supply bill that is in front of us today, and I know that Mr Woodhouse—given that we’ve now gone through this at the select committee, in the committee stage here in the House, and in questions, there is still more energy and hunger among the community of New Zealand to talk about the technical aspects of the Public Finance Act. So, as with every Government since 1989, when the Public Finance Act first came into force, there is now a second imprest supply bill. That imprest supply bill covers off for the Government the authority for expenditure that is required up until the Supplementary Estimates are put in place, which usually happens with the Budget next year.

For the benefit of everybody else, obviously the Estimates that we’re passing today are the Government’s expectation for what it would spend, but there is also another eight months to go in the financial year. So, therefore, it is important that we have the authority to be able to spend, as indeed all Governments have had in the past.

That second imprest supply bill includes around $24 billion worth of authority of expenses, $15 billion of capital expenditure, and a proposed $2 billion capital injection authority. This is an envelope of funding. It is not a target. In the past two years, we have seen the imprest supply drawn down to the tune of around 36 percent of the authority last year—in the 2020-21 year—and 63 percent of the authority in the 2019-20 year.

So can I just reiterate that for the benefit of members: this is an authority. It is an envelope of funding. It ensures that if unforeseen circumstances occur, the Government has the authority to spend. That money then has to be appropriated by Parliament. Just as the first imprest supply bill ends today, the second imprest supply bill ends when we pass the Supplementary Estimates. Members of Parliament have the opportunity through the financial review process and through the process of next year’s Estimates to be able to analyse the initiatives that would be funded from this.

But, to confirm and to conclude, in the last two years, 36 percent and 63 percent of the authority has been spent. This ensures that the Government has money on hand to deal with the unexpected circumstances. Yes, that will include responding to COVID-19. It also includes tagged contingencies and general between-Budget contingencies. It also includes the demand-driven aspects of the Government’s support, such as through the social welfare system.

This is what every Government has done since 1989. Clearly, in COVID we are in unique circumstances, and the amount within the imprest supply bill is much higher, but this Government will continue to support New Zealanders through COVID-19 by providing them with the response and recovery that is required. I commend the bill to the House.

SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, here it is: this is the bottle of wine that I bet for anybody that we wouldn’t be here today debating an imprest supply bill that is an extraordinary sum of money.

Hon Grant Robertson: Every year since 1989.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: And this I’m going to keep, Minister. I’m not only going to keep this; I’m not gaining another one. You know why? Because no one, not a single person, took that bet—

Hon Grant Robertson: Because it’s been every year since 1989.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —because they knew—they knew—we would be here. Here we go. Right-o, so let’s examine that: “We’ve been here every year since 1989.”

Hon Grant Robertson: Two, and sometimes three.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well, I’ve had a look at the second imprest supply—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Can we just settle down a little bit. I know members are excited by having a bottle of wine in the House, but I think we can just settle down.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I’ve examined the second imprest supply Acts for the last 10 years, and the Minister is correct. We do have a process for ensuring that unexpected expenditure is able to be authorised by the Government, and, boy, we’ve had some unexpected expenditure. But what the Minister didn’t say was that that amount is usually between $7 billion and $9 billion in operating expenses (OPEX)—$7 billion, $7.5 billion, $8 billion, $9 billion, and then last year, it went to $36 billion of OPEX and $18 billion of capital expenditure. This year, it’s going to $24 billion of OPEX—

Hon Grant Robertson: It’s coming down.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —and $15 billion—“It’s coming down.”, he says. Well, that is one way to gild the lily, Minister, certainly, and I must stress—it is very important to stress—that we are in an environment where the Government does need the authority to respond quickly to COVID-related matters, and I stress: COVID-related.

Now, yesterday, the Minister—and I quote him—said this: “The system that we have for public accounting and scrutiny in New Zealand, defined by the Public Finance Act, is the very process we’re going through right now—one part of it.”, he said. “What happens is committees assess through the Estimates process and the financial review process where we are—that is how it works.” I was shaking my head, not because that was not true or that I disagreed with the Minister’s description of the process, but with the implication that the so-called COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund had actually been through that process, because the day we passed the Budget was actually the first day that we see the full extent of the spending out of that second imprest supply bill and out of the Supplementary Estimates of Appropriations. That was an authority, remember, that authorised the Government to spend $54 billion.

Now, I’m not sure exactly how much of that was spent. It’s impossible to tell from the processes that the Minister lauds. But he just said that—I think he said last year it was 36 percent of the operating expenditure, so that would equate to somewhere in the region of $8 billion or $9 billion in last year alone. Remember, a lot of the things that they announced, they announced for years forward. What’s not clear to me is whether, out of those announcements, they were actually in this Budget or whether they’re going to continue to be drawn down from the second imprest supply bill. So the idea that we’ve been able to scrutinise that spending because of the Supplementary Estimates, that we don’t see until it lands on the Table on Budget day, a 1024-page document that doesn’t get tabled until then—and without any transparency over what it was for or whether it was good value for money or whether it was COVID-related.

So it’s not the system that’s the issue here, as the Minister went on to say, but it’s the bypassing of the system to increase spending without that usual level of security. Yep, we’ve got to be spending on wage subsidies. We’ve got to be spending on business resurgence payments, on personal protective equipment, on vaccines, on testing, on the extra healthcare costs. But, actually, I think we need a better articulation of how much was spent last year, how much is going to be spent this year, and, frankly, they should have potentially appropriated that so that it is subject to those scrutinies and not subject to imprest supply. But billions of dollars—billions of dollars—has been spent through imprest supply on non - COVID-related things, bypassing those processes and landing up in Supplementary Estimates. That process, effectively, gives the Government carte blanche to spend a huge amount of taxpayer funds in the name of COVID. They’re using COVID to spend it on all sorts of things that by any objective measure are not COVID-related, and it’s difficult to tell whether it’s now, as I say, in the Estimates or will be next year when the Supplementary Estimates are tabled.

So we lack the transparency needed to make a determination about whether the spending constitutes good value for money, and it may well have been spent, but it doesn’t appear to have been spent on the plethora of infrastructure announcements that this Government has made. We’ve seen the Provincial Growth Fund, we’ve seen shovel-ready, we’ve seen the New Zealand Upgrade Programme; the only thing we haven’t seen is shovels in the ground, is roads being built, is bridges being built, is tunnels being built. About half of the announcements haven’t had anything happen to them, and so it’s impossible—the Minister and I had a tête-à-tête yesterday about the so-called $57.3 billion infrastructure spend that the Government intends to do over five years. Again, very little ability to be able to scrutinise those statements, to say where they are, when they’ll be built, and what progress has been made.

Now, I want to just turn to the issue of debt, because we are dramatically increasing core Crown debt, net debt as a percentage of GDP. The Minister quite rightly points out that we have plenty of wiggle room, but we are on a spending trajectory that I don’t believe this Government is prepared to turn off, and neither does Treasury. Treasury indicated earlier this year in a report that while current spending trends can be coped with, that trajectory is basically unsustainable and tough decisions will have to be made. In fact, tough decisions should be made all the time. We dip our hands into the pockets of taxpayers and we expect them to come up with the money for these projects, knowing that it will be future generations that have to pay it back. The Government talks about wellbeing. Well, wellbeing isn’t just about this generation; wellbeing is about the wellbeing of future generations, our children and our grandchildren, some of whom, that will be required to repay this debt, have not even been born yet. We need to think very carefully when we scrutinise spending about whether or not we are thinking about the wellbeing of future generations. I’m really disappointed that we haven’t been able to do that.

In this debate, and in the Estimates debate that we’ve had since Budget day, we have actually drilled into some very, very interesting spending decisions. I think about Vote Health, where it’s been made very clear by this Government that nearly half a billion dollars to restructure the health sector in the middle of a pandemic is the number one priority. I think we’ve highlighted the fact that that is a folly, but we’ve only been able to do it because we saw what the Government’s intentions were.

Far too much of the spending that we are being asked to scrutinise has not been included in the Estimates of Appropriations. That’s wrong. Maybe it could be legally right, but in these very, very unusual times, a higher level of transparency should be expected of a Government that is spending a huge amount of money—most of it appropriately. A really, really big part of it does not appear to me to be COVID-related, and they’re using COVID as a cover, a cover for spending on things that would not have passed muster had Treasury been able to look at those spending projections and give an assessment of value for money. That’s what Treasury told the Finance and Expenditure Committee after the Budget, that they are concerned about the value for money analysis because decisions are being made so fast. But, as I was talking about to the Minister of Justice, there are some appropriations out of that COVID fund that have been in the pipeline for seven years. It’s hardly urgent. It’s disappointing, it lacks transparency, and it leaves a legacy for our children and grandchildren that will be very, very hard to bear. This is not a good Budget.

BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Mālō e lelei, Mr Speaker. It’s good to be at the third reading of what is an important bill. For those at home, this bill, despite its fairly benign name, is the main bill that people will be talking about when we refer to the Budget. This bill seeks Parliament’s authority of individual appropriations—for example, Vote Police, Vote Health, Vote Education. For myself, this is the first Budget that I will be helping to contribute to as an MP, and for a long time, over a decade, I had been working in a different role, actually putting together budgets or helping interpret Budget appropriations for Government departments. So, at this time, I want to thank officials from the various Government departments from Treasury right through to Police, right through to Inland Revenue, right through to Justice for all the work that they’ve done putting together this appropriations bill.

But this bill isn’t the only bill in the system of public finance. We’ve had a number of debates today, and some questions yesterday from the Opposition, around the second imprest supply bill, of which we’re currently having its second reading. But this imprest supply bill was also introduced simultaneously with the third reading of this Appropriation Bill, and that is not unusual. To have more than one imprest supply bill is also quite normal. As the Minister of Finance said, every year since 1989 there have been two imprest supply bills, and in some years three, such as was seen in 2001, when the Government had to rescue our national carrier, Air New Zealand, and we have to thank for that capital injection for that third imprest supply bill the late Sir Michael Cullen, who was also really pivotal in the KiwiSaver policy, Working for Families, and interest-free student loans. So I just want to take this moment, given this is quite appropriate as an Appropriation Bill that the late Sir Michael Cullen had put that through, to acknowledge him and his family at this time—and alofa to you all.

It’s also going back to the point around the imprest supply second reading. It’s important to stress, like the Minister of Finance has said, this is a cap, not a target. Expenditure actually charged against imprest supply, in recent years, has been well below what was provided—so, for example, in 2021, $20 billion was actually charged of the $56.5 billion that was authorised, and, in 2019-20, $45 billion of the $69 billion was charged. This is consistent with the inclusion of a contingency buffer, and, as the Minister of Finance has stressed, this was because of COVID. Again, we can debate back and forth in this Chamber about the scrutiny, around the transparency, which the Minister of Finance has numerous times said is available publicly, but it comes down to a policy decision, and this side of the House decided that the wage subsidy and that pumping money into apprenticeships was incredibly important.

So now I go back to the third reading of this appropriations Estimates bill, which is now in its final stages here in Parliament. Budget 2021 is about securing our recovery from COVID-19. It lays out the foundations for coming out of COVID stronger by addressing some of those long-term challenges like housing, like climate change, while we continue to grow the economy. One of the areas that I’d like to touch upon around the Budget that actually had some impact within my electorate was Vote Education. So the decision was made to invest $266 million over four years for funding in the next phase of the National Education Growth Plan for school property. After having been in lockdown with a number of children across different years of schooling, I have a much, much greater appreciation of what it’s like for our teachers, and, in particular, it’s so important, the environment that the children are learning in. So I know the struggle is real, and I’d like to echo the comments of my colleague earlier today who said that, effectively, the struggle is real.

Cannons Creek School was one of the really great recipients of this additional money, so, in July this year, I was really fortunate to go with Minister Hipkins and announce $1.5 million to enable a new block to be built, replacing five classrooms in that school. Cannons Creek School is in the heart of Porirua East, and it’s also a decile 1 school. It is a school which has, despite the complexities of being in a low-decile area, a huge heart. So to be able to go there with the Minister of Education, the Hon Chris Hipkins, and to see the joy on those kids’ faces as the new classrooms were being craned in was a really good joy and one of those memories that I’ll hold on to as a new MP.

Other classrooms across the country are being built, as well. We’ve got four schools in Northland who are getting upgrades, and 10 schools across the Wellington region, which includes also Raumati School, which is another school within my particular area.

Another key part of this appropriations bill was the increases to benefits. The Minister for Social Development and Employment, Carmel Sepuloni, has a number of times talked about raising main benefits to lift more children out of poverty and to tackle the inequality, which also provided much-needed stimulus for our economy. When you raise benefit rates, the money comes back into the economy. It comes back into the areas where the particular beneficiaries are living. When we came into Government, we noticed a significant decline had occurred in front-line work within these Ministry of Social Development (MSD) offices. So part of this Budget also includes funding for 263 new front-line staff back in Budget 2019, and then $150 million in Budget 2020, and now an additional $99 million in Budget 2021 to improve the employment services and products, and also a further $86 million in this Budget to sustain the MSD staff to deliver the income and case management services for their clients.

The last particular for me—which, as a new MP, was probably my Budget highlight—is the launching of the Housing Acceleration Fund. This was to tip the balance in favour of first-home buyers and speed up the pace and scale of house building. One of the biggest issues we have in Porirua is our infrastructure under the ground. In order to build more housing, we have to absolutely strengthen the infrastructure underneath. So we were really fortunate that in July this year, Eastern Porirua was the first to reap the benefit of that Government Housing Acceleration Fund. I’m really grateful to the Minister Megan Woods for $136 million to unlock capacity for an additional 2,000 homes. This funding goes to the replacement of water infrastructure to service existing and future homes and address long-term degradation to our harbour, Te Awarua-o-Porirua. It also goes to addressing land remediation and development work around Cannons Creek—again, a low-decile area—and, together with the water infrastructure, will help the capacity for the additional 2,000 homes but also some of the work around Bothamley Park, which is one of our parks towards Porirua East. So that particular housing acceleration fund wouldn’t have gone ahead without the working together of both our local council, Porirua City Council, our local iwi, Ngāti Toa iwi, and central government, and so I thank our mayor, Anita Baker. I also thank the CEO of Ngāti Toa iwi, who is Helmut Modlik, and the Minister, again, for working together to come together with a package in order to help the 2,000 homes being built.

I just want to be able to reiterate my points around the beginning of this speech. I’ve been involved with a number of Budgets over a decade of public service. Imprest supply bills are not unusual. Sometimes there are three, and we’ve seen why we’ve needed to have three. We can debate in the House around the amount that is in the second imprest supply bill—we can debate that right through to the next term. However, this Government has made the call that to support our small businesses, to support our businesses, to support our employers, and to be able to support the over 12,000 food packages that have gone out just in this lockdown alone through Pasifika Futures, that money in the imprest supply bill is incredibly important.

So I’d like to thank the Minister, again, for being able to make those calls. Yes, we can debate the amount, but the actual fact around the imprest supply bill No 2 being unusual is just wrong. It’s not unusual; we have had second imprest supply bills. So I’d like to thank the Minister, and I thank the Speaker for the call.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Mr Speaker. So, for those who are watching this debate on the Appropriation (2021/22 Estimates) Bill and the second imprest supply bill, yes, this is about money, it’s about Budget, and it’s about priorities. It’s about the Government’s priorities, and, unfortunately, what the current lockdown has clearly shown is how woefully unprepared the Government has been. With low rates of vaccination, its own advisers saying lockdowns were inevitable makes the situation worse, and it makes it even worse that this Government hasn’t prioritised the preparation and the avoidance of such lockdowns. Even three days ago, the Minister for Social Development and Employment has said on Māori TV that the Government wasn’t ready for this outbreak.

It begs the question: why? So when we talk about budget, we talk about priorities, and preparation for this outbreak clearly has not been a priority. So the question is: why hasn’t the Government prepared for this lockdown? If you look at the Budget, where is the contingency funding? Why are we here today with this second imprest supply bill—$24 billion? If you look at each Government department that’s allocated funds and has bid in an intensive and competitive Budget process, whether it’s health, education, or social development—oh, that’s right, because the top priority for health is to restructure or get rid of the DHBs. The top priority in education is to get rid of the polytechnics and the industry training organisations. Barbara Edmonds, the member before me, talked about significant investments in this Budget for school property. Well, it’s all very well, but there’s no point if the kids physically can’t get to school because of yet another lockdown.

In terms of the top priority in social development, yes, this Budget increased benefits. What about lockdowns and the reality that more and more people end up going on to benefit because they lose their jobs and, under this Government, they’re staying there for longer? The Budget is about priorities. With such low rates of vaccination and New Zealand coming last, or perhaps now second to last, in the world, the Government should have been preparing for this crisis in this so-called year of the vaccine.

So where is the vaccine and the all-of-Government plan to vaccinate, vaccinate, vaccinate reflected in the Budget? Well, you’d have to dig pretty deeply to see where. So we heard from Minister Sepuloni only a week ago that the Ministry of Social Development had no brief to support the 350,000 New Zealanders receiving a benefit and those who are receiving a pension to get vaccinated, many of the very New Zealanders that we know have the highest risks of COVID—older New Zealanders, those with health conditions and disabilities. But no plan.

We heard from Minister Henare that advice from Te Puni Kōkiri, or, actually, a recommendation from them saying there is funding that is available—the recommendation that Whānau Ora commissioning agencies are at the table to help get more of the Māori and Pasifika populations vaccinated. But, no, the Minister turned it down, and, instead, what is there? No plan.

The Government were forewarned, and, unfortunately, what we’ve seen yet again—he announced funding last week, I think, $40 million. So, my colleague Michael Woodhouse, that’ll be part of the $24 billion in the second imprest supply—$40 million to Whānau Ora. Now, I don’t disagree with money going to Whānau Ora providers, but it would have been better to have spent it in March and to have got higher proportions of our population vaccinated so we wouldn’t be spending money on hardship at the bottom of the cliff when it’s too late, yet again.

So if we look at the levers that the Government has to have increased vaccination rates earlier this year in the “Year of the Vaccine”, they haven’t taken it. So, looking at the Budget, where was the all-of-Government plan ahead of this lockdown? So the advisers had said, “With low rates of vaccination, with Delta on the horizon, we expect it will come to New Zealand. That’s likely to mean more lockdowns.” You might ask, “So how was everyone prepared for that?”—how was everyone prepared for that? As we know, significant hardship for those in Auckland who are still at level 4; for those outside Auckland, it’s still pretty tough. So the team of 5 million is paying for the fact that the Government has not prepared.

So the Minister of Finance talked about the Budget priority being securing our recovery. Well, for a third of New Zealand’s population, they’re in the midst of a COVID level 4 lockdown; there ain’t no sign of recovery any time soon, and for many businesses, households, and communities, we’re going backwards fast. We’re definitely not going forward, we’re definitely not securing our recovery, so it makes a bit of a mockery of the title of this Budget. What happened? What happened is the Labour Government became complacent—quite happy to crow internationally that New Zealand had this beaten and, unfortunately, started to use the $50 billion COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund to spend that money on all sorts of projects. Many of them—far too many of them—had zero to do with COVID. So here we are, and, as my colleague has quite rightly said—he predicted it—no one was willing to accept the bet that the Government would be asking the Parliament for more money: another $24 billion. I put that down to a lack of preparation, a lack of planning, and a lack of vaccination. It’s quite simple. It is not rocket science why we are here and why there’s another $24 billion that this Government is asking New Zealand taxpayers to get from their pockets, at a time that they’re already struggling.

So I’ve got a couple of requests. One is a letter that I’ve sent to the Minister of Finance and the Minister for Social Development and Employment to say the wage subsidy is an important investment. Why they only allocated $500 million in the imprest supply is a bit of a joke—$500 million didn’t even cover a week of the wage subsidy. The Minister of Finance changed the rules in December 2020, but, by the way, didn’t bother to tell anyone about the new rules. So, when they came into effect, when this lockdown occurred, hundreds of businesses got caught out, and then at the close-off of the system—oh, they closed it early. So with the deadline of 11.59, then three hours before, people who wanted to apply for the wage subsidy couldn’t, and so I’ve written to the Minister to request a two-week extension to ensure that businesses get paid and workers get paid. So I call on the Government to honour those applications and ensure New Zealanders who are playing their part get paid.

Jobseeker: two weeks in and we’re seeing 5,000 more people on the jobseeker benefit. So, yes, the Minister of Finance might say demand-driven parts of the Budget are provided for, but guess what! When you come back for an imprest supply bill of the scale of $24 billion, it’s because you know that demand has already gone through the roof and, unfortunately, the human cost of that is high. We’re also seeing the human cost of hardship very high right now. And the organisations who are supporting New Zealanders in tough times do an amazing job, but the reality is we are already seeing hardship grants for food having doubled, grants increased by 50 percent in one week from nearly 28,000 to over 41,000 during this recent Delta outbreak, and that’s before we see organisations like the Salvation Army have an 84 percent increase of emergency food parcels in the first week of lockdown.

The year 2021 was meant to be the year of the vaccine, so Budget is about priorities. We were expecting that this year would have been the year of the vaccine, but here we are, in September, in another level 4 lockdown, and the Government has finally figured out they didn’t do what they needed to do to get more people vaccinated, and they haven’t done what they needed to do to prepare at the very front line—whether it’s schools, or whether it’s businesses. It was 10 o’clock last night before mask requirements were clarified for businesses that hoped to open this morning and for students going back to school. Now, that is a disgrace. The Government should have been planning in advance. The questions remain: why was the Government not ready for this lockdown, why was the Government so slow with vaccinations, and why did the Government not budget for this crisis? Those are the questions the Prime Minister should answer.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I know one is not permitted to use irony in this House, but I don’t think there’s any danger of that because we are really in an irony-free zone here, because what we hear from the Opposition, they’re either berating Government for too much expenditure or berating them for not spending enough. There has not been a speaker that has spoken in the last week and a half now who has not spent at least half of their time—Opposition speakers I’m talking about—berating Government for not spending more. One speaker even berating Government for not, basically, bribing Pfizer.

So those watching here will be rightfully scratching their heads. So what we really need to understand is what we are here to do today. I think it’s—my maths is not that good—three months ago in this House we passed the Budget. Now, the Budget was where the Minister of Finance stood and outlined the expenditure for the next year, essentially. That then required, like all expenditure by Government, to have a legal basis for that expenditure. I’m on the Finance and Expenditure Committee. We had the Minister of Finance come to our committee and explain what he intended for the expenditure. Various committees had various Ministers come in with their appropriations and talk about how they were going to spend the money.

Now, I can just, as I go through the bill, talk about this expenditure. Now, there’s two things you can do when an economy starts to change. One of them is you can stop spending. You need look no further than what happened in 1929 in the United States and the world when we had the Depression. Well, it was only a recession. It turned into a depression because everybody stopped spending money. It was only during the late 1930s—particularly in New Zealand—with the New Deal plan in the United States that we started spending money that, actually, living standards started to rise.

Now, I grew up on the West Coast of the South Island and we used to drive to Nelson. We’d drive through the Golden Downs forest. The Golden Downs forest was built with borrowed money by those who went back to work. I remember going through my uncle’s belongings when he died, and finding a little slip telling him to turn up there. Now, the generation that benefited from those forests weren’t that generation; it is the generation today where those forests are being harvested. That’s what this is about.

Now, we’re again hearing the Opposition talking about how the size of the spend in the Estimates bill, and I was lucky enough to speak in the general debate today. During that debate, I talked about how New Zealanders can be reassured, and I referred to what had happened up in Auckland last week and the fact that we had people on the ground there at the time that that offender offended means that the system was working. It meant that the ticks and balances were working, and—without repeating the speech—essentially, it showed that those at home can have faith that we have systems that work in this country.

The other thing we hear is those opposite talking about how terrible things are with COVID. It was only, I think, earlier this week I heard Mr—oh, I could call him “the honourable Michael Hosking” talk about how brilliantly they do things in Singapore and asking why we aren’t more like Singapore. Singapore are about to enter another lockdown. They have lost control.

Matt Doocey: Back to the bill.

GREG O’CONNOR: So at some stage just actually have a look—

SPEAKER: Order!

GREG O’CONNOR: —and have some faith in our system.

Matt Doocey: Oh, I was just helping you out.

SPEAKER: That’s my role.

GREG O’CONNOR: That’s why I bring this back—as, Mr Speaker, I know you’d be very keen for me to do—

SPEAKER: It can’t get any broader than a Budget bill.

GREG O’CONNOR: —to the imprest bill, and what people can do is ensure that we have the systems in place, so that when we make decisions and when we decide that we do need to spend, we’re not going to lock ourselves down. We’re not going to cancel the apprentices, as we did in 2008 during the global financial crisis, but we’re going to ensure that for this generation, this is actually an opportunity.

What I see here is the spending that we’re looking at through this—and this is spending that is actually an opportunity. Already we are seeing the results. We look at the unemployment rates, and how our unemployment rates, despite the predictions of where our unemployment would be at the onset of COVID—actually, I understand we are the third most employed people in the world. We’re way ahead of people we like to compare ourselves to: Australians, United States, Canada, etc. The OECD average is 6.6 percent, at a time we have 4 percent. Yes, the previous speaker talked about the inevitable increase in benefits over this time of this second lockdown. That is an inevitability. But it isn’t the expenditure we have; it’s the faith that we have in the systems that bring us here, and that is what this bill is about.

For those listening at home who will be confused, perhaps, by the plethora of terms being used, essentially, this is about making sure that the money that has been appropriated for running this country for the next year is done so. We, as the Finance and Expenditure Committee, represented by members of all parties here, have put the Minister, and various Ministers, through the scrutiny to make sure that the money is going to be spent correctly, in the way it should be. This bill is about ensuring that now there will be sufficient money for this country to do the right thing, to continue with its COVID recovery as soon as we are able to put this latest lockdown behind us, and to ensure that should there be another one, we’re in a position to handle it. So it gives me great pleasure to speak on this bill, and I commend it.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to take a call in this—what I’m just going to loosely call the Budget debate—third reading. The Green Party, as we supported it at the first reading, supported this Budget, and we still do. I think, when the Government announced the Budget, the headline was primarily around the increase to benefits, and considering we’ve dedicated a huge amount of our political effort over many decades to raising income support levels to enable every person in this country to be able to live a decent life, we would have been shooting ourselves in the foot if we had not supported this bill that does take a significant step towards increasing those baseline benefits. I’ll speak a little bit more to some of the qualifications to that support on that point a little bit later.

I also want to recognise, though, that the Budget invests over $2.1 billion in climate-related initiatives, including, quite significantly, $300 million to quadruple the size of the Green Investment Fund, to kick-start—so belatedly—low-carbon technologies, while we await with bated breath at the moment the Climate Change Commission’s recommendations—which we’ve received already, actually. We’re now awaiting the consultation around how we progress those recommendations as a country, and that work will guide the next round of climate action from the Government.

I do need to acknowledge at this point the sense of urgency and compounding anxiety that many people in our communities are feeling not just relating to the pandemic but relating to the climate change that is so much more visibly in front of us now, as we look at the floods that are happening in our country and around the world, when we’re watching entire towns being erased off the face of this earth with wildfires. It is a real sense that we need to act with as much urgency as we possibly can, and, for the Greens, a large reason for our presence in this House is to get us acting as quickly as we can, taking the actions that will matter for us to be able to provide a future for ourselves and our young people.

We’re not there with that action, and I want to point to the general debate speech of my colleague Julie Anne Genter today in relation to the announcement of the land transport fund. Disappointingly—and “disappointing” doesn’t feel like the right word when we’re talking about the significance of this—only 25 percent of that funding is actually going to climate-friendly transport initiatives. At a time when the world is literally burning around us, that more money is being put into new motorways that will just help and speed up the burning of our planet is, to say the least, a shocking thing, and I do hope that people will react and engage in the conversations we will be having over the next few months to urge for a turn-around and more urgent action, consistent with our duty to save the planet.

To speak back to some of the points around this Budget, and there’s been quite a bit of discussion around the Government’s fiscal responsibility, I do think it is fair to say in this Budget that the Government has been balancing a sense of “fiscal responsibility”—is the phrase that’s usually used—with responding to the absolute decay of a lot of our core public infrastructure and the need in our community. We’ve seen our nurses, who have been looking after us so, so incredibly well over the last decades, up against short staffing, people leaving—same with our midwives and many home-care workers—because their work hasn’t been being properly valued, and there aren’t enough people doing the work because of that. It’s a compounding situation. Government is using pay parity to address that. Pay parity is just, actually, removing acknowledged discrimination, and that will help, I hope, keep people in the sector, but it is not the core of the discussion in those negotiations.

It was deeply disappointing to hear from the Government their, I guess, commitment—well, not commitment; their direction—to suppress public sector wages earlier this year. That really seemed to fly in the face of the acknowledgment of the really difficult work our public servants have been doing, including our nurses and our border workers and all of those people in the background who are making the wage subsidy work, as well as everything else. That’s an indication of that sense of balancing and trying to be fiscally responsible.

We hear people talking about the high levels of debt, but, in actual fact, Labour went into the election saying they were comfortable with Crown debt rising briefly to about 50 percent of GDP, whereas Government debt levels in Aotearoa at the end of May were 31 percent of GDP. That was $6.9 billion lower than forecast, and the cost of borrowing at the moment is incredibly low. It’s a real opportunity to invest for the future. Comparing this to international debt from other countries—Australia’s level is close to 50 percent of GDP, the UK and the US close to 100 percent—there is quite a lot more room for the Government to be able to move to invest in those things that really matter for our communities.

It doesn’t have to be done through borrowing alone. The Greens had huge support at the election for our policy of a wealth tax, which would have affected 6 percent of people in this country, just asking them to pay 1 percent on the net wealth that they had over $1 million. That pool of funding would enable us to ensure that every single person in this country had a guaranteed minimum income that put them above the poverty line. We wouldn’t have had to have this massive effort every time we go into lockdown of scrambling around to get people food parcels, because people would actually have enough money themselves, within their whānau, to be able to make those decisions and be able to keep the roof over their head, and food on the table and their whare warm. That is just not the reality at the moment.

So much of our system is spent on making people go here and ask for help, and it was really—again, not to be down on the Government, but—disappointing to see the announcement around the increase in the student hardship fund as the answer to poverty being experienced by tertiary students around the country at the moment. I understand that that will reach about 15,000, at max, tertiary students, as opposed to, I think, the over 200,000 students that we have. They’ll be required to go through their university to be able to access that money, and I saw Auckland University apparently are asking people to provide two months of bank statements. From a student to their university, to be able to disclose that much detail of your life, of where you’ve been spending your money, to be able to get some support, when we could’ve just given and taken the money from those with more than they need, to those people to be able to make those decisions for themselves, to be able to have enough to go to the shop and pay for it themselves, without having to have an intermediary—to restore some dignity in our communities.

I really do hope, while we support the Government moving in the right direction—and I cannot imagine if the National Party had been in Government what a disaster things would have been for the last two years. But the Greens really also want to provide people with that vision about what if we looked up and thought about how we could do this better, how we could ensure that everybody had a sense of security for the future, that our environment and our climate were taken care of, and that everybody had enough to care for themselves and their whānau.

SPEAKER: Members, in accordance with determinations of the Business Committee, this debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 5.51 p.m.