7. Question No. 7—Prime MinisterDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime MinisterQuestion No. 7—Prime Minister7. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government's statements and actions?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes particularly the Government's action to increase incomes of New Zealand families through a range of measures including measures to protect lives and livelihoods during the one-in-100-year COVID-19 shock including the wage subsidy and Resurgence Support Payment; our decision to increase support for those relying on main benefits that will mean 110000 beneficiaries with children will be better off by an average of $175 per week; the introduction of the Best Start payment and its increase to $65 per week on 1 April; raising the minimum wage which over time has come from $15.75 to $21.20 as at 1 April; introducing and extending the free Healthy School Lunches programme to over 200000 students; reducing education costs for parents by increasing funding for deciles 1 to 7 schools that agree not to request donations; and by removing NCEA fees. All of these initiatives are one of the reasons we've seen progress against all nine child poverty indicators in New Zealand since we took office. I especially stand by the decision to prioritise these changes over the member's plan to provide over $9900 a year to someone earning over $300000 and not a single dollar to someone earning $45000. We'll continue to work to grow the incomes of all New Zealanders not just the highest-income earners.David Seymour: A point of order. I find myself in a very difficult position because the Prime Minister is telling the House what ACT's policies are and getting it wrong. It actually would give a lot of relief to people—SPEAKER: Well the member will resume his seat. I think the member knows that I don't have responsibility for the answers. If the member thinks that a Minister has got something wrong there are ways of taking that up but points of order is not one of them.Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Speaking to the point of order—SPEAKER: No no. I've ruled on the point of order.David Seymour: A fresh point of order and I in no way mean to dispute your ruling; however you said you don't have responsibility but actually the Standing Orders do require that answers do not contain unnecessary arguments or information. Now the Prime Minister has very arguably done that. She's not responsible for ACT's policies and she doesn't get them right either.SPEAKER: Sorry I'm just—Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Mr Speaker may I speak to the point of order given you haven't yet ruled?SPEAKER: You can. It will give me a chance to look up the references.Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Somewhat tentatively if I could buy you some time—speaking to the point of order I would be happy to table the member's own Supplementary Order Paper dated Tuesday 15 March on the tax rates that he is proposing which is the basis of the answer that I gave.SPEAKER: No I think now I've got to the point where I've got my head around the appropriate Standing Order and it is 367 and that is something which is done in writing. So we're not going to go any further on this point of order now. If the member wants another supplementary question or if the member wants the first supplementary question he can ask it.David Seymour: OK a fresh point of order Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: Unrelated?David Seymour: Unrelated. In the point of order that the Prime Minister just raised she offered to table a Supplementary Order Paper which has already been published publicly by the House. Surely she knows that and it's disorderly to suggest it.SPEAKER: I'm trying to work out whether the member wants to stay or not. Supplementary question David Seymour. Chris Bishop: It's a good point.David Seymour: Point of order? Chris Bishop: Ha ha!SPEAKER: Order! Look Mr Bishop. No the member will resume his seat. One thing that—you know it may be a disadvantage to the member with a new seat; I have sat in that very seat.Chris Bishop: I don't think it's going to be a new seat for me.SPEAKER: Order! There he goes again—there he goes again. I mean if I was either of my predecessors he would have been gone half an hour ago. The member must not run a commentary on Speakers' rulings. It may be that I can hear him more easily now he is sitting in that seat. I have sat there before and I know that it has advantages and disadvantages. And I'll say to Mr Goldsmith: his running commentaries are much easier to hear as well now that he is sitting there but what I'm not going to have is constant comments on my rulings. And if the member's going to comment on this one he's asking to leave the House.Chris Bishop: Just a point of order Mr Speaker. Just—SPEAKER: Well as long as it's not going to comment on this ruling.Chris Bishop: I'm just trying to be helpful.SPEAKER: If it does he's going.Chris Bishop: I'm just trying to be helpful. Would it be useful if we had a coffee afterwards so that you can understand the difference between sotto voce when I speak and actually speaking in public? I'm happy to go for a coffee to discuss—SPEAKER: Well I'll decline the member's invitation for a date because I have meetings that go on for some time afterwards. But I will say to the member: just because it's quiet for him doesn't mean I can't hear it. David Seymour [Interruption] Now have we got up to supplementary questions yet?David Seymour: I was just wondering if Chris Bishop would like to have a coffee. [Interruption] Oh cool—see you later. After question time? Yeah cool. Supplementary question Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: David Seymour.David Seymour: Thank you Mr Speaker. Does the Prime Minister stand by the statement she made to this House just two weeks ago To simply carte blanche open the borders would be at a great cost potentially to New Zealanders and we're not willing to do that at this time." and if so how does she reconcile that with her statement this morning that "In short we're ready to welcome the world back."?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Quite easily. We have said even from the beginning of February that the right time to open the borders would be at the point that we know when we are essentially reaching our peak and when we have confidence that we are on the other side of it and that cases are stabilising in our hospitals. Now that we are there it is easier to anticipate how much longer we may expect some of that pressure on our hospital system.David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister aware of a poll released on Saturday by news organisation One News showing 75 percent of voters want the border reopened and if she was aware can she reassure New Zealanders it had no effect on her change of stance on opening the border?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: It had absolutely no effect. At the beginning of February we announced our reopening plans and at that time I said it was highly likely that we would bring forward all of those dates once we had reached the high peak of our outbreak because at that point experts had advised us that it would make less difference to have a large number of people coming in. We also sought expert advice on when that reopening date would be preceding any of the measures that the member is pointing to. We have never based our decisions on people's lives and livelihoods on something like a poll; we've based it on evidence and advice—I would assert that nor does the member because I would have thought his policy to say that everything that we've done on COVID should have been reversed because he believes we would have been better off with people dying doesn't seem to be based on popularity either.David Seymour: Will the Prime Minister table all that advice she just referred to to use the decision in this House right now so everyone else can read it too?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We've always released the advice that we receive from Professor David Skegg. We proactively release our Cabinet papers. We publicly release our public health advice and it's contained in the Reconnecting papers that will also be released. The speech where I said that we would likely bring those dates forward I believe was on possibly 3 February was live streamed and is publicly available.David Seymour: How many cases and hospitalisations will New Zealand avoid by waiting another six weeks to open the border to all tourists and can she explain why this reduction in cases and hospitalisations is worth the cost of continuing isolation to businesses families and people up and down New Zealand?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Just to be clear with the member what we've announced today is the blanket reopening for all tourists from Australia and visa-waiver countries so it's actually not purely a decision about lifting isolation. When it comes to how many additional cases we receive even if you had half possibly 65 percent of previous returnees you're looking at about an additional thousand cases on top of what you're already receiving in any given week. What we have to be mindful of is the wider impact on our hospital system. So yes we have high case numbers now but we also have high case numbers in our hospitals. Whilst we may have peaked in Auckland we have not elsewhere and some of our regional hospitals of course they do have smaller numbers of high dependency unit and ICU capacity. We have to balance the need to ensure that people get the hospital care they need with our economic recovery. The final point I would make is that actually many operators have welcomed these dates. The 12th of April means that we will capture the vast majority of school holidays and it gives them albeit a short time time to prepare for their re-entry trip into the country.David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister confirm what she just appeared to tell the House that she's keeping the border closed for another six weeks to reduce case numbers by a thousand a week in a country that is experiencing anywhere from 120000 to 140000 domestic cases right now?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I said that is only if you had for instance half or roughly half of those individuals return. And as we've always said all of our decisions have been based on the best advice and evidence that we have and that advice from the beginning has said—and Professor Skegg gave it just a week ago from the podium publicly—that their advice would be not to reopen generally to tourists until we had reached the peak. We're not clear we have but we've estimated that by 12 April we will be in the best possible position. Most New Zealanders have welcomed this decision. I would have thought this might be an opportunity for the member to as well.Hon David Parker: What would have been the outcome for New Zealand's pandemic in the January period when New Zealanders were on holiday had the Government opened the borders in December before booster rates were higher?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member is correct that in this House it was the common position of both the member and the Leader of the Opposition to declare 1 December "freedom day". That was within days of the World Health Organization declaring Omicron a variant of concern. We had only just begun the booster roll-out. Had we opened at that time I fear that the outcomes in New Zealand would have been vastly different. Some people still trivialise COVID; it is not to be trivialised. Yes we are working hard to bring as much normality back as possible. But when you look at the likes of Hong Kong that is experiencing similar case rates to New Zealand the death rate is vastly different because—different in vaccination rates. It made a difference for us to hold Omicron back for the time we did. Seventy-three percent of our eligible population is now vaccinated and soon we will be ready to safely fully reopen.David Seymour: What would have been the effect on the pandemic had a country called New Zealand been at the "front of the queue" for procuring vaccines and the booster roll-out was completed by December and we could open up and save billions of dollars?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member there is just wrong. There was almost no country that had completed a booster roll-out by 1 December."