Swarbrick Chlöe; Robertson GrantCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai tēnā koe. I'd like to refer to three core themes and ask the Minister three questions to that effect in my contribution to this debate this afternoon. The first is with regard to a review into the economic response to COVID-19 the second is about the relationship of monetary and fiscal policy and the third is around debt targets that the Minister has been alluding to.With regard to the review into the economic response to COVID-19 members can see as reflected in this report tabled in the House today that it has been the case that I as the Green member on this committee have been calling for a review into the economic response into COVID-19 for quite a long time now. And I might say that we've had support from members on this side of the House interestingly enough—not a corner that I'm used to particularly collaborating with—but for whatever given reason we're all very interested in lifting the lid on some of those metrics and some of those trade-offs that the Government was making in coming into COVID-19. To that effect I'd actually just like to challenge the contribution of the Minister earlier when he said that hindsight is of course 20/20 because of course that is the case. But as we have traversed in many of these annual reviews it is in fact the case as Official Information Act (OIA) documents from Treasury and the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) have revealed that as was projected at the beginning of the lockdowns in 2020 if there was an overreliance on unconventional monetary policy we would see what they called these distributional impacts which we're now seeing in the case of that massive redistribution of wealth to those at the top end of town. So my first question is to the Minister: given that the Government has indicated that we are now entering a new phase of the pandemic will he now finally instigate an inquiry? Or are we likely to see some Labour members support that move in that motion which has been on the table for a long time now? Secondly getting to the issue of monetary and fiscal policy and the relationship between the two—this is of course one of the crucial areas that a review into the economic response would look at. But we also have seen here in this report today that the Reserve Bank over 2020 to 2021 conducted significant monetary stimulus including the LSAP or Large Scale Asset Purchase programme which the Treasury now estimates will cost around $5 billion after initially estimating that it would be cost neutral. To that effect my second question to the Minister is: does he accept that greater fiscal stimulus during this period as also noted in that OIA advice from Treasury and RBNZ at the beginning of 2020 could have taken pressure off the Reserve Bank in their need for monetary stimulus which in turn could have meant that we had better directed economic support to those at the bottom end of town?With regard to the issue of debt targets the Government's debt target since COVID has been to stabilise net debt by the mid-2020s and then look to reduce it as conditions allow. Net debt though has already been stabilised far below the levels that the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update (PREFU) in 2020 suggested that it would be. The PREFU had net debt going to 56 percent of GDP whereas we've stabilised at around 35 percent of GDP. So my final question to the Minister is: the Labour Party went into the last election saying that the PREFU 2020 debt trap was balanced and responsible. Doesn't that mean in this current context then that we now have about $40 billion extra to invest in critical infrastructure to address things like climate change—Hon Members: Spend it.Hon Member: Spend up large.CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —and inequality?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I'm pleased that the member's contribution elicited such excitement across the House. I'll endeavour to answer all three of her questions. In terms of the review the position that I personally have taken on this is that the very people you'd want to be undertaking reviews were people who were working extraordinary hours through the period of time of COVID and that while we were in the middle of a response stopping to then do the review would not be a good use of their time nor would it necessarily provide us the insights that I think the member is looking for when we're so close to it. In the fullness of time there will definitely need to be a review of many aspects of the Government's response and I'm sure the economic ones will occur at that point. In terms of the second point that the member raises around monetary and fiscal policies I mean firstly I'd say with the Large Scale Asset Purchase programme yes obviously the member's correct around the difference in terms of the overall cost. I think it's really important though for members to remember the unique way in which central bank holdings are measured in New Zealand compared to the rest of the world. So because they are all on the same balance sheet actually while it's a transfer as it were between Treasury and the Reserve Bank it doesn't change the overall state of the Government's books. And so it's important that we understand that in terms of cost to New Zealanders per se that isn't there.The member's question though was around whether there should have been a greater fiscal stimulus as a result of that. I think those watching the debate will be aware that we've now had two quite different perspectives on this in the House today. We think we got the balance about right from the point of view of the Government's role in this. The COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund initially set at $50 billion has had to be added to over time. We have provided significant support to not only businesses but also to individual households and workers those who aren't working as well over the course of the life of the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund and so we think the level of fiscal intervention is about right. Mr Seymour quoted in the House recently its comparison to other countries; it was a larger fiscal response than many other countries comparable with the likes of the US as a percentage but clearly a significant one. So my view is that we got the balance about right where fiscal policy is.The other thing I would note however in terms of the member's third question which relates a little bit to that one is that I have consistently said that we need a different conversation about public debt in New Zealand because public debt is very very low in New Zealand relative to the rest of the world and I have a view that it is important that New Zealand keeps its public debt relatively low when compared to the rest of the world as a small country prone to natural disasters prone to the effects of economic shocks. That is an important part of our fiscal strategy. But having said that if a prudent level of debt which is what the Minister of Finance is required to uphold in turn means an under-investment in infrastructure that restrains productivity makes New Zealanders' health outcomes worse and makes New Zealanders' education outcomes worse then that really isn't a prudent level of debt. So it is a valid conversation more generally to ask New Zealanders what we think is the right debt target. I'm pleased we came into COVID-19 with a 19.5 percent net debt which the Labour Government reduced from what National had left us with. I'm pleased we were in that position but I do think we need to see that in a much wider context. So I welcome the member's contribution around what net debt should look like.