5. Question No. 5—HousingHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of HousingQuestion No. 5—HousingHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): My question is to the Minister of Housing and asks: does she stand by her statement on 19 July—SPEAKER: Now sorry—can we just check. I think it's the Minister of Housing.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yeah.SPEAKER: All right OK.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: That's what I said.SPEAKER: OK I'm sorry. I misheard the member—not having a good day.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: It might be the tide or the moon. Can I start again?SPEAKER: Well I'm pretty tempted to say no.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yeah but you wouldn't do that.SPEAKER: No I'm being very generous to the member. The member will start again.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: OK thank you. I do appreciate that Mr Speaker.5. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Housing: Does she stand by her statement on 19 July people returning to New Zealand should assist with the considerable expense of accommodating them in managed isolation facilities"; if so how much of the $479 million budgeted for managed isolation does the Government expect to recoup from people returning to this country?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Yes and I have been clear from the outset that the implementation of a cost recovery system is complex. We have carefully considered how to design a system that is fair and not a barrier for returning New Zealanders. Indicative modelling shows that the scheme would generate between $2.2 million and $8.8 million a year at a cost of recouping that of $600000. The Government's proposal has struck an appropriate balance to ensure taxpayers aren't forking out for people who want to come or go for holidays or business while returning New Zealanders who want to come home to live are able to do so without an unreasonable limitation. There have been calls to apply a charge to all returning New Zealanders. The most realistic scenario for such a blanket approach with the legally required fee waivers and exemptions would see $126 million generated at a cost of $33 million to recoup it. We need to put the counterfactual in context. The managed isolation and quarantine system is going to cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars regardless.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Is the Minister telling the House that the charging regime brought in today may bring in something less than $10 million but the taxpayer is still going to be left with $469 million worth of costs for managed isolation?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: That is what I said in the answer to the primary question but what I also said in the answer to the primary question is that the counterfactual of doing universal charging with all the required legal waivers and exemptions for those charges would only bring in net $93 million. So regardless of the regime the taxpayer is going to be left with a bill of several hundred million dollars to provide this strong line of defence at our borders.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Does the Minister accept that the counterfactual as she put it to the House today is simply a contrivance to try and cover up an appalling joke-based system for charging people coming into New Zealand?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: This Government takes very seriously the presence of managed isolation and quarantine facilities and would never describe them as a joke. We think they are an important line of defence and we also think that it is important that we work through the policy around these facilities in a measured and methodical way. What we have worked through is what the legal risks and challengability in the courts would be around different kinds of charging regimes that could be stood up. What we as a Government accept is that we need to put the appropriate appropriations in place long-term hotel contracts need to be entered into and we are not putting the system at risk with a legally challengeable regime.Hon Gerry Brownlee: What is legally challenging about saying to New Zealanders who are coming back to this country having been away for quite some time that the costs of their managed isolation the cost of their re-joining the team of 5 million is a charge that they need to meet?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: This is a complex legal area and I know an easy political sound bite but the advice that we have worked through in a lot of detail with Crown Law is about whether any charge to enter a public health managed isolation facility a requirement of entry to your own country that is placed on all New Zealanders constitutes a barrier of entry to your country. There are some mitigations that can be put in place to reduce that. Some of that is around making sure you have financial hardship schemes in place. By the time you put all of those mitigations in place that means this simply will not be overturned by the courts you're only looking at a net contribution for returnees of around $93 million.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Why has the Government not come to Parliament to introduce a law that would make legal the charges that she apparently says cannot be applied so that the taxpayers of New Zealand can be relieved of some of this extraordinary burden for people who want to come back and join the team of 5 million? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Because this Government has come to this Parliament with a law that is not going to be legally overturned by the courts. What it does is it puts in place a regime that does not trample on the bill of rights and the rights of New Zealanders to return to their country. The member may like to look at the legislation that has been tabled this afternoon.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Where does the Minister think a law passed by the Parliament of New Zealand would be overturned by the courts?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: A thing called the bill of rights.Hon Gerry Brownlee: So does her policy mean that a business person travelling offshore to gain new markets for New Zealand will pay for their managed quarantine when they come back but someone who had chosen to make a life offshore perhaps for many years will come back into this country to join the team of 5 million paying nothing?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The regime that we have outlined today would see anyone that was leaving for a holiday or for business pay for their isolation and factor that into the cost of their trip overseas. What we are saying is if a New Zealander is seeking to return to their home to make their life here to work here to pay tax here to send their children to school here they will not be required to pay. But if I choose to go on holiday I am quite happy to factor in the cost of my own managed isolation and not expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab.Hon Gerry Brownlee: So does that mean that someone who is travelling offshore to expand markets to expand the New Zealand economy who's paid tax in this country perhaps for years will pay for their managed isolation after their business trip but someone just coming into the country having been away for years not paid tax in this country gets in free?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Anyone who is returning to live home permanently will not pay those. If someone is returning for a period of less than 90 days then yes they will be required to pay. But if someone is leaving the country in order to expand their markets and there is a commercial element to it I think that on the fair and balanced approach New Zealand taxpayers should expect some of the cost of that to be borne.Hon Gerry Brownlee: So one more time if I may does that mean that someone who is trying to expand their markets out of New Zealand presumably to retain and keep jobs in New Zealand pays for their quarantine but someone who just comes in having lived away for perhaps years paid tax in other jurisdictions—SPEAKER: Order! Question.Hon Gerry Brownlee: —comes in free?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I've already answered this question twice but if that member requires something to be repeated three times in order to understand it then there's the answer: a New Zealander who is seeking refuge in their own country who wants to return to make their life here will not be paying but yes again for the third time if someone is going overseas on business just as someone is going overseas on a holiday we are asking them to make a contribution.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Why is it unfair to charge New Zealanders who are returning—no question about their ability to come back into the country but why is it unfair to charge them for quarantine when those people who stay here but might leave for a business purpose have to pay for their quarantine?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I think what the member needs to do is look at what is actually a very fair and balanced system. What we have here is a system where those who are choosing to be holidaymakers or go away on business are going to be asked to contribute to the cost of their quarantine. Those who are seeking to come back and make their life in this country and are going to contribute to this country are not being asked to pay.Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: Can the Minister confirm that in drawing together this policy the Government has created a distinction between those who are currently in their legal place of residence New Zealand and who have a choice around travel contributing to their quarantine versus those who are offshore may not have long-term stability of residence may not have long-term stability around income who are caught in a one-in-100-year event through no fault of their own having the ability to return home to their place of residence?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yes that was certainly a critical part of our decision making. So was the very practical evidence that even if you were to look at standing up the kind of universal regime that the Opposition is talking about you'd only be talking about a net contribution of $93 million. We take the managed isolation facilities incredibly seriously and having the stability funding sorted out and the ability for long-term contracting is absolutely critical to having safe and managed isolation facilities.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Why has the Government not been able to accept that people can come into New Zealand if they have a right to but still should pay for the quarantine that falls as a burden currently and for the foreseeable future on the general taxpayer?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As I have outlined several times to that member regardless of the regime that is stood up the taxpayers of New Zealand are going to be left with a bill of several hundred million dollars to provide this public health strong line of defence against COVID coming back into our communities. I think New Zealanders will be somewhat alarmed to see the attitude that the Opposition has around their commitment to providing this strong line of defence. We see it as a responsibility of our Government and exactly why we are in the unique position we are in in the world. The taste of what would come from the Opposition is on clear display."