Thursday, 9 September 2021

THURSDAY, 9 SEPTEMBER 2021

THURSDAY, 9 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.

New Zealand Paralympics Team

Congratulations

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): I seek leave to move a motion without notice to congratulate the members of our Paralympic team.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Mālō e lelei. I move, That this House congratulate the members of our inspiring Paralympic team on their outstanding achievement of winning 12 medals. I want to, on behalf of the Government, acknowledge all of the Paralympians who were members of the team competing in Tokyo, and congratulate them collectively on their achievements. Our team contained 18 new Paralympians. Their performance gives us enormous confidence for the future of para-sport. This truly has been a Paralympics that has captured hearts and minds of New Zealanders and provided countless hours of incredible and inspiring sporting moments, including six gold, three silver, and three bronze medals for the New Zealand team.

Among the achievements, it is hard to go past New Zealand’s greatest Paralympian, Sophie Pascoe. She once again showed the world what an absolute champion she is, winning two gold, a silver, and a bronze medal from her five events in the pool. She returned the biggest individual medal haul for the Paralympic team, and now sits on a career tally of 19. Sophie is a legend: a dedicated trainer, a tough competitor, a leader, and a mentor. She is truly one of our finest ever sportspeople.

I’d also like to congratulate Tupou Neiufi, the pride of South Auckland, for her breakthrough gold in the 100-metre backstroke S8, a first for New Zealand. Lisa Adams and Anna Grimaldi both set Paralympic records with their gold medals in shot put F37 and long jump T47 respectively, and Holly Robinson claimed a rather nerve-wracking gold in javelin F46 when she left it to her sixth and final throw to move from third to first and claim the title. Holly’s determination after getting silver in both London and Rio has been well rewarded. Holly’s coach, Raylene Bates, deserves enormous congratulations for her commitment to training para-athletes, and shares in the success of this team. Young track stars William Stedman and Danielle Aitchison also shone at these Paralympic Games, with William snaring silver in the long jump T36 and bronze in the 400 metres T36, and Danielle winning silver in the 200 metres T36 and bronze in the 100 metres T36. And, obviously, what a wonderful pedigree Danielle has.

Hon Grant Robertson: Oh, that’s Morrinsville.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yeah, thank you.

I’d also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge Paralympics New Zealand for all the fantastic work they do to support disabled athletes, in particular chief executive Fiona Allan and board chair Jana Rangooni. Thank you for your continuous efforts to make New Zealand a more inclusive and diverse place for those with disabilities. I’d also like to acknowledge the hard work of chef de mission Paula Tesoriero. I’d also like to praise the work of the team behind the team, who have done a phenomenal job of ensuring all our Paralympians not only were ready and able to perform at their peak but were able to travel and compete safely at the Paralympic Games. Given the disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the lead-up to these Paralympic Games has been incredibly challenging for all the athletes involved. This team have shown incredible determination and resilience to deliver such great performances, and their outstanding achievements are a great reward for the years of hard work and training they’ve put into their sport. The Paralympic Games in Tokyo had significant and operational safety challenges, and I’d like to commend Japan and the International Paralympic Committee for delivering an event of this magnitude despite the challenges of the global pandemic.

To the members of the New Zealand Paralympics team, I hope that you achieved and even exceeded your aims. Your friends, your family, and the rest of New Zealand are so proud of you, and were right behind you, cheering you on. Again, I offer, on behalf of the Government, our congratulations to all the members of the 2020 Paralympic team. They’ve made us extremely proud, and are an inspiration to all New Zealanders. Thank you for showing us that achievement is limitless, and can I say, personally, I am very much looking forward to welcoming you home, as much as I enjoyed farewelling you as you endeavoured to achieve greatness.

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

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’d like to join the Prime Minister in congratulating our Paralympians on behalf of all New Zealanders. At a time when good news is hard to come by, it’s great to see Kiwis performing so admirably on the world stage. New Zealand’s tally of 12 medals, six of them gold, at the Tokyo games again proves just how much we punch above our weight when it comes to world sport.

Of course, special recognition must go to Sophie Pascoe, our greatest ever Paralympian. With two golds, a silver, and a bronze in Tokyo, Sophie is one of this country’s greatest ever athletes. It’s testament to her pursuit of excellence that she was in tears after taking bronze in the 100-metre backstroke final. Such was her determination drive to be the best, third was below her own high standards. Rather than let disappointment hold her back, Sophie drew on it to push herself even harder and to win gold medals in the 100-metre freestyle and the 200-metre medley. Sharing in Sophie’s success and disappointment was a privilege for all New Zealanders. She did us all proud with her honesty and her desire to be the very best.

There are other great stories from the games. Lisa Adams, a member of the truly remarkable Adams family sporting dynasty, didn’t just win gold in the women’s shotput; she demolished her opponents with multiple world record throws. Anna Grimaldi also set a new world mark in winning the long jump, and Holly Robinson had us on the edge of our seats, winning gold with her sixth and final throw to take gold in the javelin. And, of course, we cannot forget Tupou Neiufi, winning New Zealand’s first gold of the games in the 100-metre backstroke.

It has been another memorable games for our incredible and inspiring Paralympians—these world-class athletes who have let nothing stand in the way of success. In many cases, they have overcome enormous hurdles to be the best, and have never let disability define them. These are our heroes, and we salute all who took part. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s my huge pleasure to rise on behalf of the Green Party and acknowledge the fabulous efforts of the Aotearoa Paralympians at the Tokyo Olympics, with a special shout out to Tonga for a great contribution to our team—mālō ‘aupito.

Firstly, I’d like to acknowledge all 29 athletes who made it, and those who didn’t make it because of difficulties qualifying in the midst of a global pandemic. Elite athletes seem to me like a bit of a breed apart from the rest of us, demonstrating such determination, sacrifice; just sheers guts, as well as that elusive thing called athletic prowess. They say, though, much of the success comes down to mental attitude, and I suspect that has been more true this year than in any other year, what with the delay, breaks in training, and a loss of audience and the usual supports. It was a small team with many—18, in fact—first-time athletes who are now well set up for the next Olympics. So congratulations to every one of them.

As a country stuck to our couches with our chippies and beers, we cheered them on, and they all made us so proud. To be honest, we would have liked to see more of them, and the Greens will advocate for better TV coverage for the next games. I want to acknowledge everyone, but I can’t go past a particular mention to Tupou Neiufi for our first medal, which was so unexpected—to us, at least—and the perfect gift to South Auckland at a time when there was so much bad news.

And, of course, the legend Sophie Pascoe, who left everything in the pool, and a bit more on the side. She brought home two golds, a silver, and bronze after almost pulling out just weeks before the games because she’d not been able to compete in an international competition for almost two years and it had been months since she had been in a serious competition. She said at one point she felt she had let us down. I want to say clearly in this House: Sophie, you did not let us down, you did us bloody proud.

Finally, I also want to acknowledge the words of Chef de Mission, Paula Tesoriero, describing the Paralympic village: “There are more people like me, no awkward stares, and most things are accessible. I wish the rest of the world could be like that. More social inclusion, greater accessibility.” So as the ultimate tribute to our athletes, let’s all take an action to make our country more inclusive, #lifeshouldn’tbeanOlympicstruggle.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT and in particular our sports spokesperson, Damien Smith, who couldn’t be here, being under lockdown in Auckland, to congratulate the New Zealand Paralympic team, including Fiona Allan, the CEO of Paralympic New Zealand; the Chef de Mission; and all the high-performance athletes who performed and their sponsors.

The Paralympics is actually called “Paralympics” because it runs in parallel to the Olympic Games, and the New Zealand teams have been competing in the Paralympics since 1968. Yet television coverage was virtually non-existent until Paul Holmes’ ground-breaking documentaries of the 1992 Barcelona and the 1996 Atlanta games. This team and event have changed the perception of New Zealand disabled athletes for ever.

Ben Lucas, the former Chef de Mission, summed it up perfectly about the Paralympic challenge when he said, “Sport gives people hope. It’s phenomenal to watch what people can do after the curve ball life has thrown at them. And life is different with a disability.” ACT admires the aspiration and uplifting dream to compete. These athletes harness the spirit of the Olympic movement in its purest sense: rising above the odds, super resilient, skilful, and demonstrating the New Zealand way. We’d like to thank Tokyo and Japan for a great and proud hosting. And here’s to Paris in 2024.

The New Zealand team ended the Tokyo Paralympics with six golds, and 12 medals in total. Special congratulations, of course, must go to New Zealand’s greatest Paralympian. Sophie Pascoe returned the biggest individual medal haul, bringing home four, or one in three, of all of the country’s medals—two golds, a silver, and a bronze from five events. She now sits on a career tally of 19. It was the athletics and swimming show for New Zealand, with all 12 of the Kiwi medals coming from those two sports in what was a fantastic return to the Tokyo Paralympics.

I want to especially acknowledge Sophie Pascoe for the 100-metre freestyle gold; Sophie Pascoe, again, for the 200-metre individual medley; Tupou Neiufi, 100-metre backstroke; Lisa Adams, shotput; Anna Grimaldi for long jump; and Holly Robinson for javelin—all returning gold medals.

I think the Paralympics, particularly in a time like this when our little country has faced a lot of bad news—perhaps one of the most beautiful and uplifting things that happen: they show what people can achieve when they put their mind to it. They show what an exceptional country New Zealand is, for its competitiveness and for its ability to get out there and make a difference, no matter who we are. With that, I’d like to conclude by giving ACT’s warmest congratulations to this triumphant 2020 Paralympic team. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Motion agreed to.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today the House will adjourn until Tuesday, 21 September. The nature of the sitting at that time will depend on the alert levels that apply to different parts of New Zealand and will be subject to discussions in the Business Committee. When the House resumes full consideration of legislation, priority will be given to bills that have to be enacted by a certain date, such as the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2021-22, GST, and Remedial Matters) Bill, which has to be passed by the end of March next year in order to validate the collection of tax in the current financial year. The Government does intend to pass the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill by the end of September.

Speaker’s Observations

Tongan Language Week—Prayer

SPEAKER: Just for members’ information, people will be aware that we’ve lacked a certain colour from this end of the Chamber during Tongan Language Week, and it is my intention, when the House is sitting in a more regular form, to ask colleagues with a good grip of the Tongan language to say the prayer in Tongan for a few days as a bit of make-up. Mālō ‘aupito.

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

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

SPEAKER: No papers have been presented. A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK: Petition of Conrad Petersen, requesting that the House initiate an inquiry into whether the IPCA is fit for purpose.

SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee.

Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK:

Report of the Education and Workforce Committee on the petition of Tami Harris

report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, Monetary Policy Statement, August 2021

reports of the Regulations Review Committee on seven COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) orders and amendments.

SPEAKER: The reports of the Regulations Review Committee are set down for consideration.

The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.

CLERK: Electricity Industry Amendment Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: That bill is 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, Mr Speaker. Yes. I especially stand by this Government’s work, alongside the Government of Spain, the European Union, and Pfizer, to secure over a quarter of a million additional vaccine doses, which are due to land in Auckland tomorrow morning. The welcome news means we continue pushing ahead in our vaccination roll-out that in recent weeks has seen record demand. This is just one more step we’re taking to ensure as many New Zealanders as possible can get vaccinated as soon as possible.

Hon Judith Collins: What impact does the Government expect the current COVID-19 outbreak to have on the forecast debt track?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Oh, of course, some of that will depend on the ongoing financial supports that are provided over the course of the outbreak, and some of that is dependent on how long we are in different alert levels. Whilst I have had briefings on those and have some of those figures in my mind, I would want to ensure that I was giving the correct assumptions alongside them. If the member chooses to put something on notice, I’m happy to answer those. What I would say, broadly speaking, though, is that because we have been tracking a lot more positively against some of the Treasury’s original forecasting, in many cases some of that debt tracking is actually sitting even beneath where some of those original forecasts were.

Hon Judith Collins: Does she then agree with Treasury that if spending trends continue, it will put Government debt on an unsustainable path; if so, what is her plan to achieve a sustainable debt path?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would want to see—as I have said, that doesn’t actually square with some of the more recent briefings I’ve seen that demonstrate that even with some of the response to the existing outbreak—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order!

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: None of that squares with the briefings I’ve seen from Treasury that say, even taking into account the response to the most recent outbreak, we’re actually sitting beneath some of their original forecasting around the impacts on debt of COVID-19 on the Government books. So I would want more context on the briefing the member has probably randomly plucked that statement from.

Hon Judith Collins: Can she rule out using further tax increases to get debt back on a sustainable path?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We’ve already been very clear on our expectations over the course of this term. No, we will not be increasing taxes. We didn’t campaign on doing that and we did that, of course, knowing the impacts of COVID-19 and our various preparations we would need for the response to COVID-19. What I would point out is that we have been in a good position to deal with this outbreak for the very purpose that we kept in reserve, in the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund, the ability to manage any further outbreaks, whereas I recall the member campaigning on spending that fund on roading.

Hon Grant Robertson: Can the Prime Minister confirm that not only is net core Crown debt in New Zealand tracking below budget forecasts but New Zealand’s level of net core Crown debt sits at one of the lowest in the OECD?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, I can, and, of course, that takes into account not only the starting point for New Zealand before going into COVID-19 but also the way that we’ve tracked relative to other OECD nations in the course of our response to COVID-19.

Hon Judith Collins: Does she intend to return Government spending as a percentage of the overall economy back to pre-pandemic levels, and if not, what is her long-term spending target?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’d note that not even that member’s finance spokespeople have promoted the idea of retaining debt levels at pre-pandemic levels. I don’t know that I’ve seen any member of her caucus, in fact, advocate for that.

Hon Judith Collins: Point of order. I was very clear asking the Prime Minister about her long-term spending target, not about the National Party’s.

SPEAKER: I think the Prime Minister could provide a fuller answer to the actual question.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Would the member mind repeating the question?

Hon Judith Collins: Does she intend to return Government spending as a percentage of the overall economy back to pre-pandemic levels; if not, what is her long-term spending target?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: What I will say is that we have been committed to keeping spending levels at a rate that is required in order to support our recovery from COVID-19, and that, of course, has meant that we have made decisions that, yes, have led us to take additional debt on, but at a rate that is far less than we’ve seen from some of our counterparts. We’ve made that commitment because those are the very investment decisions that are ensuring that we’re keeping people connected to work. It’s the very investment decisions that have allowed us to put in place the wage subsidy, the resurgence support scheme—all of those things that, in fact, will enable a quicker and speedier economic recovery. So I stand by all of that. As for the longer term, much of that will very much be determined by the ongoing impact of COVID-19.

Hon Judith Collins: So is the Prime Minister telling the House that there is no long-term spending target?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: What I’ve been saying is that we have been willing to make policy decisions based on the challenges that sit in front of us, and we have allowed ourselves some flexibility by keeping aside the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund, something that that member did not preserve herself. In fact, she already anticipated in her plans over the course of the election campaign to spend what would have been critical funding in the case of the kind of experience we’re having now, where that multibillion-dollar fund has been used to cover off things like the wage subsidy—a pot of money that would have been empty on her watch.

Hon Judith Collins: So how much of the $50 billion COVID fund, if any, has been spent to date on expanding capacity at our hospitals to manage a COVID outbreak?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’d be happy to give the member a breakdown, but my recollection of the last Budget investment included things like, for instance, training capacity to ensure that there was additional staffing, who, in the case that we had surge, would be able to provide ventilator support in high-dependency units, for instance. Of course, there’s the ongoing capital investment in our hospitals that is not just for surges but has the additional benefit of providing additional ICU capacity. There’s been a number of spending initiatives. If the member wishes to have a breakdown, I’d be happy to bring those to the House.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Minister of Finance: What steps, if any, will he take to ensure the Government’s economic response to the current COVID-19 outbreak does not increase house prices?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Mālō ‘aupito. The Government has already undertaken a number of measures that will lead to more sustainable house prices. The comprehensive package that we announced in March addressed both the supply and demand side drivers, including changes to discourage speculators as well as making sure that we tackle the various barriers on the supply side that have hindered the building of new homes. In addition, the Reserve Bank is proposing to tighten lending restrictions further, including to highly leveraged investors. We have also directed the Reserve Bank to take account of Government policy to support more sustainable house prices. We are seeing promising signs that these policies are having an effect, with record levels of building consents being issued and house price growth starting to slow. The housing crisis, however, has been decades in the making, and I acknowledge it will take time to turn, but we are starting to make a difference. We will continue to monitor and assess the impact of the outbreak, including on housing.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does he consider the Government’s current actions and plans sufficient when house prices increased 25 percent in the last year alone and CoreLogic have just released a report saying affordability is the worst it has ever recorded?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said in my primary answer, this housing crisis has been decades in the making, and annual price increases obviously still continue to have a fair chunk of the period of time before we made our announcement in March. What I would note is that on the rolling averages of the last three months, we are seeing that house price growth slow down.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: What weight is the Government putting on Treasury and Reserve Bank forecasts that house price growth will slow, and has that weight changed over the last few months, given house prices continue to rise well above those forecasts?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As has been traversed a number of times, including with the member’s colleagues around this matter, house price forecasting is a challenging area. What I would say is, along with Treasury and the Reserve Bank, most of New Zealand’s major banks are expecting a significant slowing in house price growth.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does he have a goal to make house prices affordable or is his focus on sustainability, a technical Reserve Bank definition that could mean sustainable and incredibly high house prices?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: There is a lot of debate about the definition of the word sustainable, but I can certainly say that my commitment and the Government’s commitment is to make house prices both sustainable and more affordable.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does he think that house prices would have to fall from the stratospheric levels they’ve reached in the past year in order to return to affordable levels relative to incomes in the short term?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The most important part of that question was the very last words of it from the member. This is an issue that will take time to resolve, but we have put in place the policies that I believe will make a significant contribution to slowing down that price growth. Obviously, we also seek to see people’s incomes increase as well.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Is he concerned that giving an implicit guarantee to homeowners that his Government won’t let house prices fall may be contributing to higher house prices and reducing the chance of a soft landing?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No. I don’t accept that that’s what the Government is doing. There are many factors that influence house price growth. The Government’s role is only part of that. Other conditions, including monetary policy conditions but also including the wider economic environment, contribute to it. The Government is putting its best foot forward to ensure that house prices are more sustainable and more affordable.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Finance: How much of the $56.5 billion authorised by the Imprest Supply (Second for 2020/21) Act 2020 was appropriated in the Supplementary Estimates of Appropriations 2020/21, and what sum is being sought by the Government through the Imprest Supply (Second for 2021/22) Bill?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I thank the member again for his examination of matters of the Public Finance Act. I’m advised that around 36 percent of the $56.5 billion authorised by the Imprest Supply 2021 Act was charged against the financial authority for that Act. This equates to approximately $20.5 billion. The vast bulk of that will appear in the Supplementary Estimates, although any fiscally neutral transfers between existing appropriations will not, of course, do that. The Government is seeking a maximum authority of $41 billion for the Imprest Supply (Second for 2021/22) Bill. The second imprest supply bill has always been used to provide authority for Government expenditure decisions made after the Estimates were finalised in April. It is an authority to spend, not a target for spending.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Was the $710 million funding for three waters only a COVID recovery initiative and, if not, why did it not go through the normal Budget process?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, as with a number of decisions, and I’m sure the member will recall this from his time as a Minister, a number of decisions need to be taken outside of the normal Budget process. That is not unusual. It has happened every year since the Public Finance Act has been in place.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Why was it necessary for the several million dollars for strengthening the Family Court part of supplementary appropriations from the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund when the funding was based on a recommendation made more than seven years ago?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, I think the member needs to be a little bit careful about talking about why that work hadn’t been undertaken, given who the Minister of Justice was at the time at which that report was put in place. But along with a number of other initiatives funded through the fund, this is about supporting the recovery overall of the New Zealand economy and New Zealand society to allow a number of different parts of Government to work in a way that supports New Zealanders as we recover from COVID-19.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It may have been a fulsome answer, but it didn’t explain at all, or address, why the funding did not go through the normal Budget process, when it was based on recommendations several years old?

SPEAKER: Taken in context with the previous answers, I think it’s certainly been addressed, and actually probably answered.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is the Government instituting a new practice where it uses imprest supply to start spending on all the pet projects it wants but couldn’t justify in the main Budget?

SPEAKER: Order! I just want to consider whether that’s—I’m going to ask the member to rephrase the question, taking out the irony.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is the Government instituting a new practice where it uses imprest supply to start spending on the projects that go through that supply but that they couldn’t justify in the main Budget?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No. The imprest supply is being used in exactly the same way that it has been since 1989, to deal with—in this particular bill—matters that have taken the attention of the Government after the time at which the Estimates close off and through until the next Budget. It is not unusual. What is unusual, relative to previous years, is the scale of investment authority required. That is because of COVID-19. The member has already heard today in the answer to his primary question, and in the House yesterday, the fact that the authority that is given is not necessarily the amount that is spent. This is Government accounting. This is making sure we have authority to spend and then it comes back through the House through other means.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: So will he commit to New Zealand taxpayers that the second imprest supply will not be used to fund projects that could have gone through the normal appropriations process but didn’t?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I will commit to New Zealand that we will use the imprest supply bill for the reasons that are set out, that includes expenditure that is unexpected, including in response to COVID-19.

Question No. 4—Prime Minister

4. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her answers relating to pre-departure testing in oral question No. 3 on 7 September?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes. I stand by also the decision to follow the advice of the Ministry of Health. As I said on 7 September, there were multiple reasons why Health advised against requiring a pre-departure test for those returning from New South Wales at that point in time. This included the situation in New South Wales at the time and the fact that returnees would be travelling on red flights back to 14 days of managed isolation. I also stand by this Government’s ability to change and adapt as the situation changes and adapts and as the public health advice does so too.

David Seymour: Is the red flight for this coming Wednesday also not returning to New Zealand, followed by 14 days of isolation for the passengers, and if so, why will they be requiring pre-departure testing when the last red flight, that turned out to have a COVID case on it that has subsequently leaked out into the community, was not?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I said at the time—and I reiterate this again—I would just caution the member on the assumption that had a 72-hour pre-departure test been in place at that time, that that would have changed the course of history. I don’t think that’s a fair assumption to make. On the issue of pre-departure testing generally, you’ll remember, of course, when we had quarantine-free travel, there were no pre-departure testing requirements. Health have subsequently changed the orders that apply to all of Australia, because there have been different rules that have sat across different states, and now brought all of those into alignment, keeping in mind that previously New South Wales was the only state that had red flights available, and now that’s broadening out. Now the pre-departure testing is sitting across every state.

David Seymour: What is different in New South Wales this coming Wednesday, or will be different, that wasn’t the case last month when flights came with no pre-departure testing and the same outbreak was under way?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The time that the decision was made was around, if I recall correctly, about 9 July or there or thereabouts. So that’s when that decision was made, based on what was happening in New South Wales, to instead of—and keep in mind what the decision originally was. The decision was: do we allow people from New South Wales to come in on flights into New Zealand with nothing except health declarations and so on, or do we put them into managed isolation facilities? Now, at that time, the decision was made to put them into managed isolation facilities. The day before we received that advice, there were 38 cases in New South Wales. So that is what was different at that time. Also, keep in mind there was a short time period from that announcement to when the first flights would enable people to come home. There was also a view around whether or not, at that time, the level of restrictions meant that someone was at more risk by going out in order to be tested versus staying at home. The final piece of advice that we received, if I recall correctly, was—no, sorry. There’s a third reason that I’d be happy to share with the member if I can recall off the top of my head over the course of this line of questioning.

David Seymour: If someone has COVID-19, should they be allowed on a plane full of people, and if not, shouldn’t the Government be ensuring that to the best of their ability, this doesn’t happen?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, to the best of our ability, we try and reduce down risk, but we always make an assumption that every single traveller coming into New Zealand has COVID-19. That’s the assumption that we work off. I now recall the additional piece of advice was that one cannot make an assumption that a 72-hour pre-departure test immediately eliminates the possibility that someone will have COVID-19. It doesn’t, and so that is why we do day-zero testing as well. It’s also why we have testing across the course of someone being in managed isolation, and, interestingly, what the advice also contains, to Ministers from 9 July, is the reported level of incidence in New South Wales of late onset and then wide infection. I recall now the additional thing I wanted to share with the member: we also, of course, had a health declaration. So everyone who was travelling also had to declare that they had not been at a place of interest or in contact with someone who had COVID, and that was at a time when in New South Wales, as I say, 38 cases were being reported a day. So that was an additional declaration that had to be made by everyone who was coming in on those red flights.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Have COVID-19 - positive people been identified in managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) among those who had completed a pre-departure test before arriving in New Zealand, and has the Government’s position always been that while pre-departure testing provides an extra layer of assurance, it is not a guarantee that people won’t come into New Zealand with COVID-19?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Absolutely, and that is why we have the day-zero test. We’ve always treated everyone as if they may have COVID-19. Again, the 72 hours beforehand, of course, means that it is not without risk. It’s an additional layer. But there were multiple reasons for the advice at that time, and Ministers accepted that advice, keeping in mind that the most precautionary thing we could do would be to put people into MIQ, and that is what we did.

David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister accept that the origin of the current outbreak came into New Zealand while her Government had consciously decided to drop that extra layer of protection, and if not, why is she reintroducing that extra layer of protection now?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve already said to the member, we are resuming red flights across Australia, and so we need to make sure that we have a consistent application of those requirements across Australia. So that is what is different now. The second point I would make is: I accept that we put thousands of people into quarantine. That is what we did. There were multiple layers in our response constantly to try and protect New Zealand from COVID-19 at our borders, and 160,000 people have come through, and, for the most part, we’ve been seeing very, very few incidents. In fact, the only other thing I would say to the member is, from what I know of the time line of this case, it would be wrong to assume that a 72-hour pre-departure test would have necessarily stopped this individual from coming in in the first place. So again, I just stand by all of the efforts that have been made and every effort that’s being made to try and determine what happened at our quarantine facilities in the aftermath.

Question No. 5—Education

5. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by his Government’s preparations in education for COVID-related restrictions, and is he confident that Kiwi schoolkids can receive the best education possible through COVID-related restrictions?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yes, and can I acknowledge teachers and school and early childhood centre leaders up and down the country who have once again gone to extraordinary lengths to support our young people to learn from home, often whilst dealing with significant disruption in their own lives, recognising that some of our teachers will be home-schooling their own children at the same time as home-schooling the children of others. In 2020, we provided over 36,000 fit-for-education devices for years 9 to 13 learners. That met all of the known needs of those students at the time, but new demand, of course, has emerged since, particularly with a new year 9 intake in 2021. So we provided additional funding in response to the Delta outbreak, and by Tuesday the ministry had shipped nearly 7,000 more devices to schools and learners affected by COVID-19. The ministry held in contingency a supply of approximately 135,000 hard packs of learning materials, appropriate for learners across a range of ages and settings. As of Tuesday, 48,000 of these had been distributed, and the ministry is also printing new material which will be available for distribution by the end of next week. The learning from home TV station was also stood up again within days of the current outbreak emerging.

Hon Louise Upston: If the preparations were as good as the Minister has suggested, why do we hear principals saying online learning is “just a joke” in their community?

SPEAKER: I’m not sure the Minister quite has responsibility—I will let him answer, but I’m not sure he quite has the responsibility for that.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Under our devolved system of learning, schools adopt a variety of different online learning systems and online learning methods. Some schools use online learning very regularly in their teaching; other schools do not use it as frequently or as often. So there is a range of different preparation across the schooling system. The Ministry of Education has been working hard to supplement that by providing hard packs of materials for the learners at those schools who are not as equipped for online learning, by supplementing digital devices and internet connections in those communities where they’re not as readily available as they could be. But, ultimately, schools do still pick up the bulk of the work here when it comes to educating young people during alert level restrictions.

Hon Louise Upston: How can he say, during last year’s lockdown, “student progress was about the same or better last year”, when the Education Review Office reported only 26 percent of senior secondary students “agreed or strongly agreed that they were coping well with their schoolwork while learning at home” during the 2020 lockdown?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That’s a very interesting question from the National Party, who have argued for a long time that student wellbeing isn’t what we should worry about. We should only worry about the students’ results. Because if we look at the students’ results, they are as good, if not slightly better than they had been in previous years. Of course, it is difficult to learn from home. One of the reasons the Government places a focus on wellbeing is we recognise that achievement results are not the only thing that’s important in the education system, and I welcome the fact that the Opposition are now recognising that.

Hon Louise Upston: How can the Minister be confident students who fall behind in lockdown will be identified, let alone get help, when recent official advice says “curricula don’t yet clearly signal important markers of progress and when to worry”?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: A lot of work goes into supporting children who fall behind in their learning during lockdown. For example, if we just take the students at the senior secondary schooling end of the system, summer school is available for them over the summer this year to ensure that if they were a few credits short, they could pick up those credits. That was a well subscribed programme. We have also put quite a significant investment—a $50 million investment, in fact—into wellbeing, engagement, and attendance-related initiatives to ensure that those students who became disengaged from learning during last year’s lockdown were re-engaged in their learning. And, of course, that investment is often still being rolled out and will continue to benefit schools and young people following this year’s lockdown.

Hon Louise Upston: What special preparations have been made to reassure Auckland students facing exams who’ve missed crucial weeks of preparation?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The member will be aware that the timetable for NCEA exams has been changed, as has the timetable for the submission of NCEA portfolios. Additional support will be available over the coming summer, as it was over last summer, for those students who don’t quite get there, in terms of achieving enough credits to achieve their NCEA. That’s a programme that has proven to be very successful and one that I would envisage we’ll continue to offer in the future, regardless of whether or not there are COVID-19 alert level lockdowns. Significant work is being done to ensure that students are supported between now and exams so that they can be well prepared for those exams. And, again, I want to acknowledge the significant amount of work that teachers are doing to support those young people to learn from home, whilst they themselves are often living with other realities that they also have to cope with.

Question No. 6—Finance

6. Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) to the Minister of Finance: Will he provide additional targeted support to businesses in Auckland that could be facing further weeks of lockdown, as well as to those businesses, particularly in the hospitality sector, in other parts of the country who continue to lose money as a result of the Government’s new level 2 restrictions?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): In the past two weeks, the Government has put more than $2.1 billion into the economy to support businesses and workers. We are continuing to consider what further support could be offered the longer that the outbreak goes on. It is important to make the point that over the past 18 months, New Zealand has enjoyed the benefits that come with keeping COVID out of the community, and we’ve been living relatively normal lives compared to the rest of the world. Our intention is to contain this current outbreak and see the economy open up as quickly as possible, as it did after the first outbreak. In answer to the specific point in the member’s question about targeted regional schemes, as I said to the member earlier this week, regional schemes, which we have investigated in the past, can be slow to deliver, and require a significant amount of administration both by the person applying and at the other end, and that is why we have preferred more universal forms of support.

Hon Todd McClay: When will he provide assistance to struggling businesses to help pay their rents, given he said one week ago he would consider a proposal for COVID-related rent relief, with rents now due again this week and again next week?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Firstly, the resurgence support payment is indeed the payment that the Government has put forward to support people with fixed costs. On the matter of commercial rent relief, that is a matter that the Minister of Justice is actively considering.

Hon Todd McClay: Thank you. Will Auckland businesses be able to apply for the wage subsidy under the new level 2 restrictions as businesses outside of Auckland are currently able to under level 2?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It’s very important to note that the reason that some businesses who are currently in alert level 2 can apply for the wage subsidy is because they will have been able to show that the revenue drop that they have experienced is directly related to—or alert level 3 in Auckland. So, for example, a tourism operator in the South Island may well be able to show that the lack of tourists coming from Auckland is the reason for their revenue drop, and that is why they have been able to apply. So the wage subsidy scheme always relates to an alert level 3 or an alert level 4 setting.

Hon Todd McClay: Is he aware that a large number of businesses are not sustainable under the Government’s new level 2 rules, with some Auckland hospitality businesses threatening to boycott GST, and saying they need urgent additional Government help now or they face closure?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I absolutely recognise that for some hospitality businesses they are finding this a particularly tough period, and that is why the Government is providing support. But what I also know that those businesses know is that the way that the Government has dealt with COVID-19 over the last 18 months means that they have been able to trade in a normal environment in a way that the hospitality sectors in countries around the world simply have not been able to do, and indeed still can’t do today.

Hon Todd McClay: Is he aware that the Government’s decision reducing the number of customers in hospitality venues to just 50, without providing additional assistance, means thousands of businesses face avoidable closure—like Prefab in Wellington, who have today announced they will be closing their doors for good?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’m interested that the member raises the example of Prefab in Wellington. And I should note that Jeff Kennedy, the owner, who’s made a tremendous contribution to the hospitality scene in Wellington over a long period of time, actually isn’t opening because he doesn’t think the rules are strict enough. That’s actually what he said. I can read it out for the member. He says, “A café is a space where people eat, drink, talk, have meetings, cook, serve, clean, wash, prepare food. It is a perfect storm for spreading aerosols causing infection.” It’s entirely up to Mr Kennedy if he doesn’t want to operate under alert level 2, but the reasons he is giving are not the ones the member is giving.

Question No. 7—COVID-19 Response

7. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: Have any of the planning and delivery groups listed on the Ministry of Health website as giving strategic advice and guidance for COVID-19 vaccines given advice on using Novavax as a booster vaccine dose to the current Pfizer vaccine, and what is the Government’s current policy on deploying booster doses for the COVID-19 vaccine programme?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): No decisions have been taken on the need for or the best way to deliver booster shots against COVID-19. The Ministry of Health and our technical experts are closely monitoring any emerging evidence for the need for a booster campaign. The Government’s current approach is to ensure that we have a portfolio of options ready to support a booster campaign should it be deemed necessary. Novavax is one of those options, as is Pfizer, and we are in discussions with others.

Chris Bishop: So can he confirm that none of the delivery groups on the ministry website that support the vaccine roll-out, such as the COVID-19 Immunisation Programme Governance Group or the COVID-19 Vaccine and Immunisation Programme Steering Group, have provided advice on using Novavax as a booster?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No, they have not provided advice on that. No decision has been taken. As I indicated in my primary answer, they are still monitoring international evidence and international research about the need for a booster campaign. Very few countries have made a firm decision at this point to start administering booster doses. Most countries are, as New Zealand is, ensuring that they have options should a booster campaign be desired.

Chris Bishop: Why, then, did the Dominion Post and stuff.co.nz report yesterday that Novavax was, quote—

SPEAKER: Because the member’s getting close to running out of questions, I’m going to ask him to start his question again. There just can’t be responsibility from this Minister for why a newspaper reports something.

Chris Bishop: OK. Is he aware of why stuff.co.nz reported yesterday that Novavax was “firming as the vaccine the New Zealand Government will use for a programme of COVID-19 booster shots”, in light of his answer just now that the Government’s own vaccine planning groups haven’t recommended it as a booster?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I was asked by Stuff what the status of our discussions with Novavax was. I confirmed to them that we have an advance purchase agreement with Novavax; that we have the ability to source doses of Novavax in the first quarter of next year, should it be required for a booster campaign; and that the preliminary information that we’re getting, and it is just ongoing discussions, from our technical experts is that they think that Novavax is shaping up well as an option for New Zealand. But no decisions have been made.

Chris Bishop: Is he aware of why members of the Government’s own expert advisory groups found out via the media that Novavax was “firming” as the vaccine the New Zealand Government will use for boosters, when it hasn’t been approved by Medsafe yet—in fact, hasn’t been approved by any country around the world?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think the member clearly hasn’t listened to the previous answers that I’ve given. No decision has been taken by the Government on whether or not to use Novavax, but I do note that earlier in the year the member was criticising the Government for not purchasing vaccines until they’d been approved by Medsafe and not securing delivery of those doses until they’d been approved by Medsafe, and now he seems to be criticising us for doing the opposite.

Bills

Appropriation (2021/22 Estimates) Bill

Third Reading

Bills

Imprest Supply (Second for 2021/22) Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 8 September 2021.

SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Mr Seymour, would you like to take a call?

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Mr Speaker, I’m very happy to take a call. I was under the impression it was the Green Party’s turn to take a call, but if it’s me—

SPEAKER: No, they took the previous call. I think the member was in the Chamber at the time.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, Mr Speaker, I certainly was not aware of that. I saw a National Party MP, we had a discussion, and you said the next call was Labour. Indeed, I recall you seemed to be confused about the order of calls yourself—

SPEAKER: And the member corrected me, as he might well do—and he did—and I took his advice and I checked, and he was right.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Well I’m glad we cleared that up. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

This Estimates debate should be a marker in New Zealand’s fiscal history. It is a debate about New Zealand’s response to COVID-19, ultimately. Time and again, we find the Government saying, “Aren’t we doing a good job? We haven’t made the mistakes that other countries have made.”, and they’re able to say that because, time and again, New Zealand faces challenges under COVID-19 later, because we are further away from the source of the original and new variants. That, in a way, has been very welcome for New Zealand, but there is a cost to doing so. That is the amount of money that is being spent by Government, the debt that is rising, and the challenge that younger generations are facing in getting into the housing market as the fiscal stimulus to the economy is matched with monetary policy stimulus that has seen average house prices rise by $200,000 in a year when the borders were closed and there was no immigration whatsoever.

People need to get an idea of just how big the borrowing programme that this Government is committing to through the COVID period really is. Let me put it in perspective. They are going to increase net Government debt by $140 billion over four years. Let me put that into perspective. There are 5 million New Zealanders, and if everyone was in a family of five, there’d be a million of them. So for every family of five, this Government is borrowing an additional $140,000 to get through COVID. But, of course, that debt is not going to fall just on the older people in the family. It is going to disproportionately fall on those younger New Zealanders who will spend more time in future in the workforce, more time paying tax, not to provide for the roads and the schools and the hospitals needed in their time but to pay back a generation worth of debt taken on in this short COVID period near the start of their lives. This is something that I believe has not been given nearly enough attention.

The Government is always congratulating itself about its COVID response, but it never acknowledges the costs that it has put in place. Even if it did, it’s not talking about the costs that it still will incur in future, taking on even more debt and printing even more money, just as it’s kept the official cash rate so low to get through this latest outbreak. That’s why it matters to younger New Zealanders to watch very carefully what this Government is doing in this Budget, and to watch very carefully what it is doing with its COVID-19 response, to ensure that our strategy is not going to be to lock down the border, lock down the country if the locked down border fails, and borrow and print money all the while to try and keep the economy afloat. It is critical that our COVID-19 response becomes more sophisticated so that we don’t continue to depend on borrowing, but it is also critical that the quality of Government expenditure is improved, and if there’s going to be stimulus, perhaps instead of spending more money on dubious projects the Government should be cutting taxes to allow the hard-working taxpayer to keep more of their own money.

Let me just give you an example of how sloppy this Government has been with expenditure in recent times. We are today debating Estimates that will allow the Government to tax and spends tens of billions of dollars in this financial year. If we want to get an idea of how that might end up, we only need to look at how poorly they took care of that hard-working taxpayer’s money last year. Take for example the mismanagement of Ihumātao. Now, this was a contest over property rights where a group of people decided to override the legal rights of the property owner that had been finely balanced and negotiated under the rule of law for many years. These people came along and squatted, and the property owner saw the Prime Minister coming along. They thought, “This is good. Here comes the Prime Minister of New Zealand to uphold our property rights, to uphold the rule of law.” And what did the Prime Minister of New Zealand do? She encouraged the squatters, she empowered them, and she violated the rule of law and property rights.

So what did she have to do then? Well she had a terrible stand-off. What she did was she took $30 million of taxpayer money to try and fix one mistake, setting a precedent for more. But it gets worse. You see, the money that was given, the $30 million, was not appropriated through an Estimates bill like the one this House is debating today, and the Auditor-General pointed out that the money was spent illegally. It was taken out of the Land for Housing fund, that was never intended to try and fix problems created by the Prime Minister haphazardly wading into a property dispute. So the Auditor-General ticked them off for spending money outside the exact type of appropriations that we’re debating today that are required by law for the Government to spend the taxpayer’s money.

You might ask yourself, “Why on earth did the Government have a Land for Housing fund?” What Government would think the answer to New Zealand’s over-inflated property prices was for the Government to join the market and start bidding up prices further with the taxes paid by other people trying to get into the market? I mean, if you didn’t laugh, you’d cry. You can’t make this stuff up. Altogether, $4 billion of the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund were taken by this Government and put into housing. Supposedly the best way to recovery from COVID is to put money into a market that is overheated, which has a shortage of labour because the borders are closed, and now has a shortage of materials because, under level 4 lockdown conditions, materials are all sitting in Auckland warehouses, unable to be distributed because the Government can’t work out the testing regime for COVID-19 at the Auckland border.

These are the kinds of things that the Government uses our money for: buying land without proper legal authority, putting money into an over-inflated housing market, and all of this money at the margin is borrowed and will have to be paid for by those younger generations, who are the ones struggling so hard to get into that exact same market. The ACT Party says that the hard-working taxpayer who gets up, makes the kids’ lunches, takes them to school, goes to work, puts up with the challenges they face there, goes home, makes the kids’ dinner, and goes to bed, knowing they’re getting about a third of all their money taken by the Government, needs to know that when the Government spends money it is spending it legally, according to legislation like we’re debating today, on the right things, not putting it into markets that are already overheated, and that it is actually adding value to make sure that New Zealand will have a more skilful, a more productive, a better-housed, and a better-infrastructured future.

At the moment, the way this Government spends money, none of that is something that we can be remotely hopeful of, and that’s why the ACT Party opposes this Estimates bill. We don’t believe this Government is competent to spend hard-working taxpayers’ money, and we can’t wait to write our own bill that makes savings for those taxpayers. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs): Mālo e lelei, Mr Speaker. It’s great to be in the House and supporting the Appropriation (2021/22 Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (Second for 2021/22) Bill this afternoon. Can I first do what I traditionally do after we’ve been in lockdown: acknowledge all the recent deaths that have occurred during this recent lockdown. E ngā mate kua wehe atu ki te pō, haere, haere, haera atu rā.

[To those who have recently passed, may you rest in peace.]

This Budget, which I’m proud to stand in support of, acknowledges the long-term challenges that this Government’s been facing, particularly around housing, infrastructure, and climate change. Also, it’s regarded as a recovery Budget, in terms of COVID, which we all know is still very much a part of us. On that point, can I acknowledge our team of 5 million and all our essential workers—our border workers; our health professionals; our food producers; and government—and regional, iwi, and Pacific leadership all throughout the motu who are working really, really hard. Can I simply say thank you.

Budget 2021, while dealing with long-term issues like housing, like inequality, and like climate change, also has a stimulus package around the economy and our economic recovery. This is what this Budget does: it does balance the fact that COVID is still very much a part of us, while also recognising that there is much more work to do.

I was hoping that former member who got up would have a “please explain” note when he came in here talking about the COVID response in his recent remarks around Waipareira Trust. Can I acknowledge all our hauora providers and our Pacific providers, who are doing an amazing job in getting Pacific and Māori communities across the country vaccinated. Comments like that seriously undermine the great work that our Māori and Pacific providers are doing.

I want to acknowledge in this Budget two areas that the tailored part of the Budget talks about—both economic stimulus as well as issues around housing inequality. Nowhere else in this Budget of 2021 do we need to look to, other than the infrastructure and, of course, the Māori budget. I want to talk on both those two parts of this Budget.

In terms of infrastructure, you’ll see the Government is investing $57.3 billion in infrastructure over the next five years. This is around long-term investment in building our houses, our schools, and our hospitals, and meeting our transport needs. It is the continuation of last year’s Budget. As a regional MP, I can tell you now that seeing works on State Highway 35 up the East Coast and on State Highway 2 is an absolutely welcome sight, not to mention the work that is going on in our schools and in our hospitals. This $57.3 billion investment will help create jobs, grow jobs, in a time of great difficulty facing many New Zealanders at this particular time.

Can I put a bit in for rural broadband. As the Associate Minister of Agriculture, having spoken to a lot of our agricultural and rural communities, the need for better connection is definitely echoed in their delegations to myself. Let’s hope that that budget will absolutely bring our rural communities into what city folk enjoy.

The other area I wanted to touch on, importantly, in Budget 2021 is the Māori budget. I want to respond to the previous speaker, the leader of the ACT Party, when he talks about the COVID economic response—or the COVID response. I’m proud that this Government has acknowledged the significant importance of both Māori and Pacific not only in ensuring that we’ve got the tailored tools and the resources for a response but also in terms of coming out of it economically. That’s why the Māori budget in Budget 2021 needs to be underscored.

Almost $1.1 billion has gone in the Māori budget. There is $98 million to establish the Māori Health Authority—and, of course, much of that work is getting done now under the leadership of Minister Little and Minister Henare. There is $126.8 million for hauora Māori—and, of course, they’re all working so significantly hard on the front line now, as our vaccination numbers continue to rise. There is $17.8 million towards iwi Māori partnership boards.

I mentioned housing in my opening statement as an indication of long-term challenges which were here before this Government and is something this Government is acknowledging and addressing: $380 million in housing across Aotearoa for Māori; 1,000 new homes for Māori, including papakāinga housing, transitional housing, and owner-occupied homes; repairs of up to 700 Māori-owned homes—again, led by Te Puni Kōkiri—$30 million towards building future capability for iwi and Māori groups to accelerate housing projects; and, of course, $350 million ring-fenced in the Government’s Housing Acceleration Fund, which will target investment in infrastructure support and build homes for Māori funding. Big investment by this Government—over $700 million towards housing specifically to help Māori.

In terms of education, we see a $20 million package supporting Māori boarding schools. These are iconic boarding schools, of which there are only four left in this country. Many who actually filled these halls of Parliament came through boarding schools. Three of the four are in my electorate of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. We see $32 million to address inequitable funding of wānanga that will improve pay of kōhanga reo teachers; $77 million in property building—again, to help deliver better Māori-medium education, putting more money into Te Reo Matatini and Pāngarau and Marautanga programmes.

And, of course, there are our tamariki. We’ve seen this during this particular lockdown around the impacts of being in level 2 in terms of ensuring that our children’s education and their wellbeing is well looked after. In this Budget of 2021, $23.4 million is set aside for the wellbeing of Māori children.

But it doesn’t end there: $50 million for Māori tourism, $10 million to Corrections, and $70 million in Justice. Sexual violence gets and injection of $12 million. And, of course, broadcasting: $14.8 million to further supplement the Māori language strategy for our basic reo speakers up into 2040, and, of course, $42 million into Māori broadcasting to help sustain the Māori-medium sector and investing in programme content.

One that I’m particularly proud of is $14 million to Māori data sovereignty. It is no surprise to this House that in 2018 and 2013, the census let down Māori. We have a very poor database, but this $14.1 million goes a long way to supporting good data when it comes to Māori—the Treaty partner—if all Governments are to ensure that we are working alongside them and, more importantly, are accountable for our deliverables and our programmes that are meeting the needs of our Treaty partner—so $14 million in Māori data sovereignty.

Having shared the suite of programmes in Budget 2021, in terms of the Māori budget and, of course, infrastructure, we on this side of the House know we cannot do it alone. We know we can’t do it alone, which is why relationships are really, really critical, and these are just the beginning of many more investments over the coming years. As we have said, these are long-term issues that one Budget will not fix. These long-term relationships I want to underscore with the last few seconds that I have—the partnerships that we need to build and have built with local government, with iwi, with our Pacific communities, and with our primary sector. If we work alongside those that know our people better, then we are going to get better gains for this nation as a whole.

As I did in opening, in acknowledging our 5 million workers, can I again please acknowledge the Māori and Pacific hauora providers up and down this country, who, despite unnecessary fearmongering around what they are doing, are working hard. I want to acknowledge all the hauora providers and iwi providers and Pacific providers throughout my electorate and throughout the entire country who continue to turn up to encourage and get as many of our people over the line to be vaccinated. They need to be acknowledged; they need to be thanked. As the saying goes: “Be a doer, karawhiua!” [Go for it!]

Dr SHANE RETI (Deputy Leader—National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. We’re here debating this bill today because this wasteful Labour Government needs more money from taxpayers. Labour Governments are always like this; they wastefully spend money, other people’s money. It’s what they’re hardwired to do: to tax and spend. This Labour Government is no different. Grant Robertson has pretended to be fiscally conservative and have fiscal restraint, but that is clearly failing and here we are again today. Grant Robertson thought one of the ways to beat his chest and show he was fiscally conservative was to announce a pay freeze in the middle of a pandemic on our doctors and nurses. He was so wrong. Grant Robertson used doctors and nurses during a pandemic to pay for his ideology. How’s that going for you now?

SPEAKER: Order!

Dr SHANE RETI: Not Mr Speaker, but how’s that going for the Government now?

This wasteful Labour Government has totally lost control of spending and now has an open chequebook policy, and I challenge them to deny it. I, on the other hand, will back this statement with reference to the Government’s independent June 2021 Roche report on the Valentine’s Day outbreak, where under item 16 it clearly says, “The Ministry has indicated that the ‘chequebook is open,’ ”. The Government’s own independent review panel was stating, “The Ministry has indicated that the ‘chequebook is open,’ ”. That’s why we’re here today passing this bill, because this is a Government of open chequebooks that just pay their way through for anything they see fit to pay for, and, clearly, that is now failing New Zealanders.

There are two ways this Labour Government has been wasteful with taxpayer money: spending money in the wrong place or spending money in the right place but doing it very badly. Let’s look at the first, spending money in the wrong place. My colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse has pointed out several areas where the COVID piggybank has been raided and not for COVID functions. This Labour Government has raided the COVID piggy bank for three waters reform, Government House building renovations, funding to commercialise New Zealand music, subsidised insulation and heating refits, strengthening the Family Court, hunting wallabies, cameras on fishing boats, Papua New Guinea tattoo practice and revival, and a plethora of others. A cycle bridge across the Auckland Harbour for $750 million—I dare the Government to stand by that promise.

We’re struggling with coronavirus, with nursing staff, with access to GPs, with 30,000 people on the overdue waiting list, and no new cancer medicines, because this Government chose to make health restructuring the number one priority. The Budget Cabinet paper from Grant Robertson to Andrew Little makes it very clear “The health funding priority is ensuring the health and disability reform has resources.” In that same document, critical funding for DHBs do not scale above the “minimum viable package”. That’s a tragic way to talk about our DHBs, as a “minimum viable package” funding package. It then goes on to say “All manifesto commitments that are not highly time-sensitive should be deferred to future budgets.” This is why we’re struggling with the coronavirus outbreak, this is why our health system is struggling, because this Government is focusing all their attention on health restructuring and all their funding energies. That is wrong and it will fail.

Spending money in the right place but terrible implementation: you know, the Government’s quite right when it says it has spent more money on health, and thank you for that. The problem I’ve got with that is: spent more money but worse outcomes. If we look at every single one of the national health targets from when we handed them over in 2017, every single one today is worse than when we handed them over. More money in health but worse outcomes. And in fact, what we have now, instead of the health targets, to hide the 30,000 people who have been overdue on waiting lists for more than four months, the Government has shifted the goalposts and called them health indicators instead of health targets. What that means is that the 30,000 people who are overdue more than four months to see a specialist or to be treated suddenly appear as positive 3 percent. How can that be? That’s not a measure of health; that is shifting the goalposts.

Where could that money be spent right now? Well, I might suggest the four lanes from Whangārei to Marsden—the four lanes that when the Labour Government was in Opposition was “a holiday highway”. They came into Government and suddenly it’s “critical infrastructure”, and now it’s out again in favour of rail and other modalities. The single most important economic driver for Northland is the four lanes from Whangārei to Marsden and then from Marsden to Auckland. That would be a much better way to be spending the money rather than what this imprest bill is trying to encourage us to do: to prop up an open chequebook Government.

IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Mālō e lelei, Mr Speaker. Thank you. I rise to take this short call on the Appropriation (2021/22 Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (Second for 2021/22) Bill. The Wellbeing Budget 2021 is all about securing recovery from COVID-19. COVID-19 has taught us a lot of lessons, and that is, what really matters most in life is people. Our recovery must be balanced to reflect this. It must be one that never leaves behind, but yet what we hear from the Opposition is just negativity. There is no solution whatsoever. There is nothing about people. We have heard a lot about the fiscal responsibility, but yet nothing about people. I would like to open with a quote from the Minister of Finance, the Hon Grant Robertson, who said, “This is the biggest lift in benefits in more than a generation”, because that’s what you do when you value people, when you put people first, or when you prefer people over fiscal responsibilities.

We have to tackle the systematic issues through investing to address the long-term challenges like inequality. Inequality in this country became chronic. It moved the country from one of the most egalitarian countries to one of the most unequal countries. Low wages have been persistent. Hard-working Kiwis—in the last nine years of National Government there were hardly increases in wages. Our essential workers—we heard some of the Opposition members the other day singing praise to our essential workers, yet they don’t talk about increasing their wages. Singing praise is good—it’s a good gesture—but it’s not going to put food on the tables of these hard-working people. The Opposition needs to realise this.

That’s why this Budget is all about putting people first. This 2021 Budget has seen the biggest benefit increase in generations. That increase will give families food, it will help families feed their kids, and it will give dignity the families deserve. The 2021 Budget also sees $776 million allocated for the use in 2021 to 2025 for three initiatives to fund the lunches in schools that have been identified as having the last concentration of students who come to school with no lunch. Two months ago I was in Timaru with my colleagues from the Education and Workforce Committee. Our local MP down there, Jo Luxton, hosted us. We visited some of these schools and we fed about 422 students, who told us what a difference the free lunches are making in their lives. We have spoken to teachers who couldn’t emphasise enough the difference the lunch was making in the students’ lives.

Yet the Opposition can’t see this. All they see is negativity, complaining after complaining. It’s OK to complain, because that’s their job, but they also need to come with solutions. The reality is if we keep leaving people behind then we are doomed to fail. A society that doesn’t look after its most vulnerable, a society that doesn’t look after its most hard-working people—but yet they don’t get paid enough—is doomed to fail. That’s what we don’t want to do. This Government, this Budget are all about people. It’s all about putting people first. I look forward to a few more wellbeing Budgets in the next few years, so we can bridge the inequality gap that’s persisted in the last many years. On that, I commend this bill to the House.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Mālō e lelei, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Well, what a confused argument we’ve heard from the benches opposite. As I’ve been listening to the course of this debate over the last two days, I’ve heard that the Government is spending money in the wrong places. We’ve heard that the Government is spending money in the right places but we’re getting the wrong outcomes. We’re not spending enough on infrastructure, but then we see the members opposite coming into the House voting against a bill which enables that very spending to take place.

What is even more fascinating is infrastructure. I love talking about infrastructure, because this Government has in fact invested $57 billion in infrastructure over the next five years, and this really confuses those members opposite. Usually you’d see them doing a backflip or a couple of claps in the air when you get a bridge, a road, or even a tunnel, but this time they’re very confused, because New Zealand is seeing, under this Labour Government, one of the most significant spends in infrastructure we have ever seen. Not only will that make our hospitals, our schools, our roads, our people better, but it also means we get jobs at a time we need it more than we ever have.

We only need to take a look back in my patch in the Hutt Valley, where we have got the most significant infrastructure project the Hutt Valley has ever seen—over $700 million in total, with a $420 million contribution by the Government, Waka Kotahi, to make sure we have flood protection, we have our roads going, we have our cycleways connected, and we have good walkways to connect into that area. That is something that will not only make our city better, safer, and more resilient, but it will also make sure that we continue to employ people locally to get jobs and give our local contractors that mahi when they need it the most.

So what else have we got? Because one of the interesting things I heard in the course of this debate also was that all this money has been provided out for infrastructure but we haven’t seen any results. I like to take a look at some of the schools that we see around my area that have directly received some of that funding. In fact, 27 schools in the Hutt Valley have had extra funding to be able to complete things like leaky roofs, extra classrooms, bike stands, car parks, landscaping, extra toilets when capacity has been reached in that particular school. Fifteen out of those 27 have already been completed. Eastern Hutt School, Hutt Central School, Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Te Ara Whanui, Waterloo School—all of these schools have had projects completed as a result of that extra infrastructure funding. Let me just reiterate that those jobs have been completed by local contractors, local businessmen, local people who have come in and done that work and got the rewards of the fact that we are doing more in infrastructure for New Zealand, and that is a beneficial thing.

I’d like to talk also a little bit about how infrastructure is more than just roads and bridges and buildings. It’s also about our hospitals, and that has been an incredibly important investment that we have needed to do. Nine years—nine years of neglect, as we say time and time again, have let public facilities be run into the ground. It’s not just the facilities; it’s also those front-line workers who have been burnt out by continually working in difficult conditions. This is going to take a significant amount of time, to build back our health system. But out of the funding we have seen come into the Hutt Valley, we will have a brand new upgraded maternity facility—$9.2 million for a special care baby unit, a new mental health unit, and also upgraded maternity facilities, which have been far, far, far overdue.

In addition to that, we’re also seeing extra work going in towards making sure all of our infrastructure in the Hutt joins up. So some of those really important cycleways that have been undertaken over the years will enable that we have a complete cycle network. We see that with Te Ara Tupua, the new connection that will go between Wellington and the Hutt Valley to make sure that we have a place for resilience that we can get in times of need, but also for cycles and others wanting to use a non-road method, non-car method—making sure we’re reducing congestion and giving people more transport choices.

I’d also like to point out that there’s been other work in that space as well, with the Eastern Bays shared pathway also receiving funding and going ahead. Well received in the community that has been. Probably one that’s also very well received is the rebuild of the Naenae pool. So that’s been a long one, and demolition under way very shortly.

I’d like to point out that in terms of the point around projects not being completed, the part of Te Ara Tupua, the cycleway between the Hutt and Wellington, has had the completion nearly from where I live, around Belmont, Melling interchange, all the way through out to Pētone, and is getting close to completion, so well under way on that one.

This is a recovery Budget. This is a Budget about putting people first. While we always talk about the importance of raising those benefits and making sure people have kai in the cupboards, making sure that we have our basics covered, it’s also important about looking forward to where we’ll be in 5, 10, 15 years. So instead of squabbling about whether money should be spent in a good way or a bad way, it would be great to have a bit of recognition that these are unprecedented times for New Zealand. Indeed, we are a Government investing in our people, investing in our future, and making sure that we build back better, that we take what COVID has given us and we work with it in the best way possible to give people and New Zealanders the best possible pathway forwards. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Mr Speaker, thank you very much. Often when we start these speeches, we say, “It’s a pleasure to speak in this debate.”, but this time, it’s not. This is the second time in about a year and a half that I’ve been in this Chamber talking about borrowing money and spending money, and it is the poor old taxpayer that is at home doing everything this Government is asking of them that will foot the bill. You see, at the time of the first lockdown last year, the Government came and borrowed about $56 billion to be used to help New Zealanders to get through COVID, to be focused on the things we needed for COVID—as they said at the time, to make sure there was enough in the kitty for the rainy day or the COVID day in case it came back. We’ve heard again and again in debates this week, and in questions in the House, the need from the Government to borrow more money because the $56 billion that they decided they needed to spend for COVID last year, that is borrowed, has run out.

This week, we hear the announcement that there will be another $41 billion borrowed. When the finance Minister, Mr Robertson, says that people don’t understand that we are not actually borrowing the money, this week, what we’re doing is being allowed to spend it, what he forgets to tell the public is the Government is still running at a loss. They spend more than they earn. They only earn from the taxpayer when people pay taxes, and so it must be borrowed. If they hadn’t have spent the $56 billion that they gave themselves to spend on COVID last year, and that some of it was still there this year because it hadn’t been spent on things that were not COVID-related, they wouldn’t be coming back to Parliament and going back to the public and saying, “We need another $41 billion for COVID because the kitty is bare.” That is about $147,000 borrowed for every person in New Zealand.

So, when we come back, as the country moves out of level 4 in Auckland, then level 3 in Auckland, then level 2 where many businesses still won’t be able to open and survive, because of the rules that have been put in place and they are not getting the support that they need, that they are crying out for every day from their homes, because they’re not allowed in their businesses, they are doing what the Government has asked of them, they are sacrificing—when we come back and we have the debate about housing in New Zealand and how more New Zealanders deserve to own houses, they need to own houses, I say to the members opposite who have just stood in this House and said, “Rather than talking about whether the money is going to be spent well or not, let’s just rejoice that we have it to spend to help New Zealanders.”, $147,000 is one heck—one hell—of a deposit for a New Zealander, for a young New Zealander, for an old New Zealander, to have their own home. That is $147,000 worth of additional debt borrowed last year and this year because of COVID, because of two lockdowns, that it won’t be every adult in New Zealand, it won’t be every person in New Zealand that is paying back; it will be the young New Zealanders that are yet to be born here, it will be the young New Zealanders that are not New Zealanders yet, because they will to migrate to New Zealand, and it will be the hard work of every single New Zealander who has to rebuild the economy and pay their taxes because this Government has borrowed close to $100 billion and they haven’t spent it all on things that are COVID-related.

There is a reason that the Government is going to borrow another $41 billion, and it is twofold. Number one, they did not do their job around managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ). This virus got through MIQ. In fact, every time, except for the first lockdown, that it has got back into the community—and we have seen restrictions in Auckland and restrictions, as a result, around the rest of the country, and now the whole of New Zealand in level 4 for two weeks, everywhere but Auckland in level 3 for one week, and Auckland still in level 4 without sight of when they will be able to go back and run their businesses well or their kids will go back to school, because it got out of MIQ. That is a failure at the border. It is a failure at MIQ. MIQ is set up so that those that have a right to return to New Zealand do so and they can then enter the country, the population, at no risk because they haven’t got the virus, they haven’t got the disease. This is a failure because that is what happened this time.

Yesterday, the Government said that they had exhausted all avenues of finding out how it got out of MIQ. They do not know, but they knew that it had got out, and it is Delta. Do you know what that tells me? They weren’t properly prepared. In fact, we have known for many, many months that Delta was circulating the world and would likely arrive on our shores. In fact, the expert opinion, the report that was given to the Government only weeks ago, said that it was a matter of when, not if, Delta will get here.

So here are the questions that they need to answer for New Zealanders, and New Zealand small businesses who are still struggling and don’t know if they are going to survive, before they borrow the extra $41 billion and saddle every single New Zealander alive today with a debt of $147,000, and they are: how did it get out? Why did it get out? Why weren’t they properly prepared? Why does this keep happening, and what are they doing to stop it?

I’m very pleased that the Prime Minister was able to stand in the 1 p.m. press conference today and say to New Zealanders, “I want to announce a success in borrowing vaccines from a country overseas, but before I do, I’m going to ask an official to spend some time talking to you about the number of cases in Auckland that are only there because we failed at MIQ.” She didn’t say that last bit. She didn’t talk about the businesses in Auckland who are suffering, who are saying that they will boycott paying their GST—not because they don’t want to pay their tax; they are hard-working taxpayers, they pay their tax, they are law-abiding citizens, but they are screaming out for help, and Grant Robertson just says, “Well, we’re still looking at that.” They need help with their rent because they can’t pay it, because last week they did what Grant Robertson told them to do, they applied for the resurgence payment, $1,500 at $400 per employee, and they paid their rents and they paid their bills, and this week their rent is due again and they’re not allowed to apply for that again. They are asking for help from the Government, from the $56 billion they borrowed last year and they don’t get to spend.

Do you know what would have been a better use of money? Instead of giving more than $300 million from the COVID fund for councils in New Zealand, to sweeten the deal so that they wouldn’t resist the Government’s proposals or changes around three waters—they shouldn’t have done that, because it came from COVID. It was borrowed. They should have kept it for the rainy day, because in Auckland and other parts of New Zealand, the rainy day is still here.

So when the Prime Minister said in the 1 p.m. press conference today, “We have borrowed, as a country, 250,000 doses of the Pfizer vaccine from little old Spain on the other side of the world.”, she didn’t say that actually we should have borrowed them, if they needed to be borrowed, many, many months ago so more New Zealanders were vaccinated. When they said that this was the year of vaccination and we would be at the front of the queue, I don’t think they meant, when the Prime Minister said at the beginning of the year, “the front of the queue”, so we’ll borrow some from Spain. New Zealand had an expectation that the Government was planning, had an expectation that the Government was putting in place the things they needed to to keep them safe, to vaccinate them, so we wouldn’t find ourselves here again.

Up and down the country, businesses are doing it hard. When Auckland goes to level 2 at some stage in the future, they will not get the wage subsidy, but today in other parts of the country, other businesses do, because Auckland is still at level 4. That is not fair to those businesses in Auckland that just want to survive.

The resurgence payment is a one-off. It is welcome. We support it. It needs to be more than a one-off, because those bills are still there. Those companies are starting to fail. The rents must be paid to the landlords, who themselves are small-business people, often, and have their own bills to pay, and they can’t pay that this week or next week with the resurgence payment. They need more.

When 90 percent of hospitality businesses say, after four weeks of restrictions under level 3 and under level 4, “We are not sustainable.”, the Government must listen to them. When a business in Wellington this week—Prefab—announced it is closing and it will make people redundant because it cannot survive under level 2 with just 50 people there, it is not what the Minister of Finance said—that that man had made that decision because he wanted to be safe. If you read the whole article in the newspaper today, it is because he cannot survive and he has too much debt from last year, he hasn’t recovered, and he has to give up. That is not fair to him, it is not fair to his employees, because he and they have done what the Government has asked of them: they have sacrificed.

When the Government announced, last week, $5,000 for tourism businesses in four parts of the South Island to help them restructure, it goes to consultants to tell them that they haven’t got any tourists and how to close. New Zealanders have done what they have been asked. They are crying out for support—$147,000 debt for each of them. The Government must do much, much more for them.

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Can I acknowledge all New Zealanders for persevering with the lockdown, and in particular Aucklanders, who are still at alert level 4. I also want to acknowledge the Tongan community: mālō ‘aupito, for their Tongan Language Week. It’s not such a vibrant time to be celebrating, but, none the less, they are doing it in an appropriate manner.

It is a real pleasure to speak on the second reading of the imprest supply bill, because there is much good news, and this is an important element in the Budget cycle. My colleagues here from the Government have spoken at length in very positive ways of the significance of Budget 2021 and the difference it is making to ensure we come out of the COVID-19 pandemic stronger, much stronger, than we have before. The initiatives have been appropriate, and I want to add my congratulations to the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, and that health ministerial team, who have done extraordinarily well to put together a programme, combined with the rest of the Cabinet, and put a pathway there that I think all New Zealanders can begin the mahi and celebrate at the end of it.

I want to mention a couple of things to kick off. One of those is the Housing Acceleration Fund—$3.8 billion, a significant portion of that for our Māori community, but that there in itself is addressing some of those long-term challenges we know exist in housing, and in particular the inequality. But it is making a difference, even in places like Wellington south-east and the Chatham Islands. I have seen a significant upbeat response to the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund. The application recently closed, but I can say to you that both local authorities, together with developers and iwi, have come together strongly to respond to that crisis, a crisis that started many, many moons ago, and now we have an initiative in place, thanks to the Budget, that will enable those homes to be built.

Often you hear that infrastructure is a major issue. I believe this will be transformational, and particularly those at the lower end who are seeking something to rent, something to move on from, be it a house that’s supplied by the Government or the private sector, and to move into something that they could rent to own, and a full tool kit. The thing that makes me most proud is that we’ve advanced into a tool kit of initiatives that can help people move from living in public housing, living in housing that’s just an absolute disgrace, into something I believe will be transformational for their lives. We put a roof over someone’s head, and it takes care of most of the story, and we’re not spending unnecessary money at the other end.

I want to also just acknowledge the School Investment Package. The schools I visited some years ago, with the then member for Rongotai, Dame Annette King, needed much work. I know that, from a recent conversation, she’ll be really proud that many a school now has got the investment. I know just travelling along Washington Ave on to the Ridgeway School, many years it needed some investment, as did the three schools on the Chatham Islands. I know, Mr Speaker, we will get to Pitt Island. I will take you back there myself and we will see some of those improvements to Pitt Island School.

I also want to just mention the near completion of the new children’s hospital. It’s an appropriate moment to acknowledge all of those involved on the front line. I know that being the largest employer in the electorate, doctors, nurses, and all of those associated health services have worked right through. They are tired, but they remain defiant and upbeat because they know we can beat this. They agree with our strategy and they work day in, day out to make sure that all New Zealanders are looked after in the most appropriate way. I want to acknowledge Fionnagh and her team at the Capital and Coast DHB for their hard work, but everyone from an orderly right through to the ambulance drivers, up to doctors and those who are just keeping the show on the road. That’s a state of the art facility, a big contribution from a philanthropist who has made it happen. And that’s the spirit. We are working together, in partnerships, strongly with those who have the same values as this Government to put people first, as the previous speaker said, from this side of the House, and make sure that those who most need it get the money that they need.

I want to finish there, with some words. I’ve been in contact with both of the mayors of Wellington City and the Chatham Islands, and I think Monique Croon speaks for all Rongotai residents when she emailed me today and said thank you to the New Zealand Government for putting our island’s wellbeing first, and to the stakeholder teams working together to ensure the needs and the wellbeing of this community and those communities from around Aotearoa New Zealand are met. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Appropriation (2021/22 Estimates) Bill be now read a third time.

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.

Bill read a third time.

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

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.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Imprest Supply (Second for 2021/22) Bill

Third Reading

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: I move, That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2021/22) Bill be now read a third time.

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

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.

Bill read a third time.

SPEAKER: In accordance with a determination of the Business Committee, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 21 September 2021. Thank you, members.

The House adjourned at 3.50 p.m.