edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Robertson GrantHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The flu vaccine's not covered by this. So that's clear—that was an already appropriated sum of money that was being spent.In terms of the member's question I can be very specific of the increase of $495.85 million—$350 million of that was to purchase additional stocks of personal protective equipment. That was as the member will recall distributed via DHBs so it was the subject of some controversy at the time but let's be fair that that is the structure that we have in the health system. It also includes $58 million on a matter that the member is most interested in which is the cost of providing managed isolation or quarantine facilities: $51.85 million which was a mixture of purchasing of additional ventilator and respiratory equipment and meeting some of the costs for providing additional ICU facilities as well. Obviously the good news is we were not required to expend all of that although we had to manage the cost of that including with private hospitals which again the member will be aware of.There was $37 million to undertake the purchase of equipment for laboratory testing $14 million to implement the COVID contact tracing action plan and a small $1 million fiscally neutral transfer to allow aspects of the Pacific community response package to be dealt with. There was an offset involving the primary healthcare strategy and some money moving across there but that is the detail of that expenditure. As the member notes there were some criticisms of the DHB's ability to get PPE to where it was needed but that was the mechanism that was used.
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Oh thank you Mr Chair. My interest in Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 513 not surprisingly is in respect of Vote Health and the amendments that have been made to it since the bill was introduced on Budget day—which takes the supplementary appropriations to district health boards to over $389 million. And they've effectively all gone up since the bill was increased on Budget day. I'm presuming the Minister can just clarify this that the supplementary appropriations were the meat and drink really of the announcements that the Government made I think on around 17 March as part of the extra funding that was announced at that time to support the health response.What was interesting about that announcement which probably had something in the region of about $450 million overall was that not all of that funding—Hon Grant Robertson: 495.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Thank you 445 was it? Thank you.Hon Grant Robertson: 495.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: 95 was it? Gosh I must've missed some.Not all of that actually by my reading of the announcement would have been funding that would have gone directly—sorry channelled through DHBs in order to get to the end user. So it seems to me that these increases totalling nearly $400 million seem much much higher than the DHBs would have needed in order to be able to give effect to the announcements that were made on 17 March.My second question is around whether or not we're going to actually get there. Because one of the extraordinary aspects of that was for example there was a quite big dollop of money for the increasing and the purchase of influenza vaccines which were needed right then. What I couldn't understand was why we waited a whole month to actually place the orders for that particularly when there was so much interest in actually getting the flu vaccines. That is an anecdote not a question.The question really is given that we're now only seven days from the end of the 2019-20 financial year and this is an updated SOP one would presume that the numbers are accurate. Except it seems to me that we're going to struggle to spend this money if the example of the flu vaccines is anything to go by. So why is all of the money being channelled through the DHBs when some of it was going to public health units and other healthcare services that weren't being managed by the DHBs and is this all necessary?
Robertson GrantHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I thank the member very much for his questions. On the first point I think he answered his own question in his contribution which is that the changes to the Public Finance Act are only at second reading at this stage rather than any further on in our work but the member can rest assured that we applied the wellbeing lens to all of the proposals that were in front of us in particular looking at how the populations that are already the most disadvantaged have been affected by COVID-19 and ensuring that we had spending that went in that direction. So it was certainly part of our thinking.And I do note although the member perhaps uses pejorative language to describe this framework I invite him to read the speech of his new leader last Sunday who actually endorsed the framework—Rt Hon David Carter: Sunday before.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yeah Sunday before and endorsed it. I don't want to create another division inside the National caucus but I just invite him to read that.On the matter of the Officers of Parliament that was included not because of an oversight at all in fact but that the Officers of Parliament Committee received specific requests from some of the officers for increased expenditure as a result of restrictions from COVID-19. So it was actually a very specific instruction for the Officers of Parliament Committee which I don't think the member currently serves on but I know has served on in the past.The matter of pork is one that all Ministers who were members of the COVID-19 Ministerial Committee will be able to talk at great length about. The issue that arose here was an animal welfare issue essentially around the fact that because we weren't able to export pork products or we weren't able to see them processed in the way that we wanted to there was the risk of a wholesale slaughter of a lot of pigs in a way that we would not in this House deem appropriate and so decisions were taken to support as much as possible that pork to be processed and got to supermarkets got to food banks and so on but the cost on those suppliers needed to be met from somewhere and that largely was an animal welfare issue to ensure that they were processed and humanely dealt with.
SpeechRt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): I've got three brief questions to the Minister of Finance and the first one is quite specific to clause 4 and it is clause 4 Overview" and the fact that this must meet the requirements of the Public Finance Act 1989. Earlier this afternoon we had a lengthy debate around the amendment to the Public Finance Act which as I said in the House I thought was fairly fluffy sort of stuff bringing in the wellbeing framework. I just want to make sure that the Minister in his competence has taken into account that now the Public Finance Act has been amended since he put the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) before the House—or is in the process of being amended because we covered off the second reading earlier.The second point I want the Minister to comment on—and I certainly don't do this just to embarrass him—is we've got the bill before the House and then we've got Supplementary Order Paper 513. Again specifically to clause 4 when I look at it the only addition has been to clause 4(c) section 8 and Schedule 3 and it's the additions of the words "and Offices of Parliament". I just wonder whether the Minister could tell us why that is included in an SOP and wasn't included in the original bill. I assume it's an afterthought. I've gone through the papers and I can't actually find any detail of it at all so I'd be grateful if the Minister could tell us why the amended SOP is before the House specifically to the inclusion of the words "Officers of Parliament". My third question relates to the additional appropriations in the supplementary Supplementary Estimates to the Ministry for Primary Industries. Of course I do this because of my previous association with the ministry. It's the $10.245 million additional Supplementary Estimates in the Supplementary Order Paper. When I spoke of this earlier in a contribution the Hon Shane Jones interjected and said it's all for extension services. I said to Mr Jones that I don't think it is and I invited him to turn to page 12 of the additions to the Supplementary Estimates information. There's a whole lot of pork industry processers who have received money—Freshpork for example $1.760 million; Wilson Hellaby $1.054 million. I'm just interested in what happened here. What was the reason why we're suddenly having to find $10 million of taxpayer money to support what looks like some sort of support to the pork industry and why it was specifically required for the pork industry and not for any of the other red meat producers in New Zealand. I assume it has something to do with lockdown and the ability of pork producers to get their produce processed adequately. But if the Minister could elaborate on that I'd be grateful.Subsequent to that I have a number of other questions for the Minister."
Robertson GrantHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I thank the member Paul Goldsmith for the question. So the member is right in saying that it is the nature of—it's in the name. It's in the nature of estimates that they are estimates of spending. The $12 billion was the amount put aside for the first phase of the wage subsidy scheme. Around $11 billion of that was spent—slightly over $11 billion. The additional sum of money is the estimated required money for the wage subsidy extension.Now it will not all be spent in the period in my view. I think at the moment we're just under a billion dollars for that. I would need to come back and let the member know. We're somewhere between $700 million and about $900 million that has been already allocated in the wage subsidy extension. When Treasury did their estimates on the wage subsidy extension they thought that it would support around 900000 employees. So far it's supporting around 230000 employees. Arguably this is a good sign. It's that businesses are not in the situation of having that 40 percent reduction in turnover in the previous month and so therefore they aren't requiring it. But we need to see a little bit more time before we can be absolutely sure of that. So what this reflects is the cost of the original scheme and the estimated cost of the extension which was $3.2 billion as the member will recall. It may be that we don't spend that in the end. That is the nature of estimates.
Goldsmith PaulClauses 4 to 8 and Schedules 1 to 3Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you Mr Chair. So anyway—Hon Tracey Martin: What's happened to your hair?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well I don't know. I don't know what's happened to my hair. So the original situation in the Supplementary Estimates was as I'm trying to clarify that we were going to spend $344 million less on KiwiBuild than we anticipated and I can only assume that's because that policy has been a monumental flop and a good example of the difference between intentions announcements and delivery. But we're not debating that. Is that what you're saying? Hon Grant Robertson: It's an SOP.Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Right OK. So one thing that we would be debating then would be the change from this single page 31 where we have just one line. We've got this long list of spending—and the people of New Zealand will be fascinated to know the speed with which money is spent in this place. So there was a line that was $12 billion—a nice round figure—for the wage subsidy business support subsidy COVID-19 which the National Party was broadly supportive of and that's been increased to $15.2 billion. So the question that I have for the Minister as we just kick things off is: how much does he think is actually going to be spent of that $15.2 billion? What's his latest intelligence on that at the moment?
Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): My thanks to the Minister for explaining the reasonably complicated sort of arrangements. So am I right in assuming that you only want us to debate the changes to the bill in terms of the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP)?Hon Grant Robertson: That's the SOP we're debating.Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: So the Supplementary Estimates for example included that there were to be $344 million not spent in the KiwiBuild housing—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Can I just say we're on clause 4 which is the overview of the bill.Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Oh I thought we were taking it all as one part. We're not taking it all as one part? Michael Wood: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek leave that the provisions of this bill be taken as one part.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Robertson GrantClause 4 OverviewHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Thank you very much Madam Chair—my apologies for being too quick to get going there. I thought it might be helpful—Hon Tracey Martin: Very quick that Minister; he's very quick.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Indeed thank you very much. I thought it might be helpful at the outset of the consideration of the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that I explain clearly what it does. In almost all years once Cabinet has decided in early- to mid-April the amounts to be included in the Estimates for the year about to start and the Supplementary Estimates for the year about to end there is a Budget moratorium from then until Budget day where no further decisions with financial implications are made. This ensures that the Budget documents presented to the House on Budget day reflect all of the decisions that Ministers have made. This year with a need for a timely and ongoing response to COVID-19 it was not possible to have a Budget moratorium. This has happened once before in the time that I've been in this House and that was immediately following the Canterbury earthquakes when a similar situation befell the Government where there was a need to make decisions in what would normally have been the Budget moratorium period; the same occurred this year because of COVID-19.The addition to the 2019/20 Supplementary Estimates that I presented to the House last Tuesday contains all changes to appropriations and new appropriations for 2019/20 decided since the 2019/20 Supplementary Estimates closed in early April. I thank the members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee for their expeditious examination of the addition to the 2019/20 Supplementary Estimates.The Supplementary Order Paper incorporates the Appropriation (2019/20 Supplementary Estimates) Bill the changes to appropriations and new appropriations for 2019/20 contained in the addition to the 2019/20 Supplementary Estimates. It is a revision-tracked SOP showing the changes being from the bill as introduced. For each appropriation or capital injection in the schedules to the bill the amount of the change in the Supplementary Estimates—what is the second column in the addition to the Supplementary Estimates—is replaced with the amount of the cumulative change in the Supplementary Estimates and the addition to the 2019/20 Supplementary Estimates. Essentially what that does is bring together all of the spending in the 2019/20 year rather than as I might have heard in some earlier parts of this bill an extensive discussion about what is about to come in the 2020/21 year.What is covered here and what is new here is the spending that we needed to undertake in this financial year that is about to end on 30 June rather than the expenditure that's coming forward. I look forward to the debate and questions.
SpeechAPPROPRIATION (2019/20 SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES) BILLIn CommitteeCHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Colleagues the House is in committee on the Appropriation (2019/20 Supplementary Estimates) Bill. In the committee stage of an Appropriation (Supplementary Estimates) Bill only the Minister's amendments and any amendments to them are considered. There is therefore no debate on any provisions where there are no amendments proposed which means in this case there will be no debate on clauses 1 to 3. I also remind members that the House has agreed to trial the removal of the four-call limit in the committee stage. I encourage you to keep your contributions focused—remember that five minutes is not a target—and relevant to 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 that you will get a number of short calls. Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.Clause 3 agreed to.
Warren-Clark AngieANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): That's quite all right. Thank you Madam Speaker. Very simply that member who has just resumed his seat Lawrence Yule I refute that this Government is wasteful. I refute that this Government is reckless. We are in unprecedented times—post - COVID-19 recovery. We're rebuilding and I therefore commend this bill to the House.
Prime Willow-JeanWILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. The previous speaker just said that tonight's debate has been characterised by who has the best ideas and priorities and I believe we do. So with that I commend the bill to the House.
SpeechHon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): This will be a focused pithy and concise speech. But I just want to contrast what our side of the House is doing through this modest—in size—piece of legislation with what the shadow spokesman for finance is saying. So the shadow spokesman for finance is saying that we were wrong to buttress the economy; we were wrong to look after the hundreds of thousands of Kiwis who as a consequence of COVID were dislocated from the workforce; we were wrong to underwrite our national airline. So I presume what he is saying is that this level of injection this $40 billion is actually not what the economy needs. That is not what Kiwis believe. The reason that this figure is so large you need look no further than the 11—roughly speaking—billion dollars in protecting jobs.Now this side of the House knows as we go forward jobs will organically come from the economy as it regains strength and the strength that it regains will be reflective of the navigational skills shown by Grant Robertson and his fellow Ministers. The other thing we need to bear in mind—and I'm not going to speak for very long because Kiwis actually want to see the money flowing. Kiwis actually want to see an injection and interventions in the economy. But I'm going to round up my speech by talking about what is alluded to in this legislation which is infrastructure spending.Infrastructure spending is going to be incredibly important. It is covered off in some of these capital allocations because as we've seen the drying up of virtually $17 billion of foreign exchange earnings through tourism our Government is going to endeavour to plug that gap by futureproofing our provincial and our metropolitan economies with pots of infrastructure expenditure. That is what Kiwis expect us to do. They don't expect us to be miserly they don't expect us to lose our boldness or our courage and for those reasons our party thoroughly endorses both the strategy and the allocations that Grant Robertson our Minister of Finance has already announced and which this House as it wends its way through the legislative process will enjoy the support of New Zealand First. Thank you very much.
Robertson GrantAPPROPRIATION (2019/20 SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES) BILLIMPREST SUPPLY (FIRST FOR 2020/21) BILLSecond ReadingsHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I move That the Appropriation (2019/20 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2020/21) Bill be now read a second time.I thought it might be helpful at the outset to let members know exactly what these two bills are. The Appropriation (2019/20 Supplementary Estimates) Bill makes new appropriations and changes to appropriations in the 2019/20 Estimates to reflect the decisions taken by the Government since the 2019/20 Estimates were finalised in April 2019 prior to Budget 2019. The Imprest Supply (First for 2020/21) Bill provides an interim bulk spending authority for the first three months of the 2020-21 financial year until the Appropriation (2020-21 Estimates) Bill is passed by the end of September.The total imprest sought through the Imprest Supply (First for 2020/21) Bill is greater than that provided by the Imprest Supply (First for 2019/20) Act. This is a reflection of both the Government's fiscal response to COVID-19 and the considerably heightened economic uncertainty resulting from the global pandemic. The Imprest Supply (First for 2020/21) Bill seeks to provide sufficient authority for the Government to incur a maximum of $40 billion in expenses and $10.5 billion in capital expenditure and $1.7 billion in capital injections until the Appropriation (2020-21 Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (Second for 2020/21) Bill are passed. These figures account for the financial implications of the decisions made as part of Budget 2020 through the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund and other COVID-19 - related spending. Although the Government does not expect to incur expenditure of this magnitude before the passing of the Appropriation (2020-21 Estimates) Bill it is standard practise for imprest bills to provide sufficient supply to cover fiscal risk as well as the uncertain timing and spread of expenditure.I give notice that at the end of the second reading there will be a committee of the whole House stage of the Appropriation (2019/20 Supplementary Estimates) Bill to consider a Supplementary Order Paper to incorporate into this bill the changes to appropriations and new appropriations for 2019/20 contained in the addition to the 2019/20 Supplementary Estimates that I presented to the House last Tuesday. This is something that has happened before in this House in the wake of the Canterbury earthquakes when decisions have needed to have been taken after the time that they normally would be.
Imprest Supply (First for 2020/21) Bill — First Reading
Robertson GrantIMPREST SUPPLY (FIRST FOR 2020/21) BILLIntroductionBill introduced.First ReadingHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I move That the Imprest Supply (First for 2020/21) Bill be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.
Lubeck MarjaMARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a delight to take a short call to finish off this debate. The previous speaker who just resumed his seat Andrew Bayly seemed to be pining for the past when he talks about when we were in power" and he refers to his ruthless Government that was in power and did whatever they needed to do. There was another member Andrew Bayly. Andrew Bayly was harking back to the past talking about Bill English and John Key. Well actually this is no longer the party of Bill English and John Key; they're a totally different party. In fact this is a party who has discovered a new word. We've heard it all through their speeches a new word. It is "competence"—competence from the safe-cracking party. What a laugh! I bet you New Zealanders wish that they had discovered that word when they were in Government because they weren't exactly a Government of competence.Judith Collins mentioned that people want a Government to do the job. Now this was the National Government's record of competence: people living in cars under bridges and in tents; kids doing homework in the back of the car; and not being able to jump into the stream for fear of getting sick. That is their record of competence. We are fixing all those long-term challenges and at the same time we are measuring it against wellbeing measures—stuff that actually matters to people. As my colleague Deborah pointed out the question is: what actually matters to people? Well it isn't anything that the National Government did when they were in power. So I commend this bill to the House. Thank you Madam Speaker."
Luxton JoJO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'm pleased to take a call on this piece of legislation. What we have with this piece of legislation is a bill that embeds the wellbeing approach by requiring the Government and Treasury to report on the objectives and the state of wellbeing of New Zealanders. Why is that such a terrible thing for members opposite to comprehend and understand? It's disappointing to say the least to see members opposite joking and ridiculing the wellbeing of New Zealanders the arrogance and negativity to call it fluffy nonsense. Since when has caring about the wellbeing of New Zealanders been fluffy nonsense? Disappointing—negative National as always. I commend this bill to the House.
Strange JamieJAMIE STRANGE (Labour): I'd like to begin by acknowledging the optimism of the previous speaker Ian McKelvie around this Government being returned after the election. So thank you for that vote of confidence to the member. Look this bill is about leadership. It's about the Government putting the wellbeing of people at the centre of all it does. I'm just going to take a very brief call but I'd just like to highlight that something that's come out of this bill is the Waikato Wellbeing Project which is a regional initiative based on 10 Waikato wellbeing targets based on the UN Sustainable Development Goals an exciting project that we've seen come from the leadership the Government is providing. I expect we'll see more of that more of those examples spring up across the country. I commend this bill to the House.
SpeechMARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise to offer New Zealand First's continued support for this Public Finance (Wellbeing) Amendment Bill which looks to upgrade the Budget-setting framework to take in a broader suite of measures. As we know GDP is a very blunt tool. In fact as Dr Russell outlined in her contribution the bloke that actually developed it warned against using it as a very narrow measure because it is a measure of economic activity but it is very narrow. We saw that in the previous term of the Government when we had this illusion of what was called at the time a rock-star economy when we had massive inequalities building up in this country. We saw people living in cars and on the streets and things that I never thought I would ever see in New Zealand. Those things were happening and were gathering pace whilst the very wealthy in this country were doing very well thank you. Also there's the issue of negative externalities and we've seen that in the environmental space where some of our practices had led to negative environmental outcomes that we are now having to go back and try to reverse engineer and rectify. This bill does mean that the Government of the day will have to take in social environmental and cultural wellbeing alongside economic benefits. I think it speaks to New Zealand's character and our egalitarian heritage and ethos that I think most of us would aspire for this country to have. That's been our history and this bill encapsulates that. We don't have to look too far back to the mother of all Budgets". The "mother of all Budgets" wouldn't have got through this framework—that kind of slash and burn - type mentality that had repercussions for decades to come. This would not allow that. You know I listened to the previous speakers from the National Party talking about—well I'm not sure what they were talking about essentially in terms of where they were coming from because I've heard their leader when asked what their plan was say "Well we don't know if we'd borrow more or we don't know if we'd borrow less." And judging by some of the announcements that have come out since then it will be borrowing more; essentially paying employers to take people on. Last time I heard that was called socialism and I never thought I would hear that from the National Party but it seems to be the muddled position that they are in at the moment. They just do not seem to know where they stand. But at least under this piece of legislation when it goes through they will have to take into account this broader suite of measures. This is a more modern lens to have for our Budget-setting framework so New Zealand First will continue to support this bill. Thank you."
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Labour): As the only bookmaker ever to have been elected to this House it is a great day to stand here and support this bill—a bill that will save the industry or certainly take successive steps towards doing so. It was needed. It is a long time coming. It should have happened in the previous Government but here we are today. I echo the comments of those who acknowledge the work of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. I make one point to counter the claims of the Opposition benches: they cannot have made substantive changes by themselves because they do not have a majority. What this demonstrates is that the select committee worked collaboratively. I think the National Party would have served themselves and served the racing industry better if they told that story of collaboration because this is an important industry for the country and it is an industry that is recognised by all parties in this Parliament. Today is a good day. I'm pleased to see this bill continue on to the next stage.Bill read a second time.
Racing Industry Bill — Second Reading
Faafoi KrisHon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Broadcasting Communications and Digital Media): There's been a certain amount of historiography going on today where the Opposition claims credit for the good work of the Rt Hon Winston Peters the Minister for Racing.What this sector has been wanting for a long time is certainty and David Bennett a former Minister for Racing said that the racing sector had felt like they hadn't had a voice in this place. And that's right because for the nine years that that party was in Government they didn't have a voice and I would like to pay respect to the Rt Hon Winston Peters for getting a bill into the House and getting it passed within one term because that party over there had nine years to do it and never did it at all.So let's just have a clear picture of what is happening here. This piece of legislation has been brought here it has been passed and the sector will now have certainty. And that is what the history books will read about this piece of legislation. I commend it to the House.
Prime Willow-JeanWILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. I first just want to acknowledge the passion of the current Minister for Racing. It was very clear in the Estimates hearings last week his passion. I also have sat through the debate and I have heard a lot of reference to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and how everybody worked collaboratively to produce the best piece of law. I also heard that it's long overdue and I don't want to prolong it any further. So I commend the bill to the House.
O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I remember taking my grandmother back to Charleston many years ago and she pointed out where the racecourse had been there. There's no evidence left of it but she talked about what an important part of the Charleston community it was at the time and I'm reminded of that now as now that Charleston problem has become a problem for many other communities in New Zealand. As we've heard today many of those racecourses physically dominate not only the town and are an intricate part of the town but also the race meetings themselves. This bill isn't just about saving the racing industry. It's about making sure it can thrive again and be the part of communities that it was in the past producing the winners we've seen and the international reputation we've seen and importantly making sure that it remains a part of New Zealand culture. I commend this bill to the House.
Shaw JamesHon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): On behalf of Marama Davidson and the Green Party I want to begin by expressing my condolences to the family of Constable Matthew Hunt. I'd also like to send our thoughts and our well wishes to his friends his colleagues and his fellow officers all over the country who I know are feeling his loss deeply.For Constable Hunt Friday would have begun like any other day. Like most of us he would have got up had breakfast maybe checked the news or caught up with messages from friends and family and then set off for a day at work doing what he had always wanted to do. But unlike those of us here Constable Hunt knew that from the moment he got to work he could be called upon at any moment to put his life in harm's way for the safety of somebody else. When our police officers answer a call they never do it alone. Their family and their friends answer the call too for they share in the risk that their loved ones take every day to keep New Zealand safe for all of us. The call that Constable Hunt answered on Friday would I'm sure have sounded a lot like other calls that he and his colleagues had answered many times before. But what happened is a heartbreaking reminder that whatever the call the life of a police officer a loved one a friend a colleague can be taken away at any moment—a moment in which Constable Hunt's friends and family can go from looking forward to catching up with him at the weekend or maybe grabbing a beer after work to being told that he was gone.Now I know that there will many people across New Zealand who will struggle to come to terms with what happened. People will ask themselves How could this have happened? What do we need to do to prevent another tragedy?" And that is entirely understandable. Police officers have a right to go home to their families just like everybody else. Few of us here will ever match the sacrifice Constable Hunt has made but we can match his commitment to making New Zealand a better place which is why I'd like to close with a message for Constable Hunt's mother Diane and his sister Eleanor. The thoughts of New Zealand are with you. We thank you for the service of your son and your brother.E tama haere atu rā. Haere ki te pō kia moe ai. Tēnā koutou katoa.[Young man go. Go to the long night to sleep.]Motion agreed to."
Motions — New Zealand Police—Death of Constable Matthew Hunt
SpeechRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): On behalf of the New Zealand First Party we extend our sympathies to the family and friends of Constable Matthew Hunt as well as the wider police community. An appalling tragedy Constable Hunt's death demonstrates the risk that police officers face every day. We're also reminded of the 32 New Zealand police officers who fell before him. That is a sobering glimpse into the dangers that our law officers face whilst maintaining the safety of all New Zealanders.Being a police officer is not an easy job. Many officers are exposed to violence and disorder on a daily basis allowing the general public to carry out their lives with levels of security unthinkable in other countries. We are all indebted to officers like Constable Hunt for their service to New Zealand in the most dangerous of circumstances. Constable Hunt paid the ultimate price for the cowardly actions of a criminal one who we hope to see incarcerated for the longest period of time for which the law allows.Constable Hunt represented the best that the New Zealand police force has to offer. He was a consummate professional who served his country with distinction and honour. Mr Speaker and colleagues police lives matter. May he rest in peace.
Wednesday 2 September 2020 - Volume 748
9. Question No. 9—FinanceNICOLA WILLIS (National) to the Associate Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 9—Finance9. NICOLA WILLIS (National) to the Associate Minister of Finance: Was the Green School included in the indicative package of over 150 projects agreed to in principle by Ministers at the Cabinet Economic Development Committee meeting on 24 June and what occurred between that meeting and 7 August that led his office to write to other Ministers and the Treasury stating Minister Shaw won't sign this briefing until the Green School in Taranaki is incorporated"? Hon JAMES SHAW (Associate Minister of Finance): The premise of the question is inaccurate. The Cabinet Economic Development Committee did not agree a list of projects on 24 June. The committee noted a list and authorised the Minister of Finance Minister for Infrastructure and Associate Ministers of Finance to make final decisions about the projects on that list.Nicola Willis: Why did he reject the advice of Treasury officials doing due diligence on the Green School project who said it should not proceed?SPEAKER: Order! Order! That doesn't relate to the primary question.Nicola Willis: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: Well you can make a point of order but—Nicola Willis: The primary question that I've asked relates specifically to advice that he provided to Treasury and others and my supplementary question relates to advice from Treasury officials.SPEAKER: Well the advice was coming the other way. It's not advice that this Minister's office gave to Treasury; the member was quoting advice that went to the Minister—it's quite different.Nicola Willis: What occurred when he received advice from Treasury officials that said it should not proceed?Hon JAMES SHAW: Well I received a range of advice about the project and there were a number of projects moving on and off that list during that period of time.Nicola Willis: Is it true that he gave consideration to a funding model that would have involved the Crown taking an ownership stake in the Green School?Hon JAMES SHAW: No.Nicola Willis: Did he receive additional information in the lead-up to 7 August that led him to advocate so strongly for the Green School project despite the serious concerns shared with him by officials and Minister Hipkins?Hon JAMES SHAW: Well other than the advice I received initially no.Nicola Willis: Did he test the claim that the Green School could grow its roll to 250 students because of growing demand from parents and was the advice crystal clear?Hon JAMES SHAW: I'm not personally responsible for the due diligence process.Nicola Willis: Is he satisfied with the robustness of the due diligence process that was applied to this funding bid?Hon JAMES SHAW: Every project that ended up on the list had to go through a due diligence process and a number of projects failed to achieve that outcome. If the due diligence process had said very clearly that the project was not shovel-ready and not able to proceed then it wouldn't have proceeded."
5. Question No. 5—FinanceGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 5—Finance5. GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy in the context of the global COVID-19 pandemic? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): This morning Statistics New Zealand released international trade data for the June quarter showing export prices hit a new high in quarter two this year. The Export Price Index rose 2.4 percent in the June 2020 quarter to its highest level since the series began following a 0.2 percent fall in the March quarter. Import prices fell slightly by 0.1 percent boosting the merchandise terms of trade to a new high of 2.5 percent. New Zealand's overall export prices were boosted by dairy forestry products and kiwifruit. This is yet more data that shows the continued resilience of Kiwi exports despite the global impacts of COVID-19 emphasising their importance in our recovery from this one-in-100-year shock.Greg O'Connor: What reports has he seen on the construction sector in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yesterday Statistics New Zealand released building consent data for July showing the number of new homes consented remains historically high after a fall during alert level 4 in April. In July 3391 homes were consented meaning over 10000 were consented across May June and July—the largest three-month rolling total since the 1970s. The number of consents issued in the July year was 37585 which is near the 45-year high recorded in February 2020. Westpac economists said that the continued strength in consent issuance points to a solid pipeline of construction activity through the back half of 2020 and early 2021. Alongside exporters the construction sector will also play a critical role in growing our economy and providing jobs as we recover from COVID-19 while also increasing housing supply. It's encouraging to see data which shows ongoing high levels of investment in the sector and some certainty for the sector out to early next year.Greg O'Connor: What support has the Government provided to the construction sector through the COVID-19 pandemic?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government has provided consistent and stable economic support throughout this pandemic. We've helped cushion the blow to the construction sector through the wage subsidy which has injected $1.7 billion into construction firms supporting 269000 jobs. Recognising the critical role of construction in New Zealand's economic recovery we're also providing a significant boost to the sector through the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund including the $1.6 billion Trades and Apprenticeships Training Package $3 billion for shovel-ready projects the funding to enable Kāinga Ora to deliver a further 8000 homes the additional $56 million for the Warmer Kiwi Homes initiative and $246 million investing in railways and supporting infrastructure.
4. Question No. 4—HealthDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 4—Health4. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements and actions around the coronavirus response?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Health): Yes in the context in which they were made.Dr Shane Reti: How does he reconcile his statement on 20 August regarding the Rydges maintenance man that The virus had been passed on when the two were in the same lift at separate times but minutes apart." with statements in the House the day before that all the investigations to date including CCTV indicated they were not in the same communal space?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The exact trail of events there may not ever be fully known because there was not CCTV—I understand that there was not CCTV footage in the lift. So there are a number of different scenarios but we may not know the exact outcome of that ever.Dr Shane Reti: When he said around 15 August that the Government was misled around the level of testing of border staff has he determined how that happened and what actions has he taken?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I'm not sure that I ever would have used the word "misled". Certainly the picture that we were given was not a completely accurate one.Dr Shane Reti: Does he agree with the Rt Hon Winston Peters' review of his actions this morning that testing wasn't going on and that the Labour Ministers are the only ones in charge?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No."
Mallard TrevorSPEAKER'S STATEMENTSAdjournment Acknowledgments and Privileges Committee ReportSPEAKER: I'm going to make two very brief comments before I go and the first is to correct an omission last time we had this sort of discussion when I did not properly thank the Clerk's Office and the Parliamentary Service for the work that they do and in particular Andie Lindsay for the way that she is the glue that holds that system together. I also do want to place on the record that I have now read the report of the Privileges Committee to indicate that it is my intention to take up with the organisations responsible their continued hosting of material which the Privileges Committee has found should not be hosted and to reiterate the request to the individuals who have made those postings to take them down. With all of that I declare the House adjourned. The House adjourned at 3.51 p.m.
Interventions — Privilege—Statement Made by the Hon Tracey Martin
Upston Louise; Mallard TrevorPRIVILEGEStatement Made by the Hon Tracey Martin—Not ReferredHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to raise a separate issue related to privilege of which I have written to you today about a statement made by Minister Tracey Martin last week which was misleading and I am seeking—SPEAKER: No no. Order! Order! If the member had raised a matter of privilege with me then it would be inappropriate for her to raise it in the House before I had ruled on it. The member has not raised a matter of privilege with me. I have had two letters from the member; reading both of them—and I stand to be corrected—no matter of privilege has been raised and if it had been raised it would have been ruled out as being out of time. The member should know with her experience that matters where members disagree on answers can be matters of privilege if raised in a proper way as long as the member gives an indication that a statement was deliberately misleading. If it is a matter of correction or the member disagrees with a statement then that is not a matter of privilege and there are lots and lots of precedents for that. I can remember a very wise speaker from Clutha-Southland—I think—Sir Robin Gray who made it very very clear that he did not have the jurisdiction to intervene in disagreements between members on matters of fact.Hon Louise Upston: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: No no. The member's trying my patience. She's written me two letters; I've looked at those letters and she's either out of time or she's wrong—one or the other.
Privilege — Misrepresentation—Reply to a Written Question
Speaker's Rulings — Oral Questions—Number of Legs to a Question
Robertson Grant; Brownlee Gerry; Mallard TrevorPRIVILEGEMisrepresentation—Reply to a Written QuestionHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. At the beginning of the House yesterday you gave your ruling around a question of misrepresentation of a particular Facebook ad that had been put forward and you did say in that that you would have been inclined to find a question of privilege and then you ran through a series of reasons for why you didn't want to take that forward. One of those reasons—and I'm quoting you here—is I have been assured that the material has been removed from social media". It's clear that was not true at the time at which you said that and I just wonder if the assurance you were given was in fact misleading and may in fact give rise to a further question of privilege and to what extent was it influential on your decision not to consider this a matter of privilege. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): There was one site where it remained. We have located that. It's been dealt with and it is taken down. SPEAKER: OK and it's not surprising that I am aware of the fact because people did copy me in to a number of Facebook posts and Twitter indications that Mr Simeon Brown had kept the matter up after the assurance was given. I just wanted to make it very clear to Mr Robertson that I would prefer him to take more care with his language because if one took a strict interpretation of what he'd said one might interpret that I was deliberately misleading the House. I certainly was not. I had had an assurance even though that assurance was mainly correct but not absolutely correct and I don't propose to take the matter any further."