edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Chair. It's good to have the opportunity to participate in this discussion in the committee stage in relation to the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill. I have a number of questions for the Minister that are clustered around the idea of inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I can do that probably in reasonably short order but please bear with me. I'll get all those out sort of in one hit so to speak before perhaps going on to other topics.We heard from a number of submitters who made good compelling submissions in favour of the bill but with a reservation around the fact that there appears to be inconsistency internally whereby prisoners being denied the right to vote are said to have had their rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act curtailed. The argument was that there was somewhat of an arbitrary line between prisoners who had been sentenced for less than three years and three years or more. I acknowledge that the Minister in the chair Andrew Little has outlined an argument in respect of prisoners being able to vote effectively on—one step removed but let's say voting on the laws of the land that will apply to them after they're released the argument being that they're voting for those who will in turn make the laws of the land.But I think that it's worth addressing and I'd like to have on record the Minister's thoughts about a situation where a prisoner is imprisoned for more than three years but doesn't have the opportunity within their last three years prior to being released. I think that might be part of the intent underlying the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in the name of the Green Party member who's put one forward and I look forward to hearing from her on that subject as well. I'm curious to know in the first instance: is it the case that one of the bases for amending the law that the Minister has brought to the House is inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and second whether he intends therefore to support the SOP in the name of Ms Ghahraman and finally on a related point what he would anticipate his response would be when inevitably this matter is brought before the senior courts again they again declare the law to be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act? Would he anticipate changing the law or seeking that Parliament change the law at that time? Thank you.Golriz Ghahraman: Madam Chair.Hon Andrew Little: Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): The Hon Andrew Little.
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you Madam Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to my good friend the Hon Mark Mitchell. Look in relation to who prisoners might be voting for I agree with him that they could be voting for anybody. I think as my colleague the Hon Chris Hipkins pointed out many of them are entrepreneurs; they just happen to operate in the black market not in the legal market. They're often self-directed and certainly self-interested so many of them will be natural National Party supporters.I just want to make this point too about who stands for victims. The party that stands for victims or the Government that stands for victims is the one that's beefed up the police force and given the police the personnel the numbers and the tools to actually do the job of getting on top of gangs getting on top of illegal firearms and actually keeping the community safe. That's what prevents more victims not this sort of nonsense. Anyway to answer the question about why not extend it to every prisoner: for the very reasons I pointed out this is about accepting the principle that there are some prisoners who we know between elections will be released—and it might be a month after the election it might be six months after the election; they're back in the community for 2½ years. They ought to have a say on who the Government is that is running the country that they're going to be released into. The member asked: what if the sentence is changed? That is catered for. If there is an appeal—if for example the Crown appeals a sentence on the grounds it's too short and it is extended beyond three years—that prisoner comes back off the roll has to come off the roll. If the sentence is originally longer than three years but the defendant appeals and their sentence is reduced Corrections has to go to that prisoner and work on the process of getting them back on the roll. That's the way it operates. So the system is able to accommodate changes in sentence even after initial sentencing.
Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you Madam Chair. Firstly can I address one of the comments that the Minister of Justice the Hon Andrew Little made in his response when he said that the National Party must be concerned about the election result this year as we were trying to prevent 1900 prisoners from voting. So I would assume by that statement that the Minister feels that those 1900 prisoners are going to vote for Labour. But I think that's very unfair—I think that's extremely unfair because Darroch Ball he deserves his share; New Zealand First they deserve a share of that 1900 vote. So Minister I would say to you that if you're making the assumption—and it would be fair to say that that's the assumption—that the 1900 prisoners that are going to get the vote at the general election this year are going to vote for Labour or for New Zealand First I put it to you that it's probably highly likely—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Could you put it to the Minister please.Hon MARK MITCHELL: —that the victims are going to vote for—well—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Could you put it to the Minister not to me.Hon MARK MITCHELL: Sorry Madam Chair. I'd put it to you Minister that it's highly likely that the victims—and by the way there are far more victims—are likely to be voting for the National Party this year because we unashamedly stand up and always will speak on the right of the victims and we always put victims at the heart of any of our criminal justice policies. Thank you Madam Chair for allowing me to address that point because it wasn't strictly part of the bill.The question that I've got for the Minister is this: if you truly stand by your values if you truly stand by the—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Could you please address the Minister rather than the Chair. Break a habit of a lifetime.Hon MARK MITCHELL: If the Minister truly stands by those values why are they not passing a bill that gives every prisoner the right to vote? Why are they restricting it to prisoners with a term less than three years?And by the way could the prisoner take—sorry not the prisoner; could the Minister—ha ha!—please stand and explain to me one thing: how are they going to apply this rule when you have a prisoner that may come in with a less than three years prison sentence offends while in prison—which happens often—and he has a new sentence which extends him beyond that three-year period? What happens if a prisoner has got a five-year sentence and actually has it reduced because he completes his rehabilitation training and courses and so he's actually going to come out before the end of his sentence? How is the Minister going to deal with that? How is the system going to respond to that? Those situations are going to arise and to me it appears that you're going to immediately have inequity within a process and a system that you're passing through this bill. Thank you Madam Chair.
Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you Madam Chair and I appreciate the opportunity to take a call on the committee stage of the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill. I just want to thank the Hon Tim Macindoe for the contribution that he made and the points that he outlined around the sham of the process that this bill has gone through. Yet again here we are under urgency debating this legislation. If you were to look back over the history of this legislation it is chequered with a sham of a process on a significant piece of legislation going through Parliament.I want to focus a couple of questions around clause 5 which amends section 80 of the Electoral Act which includes the definitions of those who will be qualified to register under this piece of legislation. It says a person who is detained under—(i) a sentence of imprisonment for life; or (ii) a sentence of preventive detention; or (iii) a sentence of imprisonment for a term of 3 years or more:". I want to focus on the definition there: a sentence of imprisonment for a term of three years or more. Those people remain disqualified for registration but those who are sentenced to imprisonment for a term of less than three years will now be qualified. And I ask the question to the Minister as to how many people this will apply to how many prisoners will be qualified under this legislation and what it intends to do? Then I ask the Minister also if he can outline a number or give some examples potentially of some of the offences that some of those people have committed in order to get those sentences. I'd like the Minister to potentially even answer this question which is to tell the committee how many on average convictions are required by an offender to essentially end up in jail? What's the average number of convictions? I guess this is the question: what is the average number of convictions that a sentenced prisoner has in our prisons in New Zealand? Because—Darroch Ball: What's that got to do with it?SIMEON BROWN: Well what does that have to do with it? Because Mr Ball and I know you're supporting this New Zealand First is not on the side of victims here because this is a conversation around the victims of crime. Those people in prison they go to prison and they lose some of their rights whilst they're in prison and that includes their right to be able to vote. That is one of the rights that they lose when they go to prison and they break the social contract and they have some of their rights taken away from them.Darroch Ball: Why was it a member's bill?SIMEON BROWN: If Mr Ball wants to stand on the side of prisoners rather than victims that's his choice. But we won't on this side and I look forward to the Minister's answers."
SpeechCHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Just before I call the next member could I just remind the committee of the whole House of the resolution of the House to remove the four five-minute call limit on committee stage contributions. The idea behind that was to encourage an interaction with the Minister. So we would have shorter calls—not necessarily shorter but there could be far more shorter calls and a conversation with the Minister. So in order to encourage a conversation you will really need to try and have a question in the contribution from the members.
SpeechELECTORAL (REGISTRATION OF SENTENCED PRISONERS) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeCHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): The House is in committee on the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill. The question is that Part 1 stand part.Part 1 Amendments relating to disqualification of sentenced prisoners for registration as electorsHon Tim Macindoe: Madam Chair?Simeon Brown: Madam Chair?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): You guys work it out.
Imprest Supply (First for 2020/21) Bill — Third Reading
Robertson GrantIMPREST SUPPLY (FIRST FOR 2020/21) BILLThird ReadingHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I move That the Imprest Supply (First for 2020/21) Bill be now read a third time. Bill read a third time.
Robertson GrantThird ReadingHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I move That the Appropriation (2019/20 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a third time.
Robertson GrantHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): In addition to the question of interest-free and the normal write-off provisions that you would have with any loan scheme there's obviously also—and we can get a little bit more information to the member around this around the use-of-money cost to the Government. So when Treasury look at this they always look at what else the money could be used for at a particular time and how that affects the Government's overall expenditure. So I can get him more detail but it is the nature of a loan scheme given out this way. We have to put into the books a fair-value write-down. It's certainly not something that the Minister of Finance does; it's something that Treasury do. It is their professional judgment and the Inland Revenue Department—it is their professional judgment—that leads them to do this. I think what we can all say with some confidence now is it is highly unlikely that that will be the amount of money that is written down because the uptake of the loan does not appear to go towards the levels that were projected. That's the nature of putting a scheme such as this in place.
Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): I suppose the difficulty that I have is that the Minister is saying that the scheme is focused on vulnerable but viable businesses and yet the scheme is effectively set up to write off two-thirds of the money that it loans out. Surely that can't all be accounted for by one year of interest free? If it's being lent out at the percentage that the Government's able to borrow I can't see where the loss is coming from. So it must be based on the assumption that they're expecting a lot of those loans not to be repaid. So how does that square with a scheme that's supposed to be targeted at vulnerable but viable businesses?
Robertson GrantHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Madam Chair thank you very much. In terms of sort of picking out the middle of those three points we gave consideration to a number of options for how to provide support for fixed costs beyond wages. Obviously you know wages are the largest bill within those businesses but we were acutely aware that there were other costs in front of us so we actually did assess a range of options including grants alongside the possibility of loans. What we focused on was how we supported the vulnerable but viable businesses. So these are businesses that have a future but have particular issues around cash flow that were holding them back in terms of their fixed costs. We came to the judgment that the best way of supporting that was through a loan scheme. It's not any old loan scheme. It's interest-free for the first 12 months. No repayments are required for the first two years. It has an interest rate at 3 percent for a five-year term which is more generous than one would find any bank offering. So it is a different loan which in part helps answer the member's first question—which we covered last night—as to why the fair value write-down would be what it is. As we have talked about in the student loan scheme just as with this loan scheme it actually appears as an asset on our books. It's capital expenditure but of course you have to have some kind of estimate. As we discussed last night these are Estimates—it's in the name. Obviously the proof is in the pudding. So far with the Small Business Cashflow (Loan) Scheme it is tracking at around $1.4 billion. I suspect it will continue to be drawn down upon as businesses understand more about the trading environment they now find themselves in at level 1. In terms of the last point the member raised those negotiations around that particular bit of legislation are not ones I am involved in directly. I can obviously though say that Cabinet took a decision to deal with those particular aspects of commercial leases that had not already been dealt with by the landlords and the tenants themselves. By and large those arrangements have been made but we obviously made a Cabinet decision that the final legislative outcomes of that are the responsibility of another Minister.
Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): I just want to return Minister to the short debate we were having last night around the small business cashflow scheme and in particular the ratio between the $5.2 billion capital expenditure which is the loans—potentially up to $5.2 billion—and then the $3.44 billion initial write-down which is to say it appears on the surface of it that the Government is saying that it's going to lend out $5.2 billion to small businesses and expect that ultimately it will only get $1.5 billion or $1.6 billion back because most of it will be written down. I just wanted to get a sense of how that's arrived at. Obviously there's the cost of zero interest if people pay it back within one year but there must be also a very significant expectation that the loans won't be paid back in a significant set of circumstances. So I just want to get some clarity around that first.And then I'm also keen to understand why—given the fact that he appears to be preparing to spend $3.4 billion in effect on that scheme—he didn't give consideration to some simpler method of getting cash into the hands of those small businesses during the lockdown period to help with such costs such as rents and other overheads. I note that more than two months after he announced that he was going to do something to help those businesses today we've heard that their final policy that they finally announced has fallen over as well and so nothing has happened on that front.
Robertson GrantHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I thank the member Andrew Bayly very much for his drawing the attention of the committee to this package. He may recall that during the midst of the COVID-19 lockdown period there was a lot of concern about the future of the media sector in New Zealand. Media outlets were finding it extremely difficult to find advertising revenue and obviously I believe to quote myself—briefly—this was a patient with pre-existing conditions as well in the sense that the media sector did not come into this COVID-19 situation strong in any way at all. In fact it is a sector facing significant realignment.So the Government worked on a package and in fact we covered this material in some depth today in the Social Services Committee Estimates hearings with Minister Faafoi. We worked with the sector on a package; this is the first part of it. It's a $50 million package—so because of the nature of what we're doing I don't want to go back through what I had to with the member last night; we're talking about the 2019-20 bit. There is of course more that will be spent in the 2020-21 year but that was focused on ensuring that broadcasters in particular could have some cash flow. That was done by in one case in one part of this remitting some of the fees that they need to pay both in terms of New Zealand On Air but also in terms of physical broadcasting through Kordia. So those were two parts of it.The second part of the first part relates to Government advertising and ensuring that Government advertising both continued but also could be brought forward in terms of the payments for that in order to again supply cash flow for the media sector. Obviously during this period of time we saw some private media outlets not able to operate any more others reducing staff and as we discussed this morning at the select committee also even Television New Zealand as a public broadcaster having to do that as well. So this is one of the many sectors affected by COVID-19. This was the first portion of the $50 million that was announced for that.
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you Madam Chair and very useful that you just reminded us of this quick interaction between the Minister and ourselves. This time I'd just very much like to hear the views of the Minister around the media package that's—it's very significant isn't it Minister? From what I can see there are two broad parts of it. There's the COVID-19 transmission and other fees on behalf of media organisations—$7.7 million; and then there's another $11.4 million under the COVID-19 media sector response and recovery.The first question I wish to ask is: is that it? Is that the full package—$20 million? That's very significant. I suppose it does raise the issue of why such a large and specific allocation has been made to the media and it would be useful to have a background on why the Minister has made this special provision and also the types of organisations that it's going to be applied to—that would be very useful.
SpeechAPPROPRIATION (2019/20 SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES) BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 23 June.Clauses 4 to 8 and Schedules 1 to 3 (continued)CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): The House is in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2019/20 Supplementary Estimates) Bill. I remind members that in the committee stage of an Appropriation (Supplementary Estimates) Bill only the Minister's amendments and any amendments to them are considered. I also remind members that the House has agreed to the trial of the removal of the four-call limit in the committee stage. I encourage you to keep your contributions focused—five minutes is not a target—and relevant to promote good interaction with the Minister in the chair. We have the ability then to take short calls and have a series of questions and answers between members and the Minister. You can be confident you will get a number of short calls. When we were last debating the bill we were considering the question that clauses 4 to 8 and Schedules 1 to 3 stand part.
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's my pleasure to take a brief call to confirm that the National Opposition will be supporting this motion. I just want to make three or four points. The first is to actually commend the work of the Regulations Review Committee because it's one of those ubiquitous organisations within Parliament that nevertheless does an extremely important job. Those who are appointed to that standing committee often get a bit teased—Hon Tim Macindoe: Pinnacle of my parliamentary career!Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —by their colleagues certainly on my side of the House. That's right. Mr Macindoe says it was the highlight of his career. He says it flippantly but I bet there were things that were done pretty much behind the scenes that nevertheless were very good from a scrutiny perspective. I would remind the House of the excellent opinion and letter that was written during the lockdown about the questions that were rightly asked about the section 70 notices under the Health Act that were issued and the question of both process and whether they were ultra vires effectively. Now that triggered an interesting sequence of events in the Epidemic Response Committee that doesn't bear relitigating here. But nevertheless I found that a very thoughtful and important contribution to our thinking about the appropriate response which all parties wanted to support. But as I have said in this House a couple of times the rigour that we put to the executive's regulation and lawmaking power is most important in these times of challenge and crisis as they are in any other time. The second point I would like to make is that of the time frame. As the Hon Chris Hipkins has pointed out these are departures from the current Standing Orders for the reporting back but they are appropriate. We have had very good examples of where a quite detailed scrutiny of things passed necessarily quickly can still nevertheless be done and I have every confidence that the Regulations Review Committee will do that.The third thing I would like to actually ask the committee just to check in their examination of the orders that are made is that it has been brought to my attention that it is possible that a couple of the orders made under section 11 might not have been consistent with the notice period and manner that is set out in the primary legislation. Now I haven't had a chance to go and check the veracity of that. So as is my way when I make comments like that—I caveat them appropriately that the source is reliable but at this stage it's an anecdote. But it does I think behove the committee to just have a quick check a belt and braces check that for example the order that was signed by the Minister of Health on Saturday—interestingly on a Saturday in Dunedin and that's the nature of these things; it's often necessarily a swift process—nevertheless met the requirements for gazetting and publication that are set out on the principal Act. With that we're very pleased to support the motion. Motion agreed to.
Tuesday 23 June 2020 - Volume 747
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Appropriation (2019/20 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2020/21) Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bills read a second time.
Appropriation (2019/20 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and Imprest Supply (First for 2020/21) Bill — Second Readings
VoteThe question was put That the amendments recommended by the Finance and Expenditure Committee by majority be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Public Finance (Wellbeing) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bill read a second time.
Public Finance (Wellbeing) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
12. Question No. 12—ImmigrationRAYMOND HUO (Labour) to the Minister of ImmigrationQuestion No. 12—Immigration12. KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) on behalf of RAYMOND HUO (Labour) to the Minister of Immigration: What initiatives to support refugees and their families were announced in Budget 2020?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister of Immigration): It was my privilege to celebrate World Refugee Day with refugee communities from across New Zealand today and to celebrate the work that we have done to support the international refugee resettlement effort. Last year we agreed to raise the annual refugee quota to 1500 per year and in this year's Budget we agreed to fund greater support for refugee family reunification to continue the refugee community sponsorship pilot to continue to upgrade the world-class facilities at Māngere and to increase resources for refugee claim processing. I want to make a special mention of the Green Party's work and advocacy to ensure that we review and adequately fund refugee family resettlement.Kieran McAnulty: Why is the Government committed to the refugee programme?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Well two reasons. First the Government is committed to doing our part as a good international citizen and providing a pathway for those displaced by war and other tragedy to make a new start. Second refugees are great for New Zealand. Former refugees and their families contribute to our communities culturally economically and socially. They bring with them their experiences cultures skills and their strong desire to participate in employment community activities volunteering and education.Kieran McAnulty: What message does the Government have for refugees former refugees and their families?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: We are proud to welcome them and all that they bring to this country: their knowledge their skills their talent and their culture. Their contribution makes us a better society.
8. Question No. 8—TransportCHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of TransportQuestion No. 8—Transport8. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Transport: Has the chair of the New Zealand Transport Agency written to him advising of a shortfall of at least $1 billion in the National Land Transport Fund; if so what impacts if any would this shortfall have on transport projects due for funding through the National Land Transport Fund?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister of Transport: As you'd expect New Zealanders did not drive as much during alert levels 2 3 and 4 while they stayed at home. This naturally has had an impact on the revenue raised from petrol excise duty and road-user charges. We're still working through the impacts of this on the National Land Transport Fund. Yes the chair of the agency wrote to me in April and in May outlining scenarios noting that the estimates provided were at that point very uncertain. Those estimates were made before we moved down to alert level 1 and given the earlier than expected move down the alert levels I'm advised that the total impact is already likely to be less than the chair had initially indicated. I'd like to reassure the member that we are continuing to work through the implications and are aiming to avoid a hypothetical scenario where any projects may be delayed by any shortfall.Chris Bishop: Is it correct that the letter suggests that projects that aren't road-building projects be cancelled or delayed in order to address the funding shortfall?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I said the letter set out a range of scenarios and already the worst-case scenario has not happened because we moved down the alert levels faster. Chris Bishop: Did the chair of the Transport Agency suggest any particular funding categories that should be reprioritised as the result of the funding shortfall and if so what were those categories?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I said in my first and second answers the letters contained a variety of scenarios and a variety of options. The worst-case scenario has not eventuated because we moved down alert levels faster.Chris Bishop: Will he rule out any projects being cut from the current National Land Transport Programme?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Government has no intention of doing so.
7. Question No. 7—Climate ChangeMARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for Climate ChangeQuestion No. 7—Climate Change7. MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for Climate Change: What recent announcements has he made about New Zealand Green Investment Finance decisions on climate change?Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister for Climate Change): Last Thursday I announced New Zealand Green Investment Finance Ltd's first ever investment. New Zealand Green Investment Finance has provided Wellington CentrePort with a $15 million green credit facility. The lending will be used to fund low-carbon projects such as electric vehicles on-site renewable energy generation and energy efficiency upgrades.Marama Davidson: Why does New Zealand Green Investment Finance have to invest on a commercial basis?Hon JAMES SHAW: Developing sustainable long-term solutions to the climate crisis requires good ideas planning and focus. New Zealand Green Investment Finance Ltd was set up to support those businesses with the skills and outlook necessary to create lasting change in New Zealand. Throwing money around with no eye to commercial viability will not funnel support to the firms with the best plans and the best ideas. By ensuring commercial discipline New Zealand Green Investment Finance Ltd will also be able to get their capital back and reinvest earnings into more low-carbon projects creating a virtuous cycle of sustainable investment.Marama Davidson: What will this investment mean for Aotearoa?Hon JAMES SHAW: Successful investment in electrification renewables and efficiency will not only assist the port to achieve its climate goals but will also provide an example for other firms in the port sector and beyond. Electrifying our transport and logistics sector is one of the lowest cost decarbonisation options that we have. Transport and logistics make up one-fifth of our total emissions and continue to rise. Investments like this one are a key part of the solution.
5. Question No. 5—HousingGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of HousingQuestion No. 5—Housing5. GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Housing: What action has the Government taken to strengthen managed isolation and quarantine facilities?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): After taking ministerial responsibility for these facilities last week I worked with Air Commodore Webb on a swift 72-hour plan to ensure procedures at our managed isolation and quarantine facilities are rigorous and robust. In the first 72 hours there were two major objectives: (1) that we confirmed strict adherence of the rules by the returnees and (2) that we ensured testing was undertaken and negative results returned to everybody before they leave. Alongside immediate measures to achieve these objectives Air Commodore Webb commissioned an urgent end-to-end review of the facilities which is well under way. I make no apologies for the strict measures we are introducing. Our managed isolation and quarantine facilities are an important line of defence against COVID-19. New Zealanders spent five weeks in level 4 lockdown. We expect those returning to our team of 5 million to play their part with two weeks in managed isolation.Ginny Andersen: What were the specific actions taken to achieve those objectives?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Last Wednesday Air Commodore Webb and myself visited managed isolation and quarantine facilities in Auckland. This was followed by a personal briefing to all New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) operational personnel at managed facilities to reiterate our expectations. Alongside this we doubled the number of NZDF personnel on the ground and boosted the police presence both on site and with specifically assigned after-hours support. There are now new lockdown procedures in place where cases are identified including a review of CCTV footage.Ginny Andersen: What are the challenges associated with running these facilities?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: These operations are extremely complex and require sophisticated operational oversight which is exactly why we now have the NZDF in control. The fundamental job that needs to be completed is carefully matching supply with demand. On the demand side while we do have forecasts of the numbers entering New Zealand we cannot know how many people will show up until they turn up at the airport and check in. What we've seen in recent times is a significant uptick in the number of New Zealanders returning home requiring additional supply and resources to meet that demand. COVID-19 is growing not slowing as the rest of the world opens up and people return home from higher-risk areas. But our plan is working and our managed isolation and quarantine facilities are ensuring that we keep New Zealand safe and COVID contained in these facilities.
2. Question No. 2—FinanceTAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 2—Finance2. TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki) to the Minister of Finance: He aha ngā rīpoata hou kua kitea e ia mō te ōhanga o Aotearoa?[What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?]Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): ASB economists this week reported that their real-time estimate of unemployment in New Zealand was a little over 6 percent based on job seeker numbers from the Ministry of Social Development. In recent weeks economists including ASB's have revised down their forecasts of the peak in New Zealand's unemployment rate to around 8 percent as new data comes out on the New Zealand economy. New Zealand went hard and early with our economic plan to cushion the blow for businesses and households from the global recession caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. It is welcoming to see that the actions of all New Zealanders and the benefits of opening up the economy under level 2 and level 1 earlier than expected are contributing to better than expected economic outcomes for New Zealanders.Tamati Coffey: What reports has he seen on the international context for the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The global recession due to the COVID-19 pandemic has been felt around the world. The UK reported that economic activity fell 20 percent during the month of April from March due to the lockdown. At the end of April the UK economy was 25 percent smaller than in February. Last week the Australian unemployment rate rose to 7.1 percent in May up from 5.1 percent three months ago. Forecasts by the Reserve Bank of Australia are for the unemployment rate there to peak at around 8 percent—the same as now being forecast for New Zealand.Tamati Coffey: How does the New Zealand economy compare to the UK and Australia in terms of restrictions?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: While New Zealand had one of the most stringent lockdowns around the world our decision to go hard and early with our health response has meant that our economy has been able to open up faster than others around the world. The UK still has stringent controls in place with the Oxford University Government response stringency index rating them at 70.37 out of 100 in terms of their restrictions. The stringency index rates Australia at 53.7 out of 100. In comparison New Zealand sits as one of the most open economies in the world with a score at 19.44 out of 100—better than Japan Taiwan and South Korea. New Zealand went into the global COVID-19 pandemic with a strong and stable economy and now we are one of the most open economies heading out of the lockdown due to the success and sacrifice of the team of 5 million.
Robertson GrantHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): For the member's benefit there are two different categories of expenses. So if the member looks on page 29 just above that you've got the non-departmental expenses and then when you go over it turns into the non-departmental capital expenditure. As I'm sure the member knows when we talk about loans just as we do with the student loans scheme things appear as assets on a book because they are repayable loans. That is the estimate—the $5.2 billion. I think we're all aware that it's very difficult to estimate the number of businesses who will choose to draw down on a loan and so the member is correct in his first statement about the write-off relating to the interest-free component but the whole book value of the loan has to appear until such time as we can get a more accurate assessment of it and obviously this was done at the time at which the scheme was created.In terms of his specific question again the member's probably been keeping up with where we've got to. It was about $1.3 billion the other day. We are continuing to see demand. It's around nearly 90000 businesses that have drawn down on that loan so it's certainly achieving the goals we wanted. Making those estimates of exactly how much people will borrow was obviously very challenging. That is the nature of the Estimates process.House resumed.The Chairperson reported progress on the Appropriation (2019/20 Supplementary Estimates) Bill.Report adopted.The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.
Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you Mr Chair. Another question that is a little bit puzzling and I'd just like to have a bit more clarification on is around the revenue for the initial fair value write-down relating to the small-business cash-flow scheme. So there are two sort of figures here. One is the $5.2 million set up for the scheme—Hon Grant Robertson: What page you reading from?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Page 30—page 30. So first you've got $5.2 billion allocated for the small-business cash-flow scheme and then you've also got $3.4 billion for the fair value write-down which is presumably a reflection of the interest-free elements for it if it's paid but bringing a total of over $8 billion.I'd be keen to just get a bit of a sense of—obviously that again is an estimate and depends on how much is being picked up and my understanding was it's about a billion or so that's been lent so far but that may have changed in recent times. I'd be keen to just get a sense of again—I know there aren't officials here with the Minister; I'm not quite sure why not—what progress has been made in that way in order to help with small-business cashflow.
Robertson GrantHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The member—who is a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee—I know went through these matters in some detail with Treasury officials last week and I am in possession of the same paper here that went in front of him and if he looked at page 12 of that he would understand. And I did try to explain this a little bit in my first comment about what the numbers in the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) actually refer to.So if I can help the member here—and it might help other members as well—in that paper the transitional housing original estimates were in the Budget 2019-20 and were $138 million. There was then the change in the original Supplementary Estimates which would have added $59 million but in eventuality it was $41 million not $59 million bringing a total of $180 million. So rather than being a reduction it is a more accurate assessment of the additional amount of money that's required in the Supplementary Estimates on top of the normal Estimates. So yes only $41 million of $59 million was spent but the total amount of money—the $180 million—I suspect is probably a record spend in that area I imagine. But that's what I was trying to explain before; you've got to add up all of both the original Estimates the original Supplementary Estimates and now the SOP caused by the fact that we have these extraordinary circumstances. And I'm sure the member will now recall that from his studious approach that I know he takes in the committee to the matters that were brought in front of the committee last week.
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you Mr Chair. I just wanted to look at the housing and urban development component. Obviously we're very concerned as all New Zealanders are about the homeless and those who are dispossessed and struggling to find housing. So it's with some alarm I suppose to see a reduction in this—and I'm trying to understand and would be grateful if the Minister could help me because obviously we haven't had the analysis around this. But the transitional housing component has dropped from just on $60 million down to $41 million so that's a $10 drop.Then there's been also a reduction in the public housing by a much smaller amount but none the less a reduction. So given the environment we're working in and I understand a lot of homeless people have been put into accommodation—particularly hotels and motels—and are enjoying a much better lifestyle as a result of living in hotels I just somehow wonder why there would be a reduction in that component or whether in fact the transitional housing relates to some of the new initiatives. I presume that's an operating cost not a capital cost and therefore how does that relate because I know the Government has a very ambitious target around transitional housing? I presume it's not the KiwiBuild which is only 380 houses but this must be the social housing component. So if you could elaborate on that reduction of roughly $10 million in this appropriation it would be very helpful. Thank you very much.
Robertson GrantHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Mr Chair I'll just take one more call and get some further information and then we'll understand I'm sure. In fact all members will understand that the Budget's a very large document. What I can tell the member is an interim response to his question that the audit function is covered by both the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) and Inland Revenue. There are 104 auditors who are employed to look into the wage subsidy scheme. We're just going to get a little bit of information from the member on the split of that. Also because MSD is a very effective and efficient agency they will have been doing a significant amount of this work from baseline expenditure as well. So I will get a little bit more detail for the member on that but I can confirm that there are 104 auditors if my memory serves me right from some paper that I saw earlier today. I think there's been around 6000 audits undertaken for the wage subsidy scheme—so that's a significant sample—and around over $150 million repaid.
Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you Mr Chair. I'm just interested to hear from the Minister in the chair Grant Robertson: we had as we were talking about before this increase in the business support subsidy to $15.2 billion estimated spending—probably one of the largest single items of expenditure in the history of the country—and then we have also with social development investigation of overpayments and fraudulent payments has increased by $1.3 million. I'm just interested in that. There haven't been any changes in the supplementary so it sort of appears that the Government has been happy to spend the $15.2 billion but has not really made any extra allowance for any attempt to ensure that any investigation of overpayments and fraudulent payments were looked into.There was an element of controversy around this: there was reported—and maybe it was incorrectly reported—that the Minister's office wasn't interested in that side of things and the Minister has said that you were interested. I suppose people on the streets are recognising of the importance of the wage subsidy to help cushion the blow as has been said to get businesses through but they do want to have—and there was a sort of rough and willing readiness acceptance that the first tranche of these payments was on a high-trust basis but there I suppose is slightly less sense of accommodation to the sense that for the second lot having had two or three months to figure out the plans there would be a bit more thought put into ensuring that that money gets to the right people and the right people only. So I just wanted to just test with the Minister: had any thought been given to putting more resources into policing it than what appears to have been provided there—or maybe I've missed something.
Robertson GrantHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I will get some further advice on that very specific point from the member Michael Woodhouse. While he is focusing on the DHB costs I would note that if he looks a little further on there are increased costs around areas of the national services if you look on the next page. So I am going to make the assumption at this point that actually if he and I sat down and did the maths we would probably discover that the majority of that was being delivered through national services costs rather than through DHBs.
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Chair. I thank the Minister for that explanation and I mention this not by way of an attempt to catch him out but the attachment that went with the press release on 17 March specifically said that the remaining funds are earmarked for future announcements as required such as ensuring New Zealand has sufficient medicines flu vaccines face masks and PPE"—so flu vaccines were included in that. I just would like one last clarification on this because the Minister mentioned managed isolation which as he rightly points out has been in the news quite a bit. Because the overwhelming majority of the managed isolation services are being provided in the Auckland and Counties Manukau district health boards regions it seems to me that certainly the principal costs of accommodation are not covered by this appropriation and it wouldn't be actually that fair—it doesn't appear to be part of the calculations that the agency nursing and healthcare assistance staff or the testing costs are actually falling on those two DHBs alone. So it would be helpful to understand quite which costs for managed isolation are falling on the DHBs and if so which ones."