edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Hipkins ChrisCOVID-19 RESPONSE (FURTHER MANAGEMENT MEASURES) LEGISLATION BILL (NO 2)First ReadingHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move That the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. Back in May—if we can remember back in May—the House passed the first COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill. It was an omnibus bill that contained a very wide range of measures designed to enable businesses local government and others to more effectively manage the immediate impacts of the response to COVID-19 and to mitigate unnecessary and potentially longer-term impacts on society. It was a bill that largely dealt with administrative matters as does this bill. This is the second COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill that I've been bringing to the House. It is a smaller bill mainly administrative in focus and it amends eight existing Acts of Parliament. The amendments are grouped into four schedules. The first amends the Local Government Act 2002 by extending deadlines relating to the financial reporting that the COVID-19 lockdown has made it difficult—if not in some cases impossible—to meet. Schedule 2 concerns tax legislation. It addresses a number of issues that have arisen related to tax matters in areas including research and development and in-work tax credits. It extends the Inland Revenue commissioner's powers to vary the time scales by which certain actions have to happen. It also allows remissions of interest on terminal tax for the 2020-21 tax year for provisional taxpayers that have been affected by COVID-19. Schedule 3 addresses issues that fall within the domain of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment. It offers continuity and certainty regarding the levy rates and groups determined by Accident Compensation (Experience Rating) Regulations and extends reporting time frames for Crown research institutes. The amendments to the Crown Entities Act the Public Finance Act and the State-Owned Enterprises Act are grouped together under Schedule 4. These amendments extend reporting time frames for a wide range of public organisations. It's become clear that the disruption caused by COVID-19 means that it would be impossible for the usual quality of these reports to be consistently sustained across the public sector so for this year only the deadlines have been extended. None of these provisions are going to grab any headlines. They're common-sense solutions to the administrative issues that COVID-19 has brought about. But they do need to be in place before we all go our separate ways for the election as many of the deadlines that are being moved fall before the House next sits. I don't think these will be particularly controversial. During the committee of the whole House stage of course I'll be happy to answer any questions that may arise. I commend the bill to the House.
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia orana Madam Speaker. Look just a very brief observation. It's a little pernicious of the member for Botany to start speaking about human rights and the so-called infringements of medical testing. We all know as set out in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act that any limitation that is proportionate and justifiable in a free and democratic society is legitimate and is legal and when we've got a global pandemic which is ravaging nations around us it's entirely reasonable entirely proportionate and entirely appropriate that we have things like this piece of legislation including medical testing.I note section 6 of the bill actually sets out that any regulations made must be only as are appropriate as a justified limit on the rights and freedoms set out in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. And that's because in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in section 18(2) every New Zealander every New Zealand citizen has a right to be in New Zealand and to return to New Zealand. To have any global charging regime would be an unjustifiable fetter on that freedom and we welcome home any New Zealand citizen who chooses to return here where we are safe where we are well looked after where we are well governed and where we have a response to COVID-19 which has been timely comprehensive and appropriate. I commend this bill to the House.
SpeechJENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill. It has fallen to me to take this very short call in support as this bill will establish the enabling framework that will allow the Government to charge a small subset of those entering the mandatory managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) system upon entering into New Zealand.We know that people are wanting to come home. People are wanting to resume their life whether that's travelling out for business or a small holiday but coming back in and ensuring that that managed isolation and quarantine continues and this bill is establishing that enabling framework that we absolutely support.The bill provides the framework that will require prescribed charges for managed isolation and quarantine facilities to be paid by certain people who are required to be or elect to be isolated or quarantined at a Government-designated facility unless of course they're exempt or the charges are waived. There is a small caveat though. New Zealand First has acknowledged that we are in support of this bill. However in the passage enabling this COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill we have invoked our agree to disagree" provision of the coalition and I just needed to state that in response. In the view of the leader of New Zealand First the right honourable Deputy Prime Minister the Rt Hon Winston Peters and in New Zealand First's view it would have been preferable for all returnees to be charged partial MIQ costs via IRD in a similar arrangement to the student loan scheme. However that said New Zealand First does support the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment bill. I commend it to the House."
Woods MeganThird ReadingHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): I move That the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill be now read a third time.This bill makes an important contribution to our public health response to COVID19. New Zealand is one of the few countries where we have stopped the spread of COVID-19 in our community. It has now been over 90 days since there was a case of community transmission in New Zealand. We are in a unique position because we went hard and early to eliminate COVID-19 but we must be vigilant. We are continuing to detect cases at our border.An integral part of our public health response is a requirement that people arriving in the country go into managed isolation or quarantine for at least 14 days. Managed isolation and quarantine helps protect our people's health and wellbeing and allows our economy and communities to operate without restrictions in place as they are in many other countries when we look around the world. It allows people to safely travel to New Zealand. Since 26 March over 30000 people have been through managed isolation and quarantine. Without managed isolation facilities we would either need stricter border measures or see a return to alert levels 3 or 4.The proposed charging system seeks to strike the right balance between being fair to arrivals and not preventing New Zealanders from wanting to return home to come back to the safety of their own home. I think each and every one of us want to know that wherever we are in the world there will not be impediments for us returning to the safety of Aotearoa New Zealand our home.The Government cannot start charging for managed isolation and quarantine before regulations are put in place. I intend to seek approval for the regulations soon so that the charging system can be implemented as soon as possible. I commend this bill to the House.
Smith Stuart; Wood Michael; Rurawhe AdrianSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Mr Chair. I've just got a quick question on the charges and the cost recoveries for late payment of the fees. On what basis will that be calculated? It's not prescribed in here. Are the regulations going to recover it at the market rate? Is it going to be some sort of discount rate? Is it going to cover the debt recovery costs as well? For debt recovery officers or companies that are employed will those costs be recovered out of the people who are paying late or does that go on top of the other costs? So just an explanation around that would be helpful I think. Thank you.MICHAEL WOOD (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I raise a point of order under Standing Order 111(2) which relates to relevance in terms of debate. What I ask you to consider is that some of the debate is actually considering the content not of the bill that is before us but of the regulations that have been foreshadowed. It seems to me that that may not actually be relevant to the question that is before the committee. I ask for your consideration and ruling on this.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): That's entirely up to the presiding officer. We are in urgency and this has not gone through a select committee. I'm going to allow it to the extent that it's relevant to the bill. They become debating points within the whole debate on this bill. It's up to the Minister whether she addresses it or not and other members.
SpeechDAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Mr Chair thanks for allowing me to take a call in this committee of the whole House debate. I want to speak in support of the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in my colleague Gerry Brownlee's name SOP 563. It relates to escapees and I want to get a clarification from the Minister on whether she's had any advice on the costs—we've had a number of course of reported escapees over the last few months and I want to get an indication from the Minister of the costs of actually going out and getting them back and what are the costs of actually looking after these escapees and then whether that cost should be borne on the taxpayer or whether there's potential to actually charge the escapees for in fact breaching their quarantine conditions. I think actually SOP 563 seeks to address that. It seeks to amend the framework that allows for charging where you possibly break your quarantine or managed isolation and you've got to actually help recover the cost of that. So I want to get the Minister's thoughts around any advice that she's had her party's view on that whether she's willing to possibly support that SOP. And why not SOP 563? I think the New Zealand public certainly would be of the mind—at least people in Northcote who I represent—that in fact if you do escape from a facility and there's a huge cost in actually looking after you and taking you back then actually most people out there would say well you should bear the cost of those things.So we'd like to get some clarification from the Minister on SOP 563.
Stanford EricaERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Mr Chair. I'm just keen to explore with the Minister—those questions I asked before it would be great if they could be answered but I'm also keen to explore whether or not the Minister has had any advice because we haven't seen any detail about the cost of recovery and the cost of administering this framework. The reason that I'm asking that is because we've had an indication from the Labour Party about the kinds of exemptions and the kind of regime that they want to put in place and we understand that that may recover up to $10 million. Obviously we know that the total cost of this could blow out to over a billion dollars next year alone not including this year but what I'm keen to explore is what advice this Minister has had on the cost of running the regime of figuring out who's exempt doing those individual exemptions the cost of recovery of money that's unpaid part payments—there seems to be quite a large department of people who are going to be required to put this in place and figure out those exemptions and to then go and collect that money.So given the very small amount relatively of money that is being potentially collected under this Government's—or the Labour Party's at least—suggestion of what we should recover it's only a very small proportion of the total and I'm keen to understand what the figure might be of collecting and imposing this regime so we can see what we're actually getting because if it's going to cost us $5 or $6 million to recoup $5 $6 $7 million then what is the point in putting this in place?
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Chair. I want to take the opportunity to speak to Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) 563 and 564 in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee and in particular commend the amendment to clause 8 being prescribed by SOP 564. We're in an interesting situation at the moment where we have the two main parties in Parliament supporting the bill the bill and the intention of legislation broadly but disagreeing on the extent of the charging regime.We're also some six weeks or so away from a general election that will determine who gets to give effect to the legislation we are passing and what Mr Brownlee's SOP 564 does is provide for but not require a broader range of charges to be laid including that those people who intend to reside in New Zealand for 90 days or more are not exempt from the charging regime. That doesn't bind this Government to do that under regulation if it has the privilege after 19 September of doing it. But the failure to pass his SOP would constrain a National-led Government in delivering its intended charging regime and so what Mr Brownlee's SOP is doing is avoiding the need for us to come back to Parliament and make amendments under primary legislation should it be the next Government's wish—and I can tell you that it is the Government's wish that a more comprehensive regime is put in place.I think SOP 563 is also something of a belt and braces amendment that will enable a future Government to provide for a more comprehensive charging regime. And therefore if the Government is committed to the principle of flexibility in primary legislation and is nimble in writing regulations that do give effect to whoever is in Government in three months' time then it would I think behove the Minister to think carefully about whether or not this is an appropriate amendment to make to the bill. It doesn't bind her to do something she doesn't want to do if she has that privilege in a couple of months' time. But it certainly means that the House will not need to spend precious time. We are already a week behind the legislative programme this year due to COVID and so it will enable a future Government to be able to do that should it wish. And I would add actually that I shouldn't rule out the possibility that on reflection a Labour-led Government might also want to be a little more assertive in its charging regime because it's certainly been recently mousy in its approach so far. When we look at $10 million as opposed to a billion dollars I'm confident they won't have that choice. But should they do it's not beyond the realms of possibility that they should be a little more bold in providing for greater charging regime than they're currently committing to.
Stanford EricaERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Mr Chair. I indicated that I would ask these questions in my second reading speech. I'm just keen to get some answers from the Minister Dr Megan Woods about the changes to section 11 in clause 7 just to get a little bit more detail around those changes what they were there for—I'm just genuinely interested. Section 11(1)(a)(xiii) is now having a couple of insertions of new words: report for and undergo a medical examination"—I'm keen to know why we've included the word "undergo" and what were the problems that we were encountering that have meant that we need to now have that extra word inserted in there. Secondly in that same sentence "testing of any kind"—that's been inserted as well—that's brand new. So I'm keen to know why that's being inserted and what that means. At this stage the only type of testing that we have obviously is the one we've heard about which is the very invasive one that goes down your nose. But is she intending to have other types of testing done and does that include blood tests? I'm just interested in why that's been included in there. That's the first part of my question. The second part of that question is the other amendment to section 11 and I mentioned this in my second reading speech as well. It says that to "satisfy any specified criteria before entering New Zealand" and then it gives us an example "which may include being registered to enter" a quarantine facility in New Zealand. I understand that. In terms of the places you've made that really clear in your speech. But that's just an example—"which may include"—so what else do you think that might include? Are we here in this part talking about potentially testing people before they come home or vaccinating people before they come home? I'm just keen to explore what else could be included in that section because it only gives that one example. It's brand new and it says "any specified criteria" so I'm keen to know what other examples the Minister might be thinking of when we read those words "any specified criteria". Thank you."
Woods MeganIn CommitteeHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Craig LizDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. I think it's first important to acknowledge that managed isolation is our number one defence protecting New Zealanders from COVID-19. I think to date the Government has paid the cost of that because of the importance of that to our country but what we need is a fair and balanced approach. Just listening to the arguments on the other side what I see absolutely reflects a lack of compassion. When we think about those who are returning to New Zealand they are a very very diverse group. I think of many people that have been overseas established lives had rental properties businesses homes and what they're having to do now is up-sticks everything and return to New Zealand and the costs they're facing are significant.We need a framework that allows us to take that into account. We need a framework that allows us to take into account the fact that many people are returning temporarily but they're returning for the deaths of loved ones—either to be with them for a period beforehand but also for funerals. We need to take into account the fact that many New Zealanders need to be having some compassion in that respect. However there are also others who will be going overseas for business purposes or just to visit friends and family in future and also the framework needs to make sure that they pay their share of the costs. So this is an important bill that creates a framework where we can decide and work out how we pay that fair share. I commend this bill to the House.
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Well that was quite extraordinary. I can't quite join those dots somehow—no one on this side is calling for not having quarantine; not at all. We understand that we need quarantine—absolutely need to get it right.Hon Member: Needed something to say.STUART SMITH: Well absolutely and unfortunately they haven't got it right yet—they haven't got it right yet.Matt Doocey: Government bill and she had to make her speech up.STUART SMITH: Yeah ha! Well exactly. We heard from my colleague Michael Woodhouse about the shortcomings in the process around drafting this bill—in fact that goes for a lot of stuff that the Government has brought up.We heard actually last week I think it was Minister O'Connor in response to a question from my colleague Lawrence Yule about Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) workers and whether RSE workers returning to New Zealand or coming into New Zealand would be faced with the cost of quarantine and he said that they wouldn't have to worry about it. What does that mean? What does that mean? Does that mean they don't have to do quarantine? Well I would argue that probably they don't if they're coming from a country with no COVID. But we've got a name for that it's called a bubble." Actually there's a lot of people calling for a bubble now with Rarotonga and quite justifiably so. Why aren't they doing that? You have to wonder. The only conclusion that I can come to is that fear is the only thing they've got to run their election campaign on. They've got nothing. They've failed to deliver on every single thing. You know housing's worse child poverty's worse everybody's got less money to spend. It's all worse as a result of them. It's quite a pity—it's a great pity. One example is in the immigration area they passed a bill under undue haste to allow the Minister to deal with a lot of immigration issues—took him two months to do anything and they still haven't done much with that bill. A lot of people are experiencing significant issues because of that. So they can't deliver we know that.But I think one of the things that struck me through all of this—and we talked about compassion that was one of the points made on the other side. I think there is absolutely no doubt that the Prime Minister does compassion incredibly well; so well in fact I'm reminded of a quote from the American author E B White and he says "[Her] words span rivers and mountains but [her] thoughts are still only six inches long." I think that sums it up—that absolutely sums it up: sums up the Prime Minister and sums up this Government. With that I'll leave that and commend the bill to the House with reservations."
Lubeck MarjaMARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. I have family overseas in the Netherlands where they now have hundreds of new cases of community spread come up again and that is in sharp contrast to of course our coordinated and orderly regime that we have here in New Zealand to stay on top of this virus. But the Opposition arguments all seem to be centred around it being too expensive to keep this managed isolation and quarantine and I do wonder if there have been discussions by the Opposition to actually getting rid of it. We have heard a lot about the cost and they also have mentioned that they cannot continue to cover the cost of this managed isolation and of the quarantine. So I do wonder if they have plans to no longer keeping New Zealanders safe. Therefore I commend this bill to the House.
Faafoi Kris; Rurawhe AdrianHon KRIS FAAFOI (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)): Thank you Mr Speaker. After having to endure eight minutes of the last speech just one suggestion for that member: I'd be more worried about the voters of the North Shore if I were him than the voters of the Northern Hemisphere—just a wee piece of advice for the member.I'd like to acknowledge my colleague the Hon Megan Woods for navigating this piece of legislation through the House because it does set up a framework for charging for those isolation facilities in New Zealand to keep New Zealand's borders safe. There is a non-negotiable in that: anyone who comes into New Zealand will have to go into isolation for 14 days to make sure that we keep people on the other side of those fences safe as the Government has put us in this position.There are some situations though where there is some flexibility for compassion for people who can come back into the country. We've heard about instances where people might travel overseas to be tourists and of course if they come back then they should be forced to pay via this piece of legislation to cover their costs. But there will be some situations where people may have to be forced to travel for family circumstances where there should be and will be compassion.So I would like to thank the member and for those who've worked on this bill to make sure there is that release valve because unfortunately people will be forced to travel either to see or look after loved ones and then come back after this piece of legislation is passed. And again I think that is another way that our Government is showing compassion during very difficult times and I commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Agnes Loheni—five minutes.
Ghahraman GolrizGOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise and speak in support of this bill and I think to bring it back to what this bill is about it is a public health response. What we've all experienced and what we've all learnt over the COVID crisis is that we do have to come together and take care of all of us or else none of us will be safe from this virus and none of us will come out of this as strong and well as we would hope.Also to bring it back to the human stories the Green Party has been proud to stand with our Kiwi whānau overseas who do wish to come home and live now in the face of this crisis with their circumstances changing every day with the stress of job losses with the stress of visa losses with immense anxiety of this virus itself and even just the logistical preparations to come home and then they are then faced with the possibility of a $3000 shock an extra charge per person to even enter the country. What we've heard from people overseas are stories of families with multiple children families who had thought at first that they would stay because they had employment elsewhere and they might have faced an uncertain future if they'd moved back but then they've lost their visas and now are in an extremely anxiety-riddled situation and they are faced with delaying their homecoming in a situation where COVID is rampant and their very health and safety is at stake. We weren't willing to leave them stranded.So this bill does put forward a framework for cost recovery but it also as the Minister has outlined in regulations will exempt all Kiwis who were overseas at the time that the pandemic hit and wish to come home to live. It is a fundamental right of citizenship to be able to live in the country of your nationality and we weren't willing to put a price tag on a fundamental right. We don't do that with any other rights. We don't put up our fundamental rights for sale to the highest bidder and we won't do that with this. It does however strike a balance as we'll introduce in regulations in that if anyone leaves New Zealand now after the payment regime and after the quarantine regime has been made clear to them and is coming back in they will be expected to build the cost of their travel whether it's for business or tourism into their trip. If Kiwis are coming home for tourism purposes for a short visit they will be expected to build the costs into their travels but others will be exempt and there will be room for both a payment plan for those who need it and for compassionate exemptions and that may mean people who are coming home for funerals to take care of very sick relatives or even for the birth of a child. The circumstances will be varied so we won't specify them but there will be a compassionate exemption built into this as well.We do think that that's the right balance. We do think that fundamental rights will be upheld in this regime and that it will reflect our overall COVID response as a Government which was focused on science on a public health response that is taking care of everyone and one that is compassionate. So I do commend the bill to the House.
SpeechMARK PATTERSON (NZ First): I rise to offer New Zealand First's continued support for this bill and like the other parties in the House—or the vast majority—acknowledge the framework that it delivers or brings to cover some costs of the managed isolation or quarantine facilities. This is quite a complex space. It is the right of New Zealanders to return it is a right of citizenship and it is a very complex issue with New Zealand Bill of Rights Act implications. But New Zealand First are on the record as hoping that this would go somewhat further in terms of cost recovery for the New Zealand taxpayer. Those of us that are here and paying tax are up for a significant bill up against the backdrop of significant Government borrowing in this COVID response and an economic downturn so we are clearly on the record as wanting this to go a bit further in terms of the cost recovery. But we do acknowledge that those returning and seeking only to return for a short term or those undertaking short overseas trips knowing what the rules are before they leave and the terms of engagement and that being fully factored in to the decision-making process that that particular set of circumstances is covered here and appropriately so. So New Zealand First will continue to support this bill. Thank you.
Wood MichaelMICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): I stand to commend the bill to the House to acknowledge the Minister for bringing this piece of legislation forward and can I also note the pretty widespread support across the House for the legislation itself. Much of the debate from the Opposition so far hasn't actually been focused on the legislation itself but on the regulations that the Minister has foreshadowed in the speech which would set out the details of the charging regime who it would apply to what the amounts would be and that kind of thing. So I just want to take a moment to respond to some of those comments because what they reveal is that the Opposition's position on this issue is totally shambolic all over the place and completely disorganised. I sat on the Epidemic Response Committee for a period of time where at every twist and turn of the Government's response to COVID-19 we had a National Party which was arguing effectively to loosen the borders and to loosen the controls that this Government so effectively put in place to beat back COVID-19. We had leaders of that party—I can't remember which one because there have been so many—arguing at different times that we should be opening up to China and other countries during our highly successful lockdown period. And now in the debate about our border controls we have them complaining about the fact that the Government is investing hundreds of millions of dollars in quarantine control to keep New Zealanders safe and at the same time arguing that we're being too soft but at the same time in the speech we've just heard from Mr Brownlee arguing that we should have a looser and more generous regime for business travellers for example. What is clear to any New Zealanders listening to this debate is that the National Party's position on this issue is totally confused totally shambolic and totally disorganised just as their party in general is at the moment and that it is this side of the House this Government and the Labour Party which I represent which can be trusted to keep New Zealanders safe as we rebuild and recover from COVID-19. I commend this bill to the House.
Craig LizDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. We are one of the few countries in the world that's fortunate enough to be able to pursue a strategy of community elimination and what that relies on is strong borders. I think our approach has been very effective to date. Over 30000 people have gone through managed isolation and at the moment we are very fortunate that there's no evidence of community transmission. However with the borders going to be closed for the foreseeable future we need to make sure that this system is also sustainable. In this we need to make sure we balance the needs of those who are returning home permanently and often have had difficult circumstances where they've lost their jobs they've paid a lot of money to come with expensive airfares and have struggled to get through with limited flights versus those who may choose to leave the country again to pursue either a holiday or some business travel.So what this bill does is it allows us to create a framework where we can recoup fair costs for the costs of their managed isolation while at the same time making sure that those going through undue hardship are not unduly penalised. This is a really important bill and I commend this bill to the House.
Lubeck MarjaMARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'm pleased to take a call on this bill the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill. Extremely proud to be part of a Government that had a very strong response to get in control and on top of this virus but now we need to do of course everything possible to ensure that we keep on protecting the health and wellbeing of everyone in New Zealand. This bill as has been mentioned does strike a fair balance when it comes to the right of New Zealanders to return home as well as the cost involved in that exercise and I commend it to the House.
Tinetti JanJAN TINETTI (Labour): I'm delighted to have a call on this COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill. We're in extraordinary times and we know that and there is no playbook for these times. So there's a lot of work that we're having to do that any Government in the world is having to do as we go through and face these extraordinary circumstances. But what we do know is that our managed quarantine and isolation facilities are working. They are keeping COVID-19 at the border and they are stopping community transmission. What we also know is that this bill strikes a fair balance for what must happen. It allows New Zealanders the right to come home and we don't know the circumstances—until that hits them overseas—of why that hasn't happened before; whether there have been no planes or their jobs have suddenly disappeared. They have a right to come home. This bill strikes the balance between those people and not paying for people who want to take their overseas holidays as the world opens up.I am delighted to commend this bill to the House.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That urgency be accorded.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 55New Zealand National 54; Ross.Motion agreed to.
Appropriation (2020/21 Estimates) Bill Third Reading & Imprest Supply (Second for 2020/21) Bill Second Reading (continued)
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Appropriation (2020/21 Estimates) Bill be now read a third time and the Imprest Supply (Second 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 56New Zealand National 54; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Appropriation (2020/21 Estimates) Bill read a third time and Imprest Supply (Second for 2020/21) Bill read a second time.
11. Question No. 11—Health (Māori Health)WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Health (Māori Health)Question No. 11—Health (Māori Health)11. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Health (Māori Health): How is the Government supporting Māori health and wellbeing?Hon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister of Health (Māori Health)): Last week I was pleased to announce Whakamaua the Government's Māori Health Action Plan. This plan sets out the pathway towards achieving greater health equity for Māori over the next five years and demonstrates the Government's commitment to improving Māori health and wellbeing. Willow-Jean Prime: What specific outcomes are Whakamaua seeking to achieve? Hon PEENI HENARE: Whakamaua has four high-level outcomes: firstly that iwi hapū whānau and Māori communities are exercising their authority to improve their health and wellbeing; second ensuring the health and disability system is fair and sustainable and delivers more equitable outcomes for Māori; thirdly it seeks to address racism and discrimination in all its forms within our health system; and lastly the plan protects mātauranga Māori throughout the health and disability system. Willow-Jean Prime: Why do we need a Māori health action plan? Hon PEENI HENARE: We know the health and disability system is failing Māori and as a result there are significant inequities between Māori and tauiwi. Whakamaua provides clear direction on how we can fix that. Many of the actions listed within the plan will help counter the influence of implicit bias and systemic racism in the system. I'm pleased to say that some of these actions have already begun including streamlining patient pathways for whānau Māori providing virtual consults and a more inclusive approach to telehealth.
8. Question No. 8—Housing (Public Housing)PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Associate Minister of HousingQuestion No. 8—Housing (Public Housing)8. PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Associate Minister of Housing: What recent announcements has he made about improving the quality of State housing?Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)): Kia orana Mr Speaker. Last week at Sinclair Grove in Naenae the Government announced a $500 million boost to our State house retrofit programme. This will see around 1500 older State homes in 30 towns and cities across New Zealand upgraded and renewed over the next 2½ years. This shows our Government following through on our commitment to not only add thousands of homes to the public housing stock but also improve the quality of public housing available to New Zealanders and their whānau.Paul Eagle: What will the retrofit programme mean for tenants?Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Tenants will be living in warmer drier and healthier homes. Their homes will be improved by the installation of wall ceiling and floor insulation double-glazing of windows improvements to ventilation and air tightness new heating and making these homes more accessible. I'm advised that tenants who live in homes that were part of a pilot are already enjoying the health benefits of homes that have already been retrofitted. For example we've heard from one tenant in the Hutt Valley whose son had a respiratory condition which has improved since moving back into the retrofitted home and this means fewer visits to their doctor and more days at school.Paul Eagle: How will the retrofit programme support regional economies?Hon KRIS FAAFOI: As well as being a significant investment in the health of New Zealand's public housing supply this $500 million is also a major investment in the regional economies where this retrofitting work will happen. Kāinga Ora will look to use contractors of all sizes to carry out this work creating more opportunities for a range of companies in the regions. Many of these companies will be experiencing the economic effects of COVID-19 and the Government recognises how important programmes like this are to give local contractors certainty over their project pipeline.
6. Question No. 6—Social DevelopmentPRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister for Social DevelopmentQuestion No. 6—Social Development6. PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: What recent announcements has she made about supporting communities in the COVID-19 recovery?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): On Friday just gone Minister Williams and I announced that applications were opening for our new Community Capability and Resilience Fund. This is a $36 million community fund available from 1 August for community groups seeking funding for initiatives that support the rebuild and recovery from COVID-19 over the next two years. Our community groups have done a great job at supporting New Zealanders and keeping communities safe and resilient over time as we respond and recover from COVID-19. The Community Capability and Resilience Fund will enable groups to build on this work and implement locally led solutions in their communities.Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What impact have community grants had so far in the COVID-19 response?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The Community Capability and Resilience Fund builds on the success of the Community Awareness and Preparedness Grant fund which was established by this Government to provide immediate support to communities during the COVID-19 lockdown. This fund was exhausted with over 900 groups supported. Communities were able to apply and receive funding quickly for innovative solutions and ideas that made an immediate positive impact for communities. We want to continue to encourage this through this new fund. Through the community awareness and preparedness fund we supported community groups to share information help people overcome the digital and technology challenges provide essential goods and check in to make sure that those isolated and living alone were supported.Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Why is the Community Capability and Resilience Fund important?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The Community Capability and Resilience Fund is for community groups who are often different to traditional providers. They are made up of a cross-section of the local community and public or population-based interest groups. The fund will have a focus on community-led initiatives such as building and improving the provision of services developing and implementing locally determined COVID-19 recovery plans. This Government is committed to supporting the wellbeing of our people our whānau and communities and this fund can help us achieve this in new and innovative ways with initiatives led by our people for our people.
5. Question No. 5—Regional Economic DevelopmentMARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Economic DevelopmentQuestion No. 5—Regional Economic DevelopmentMARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Kia orana Mr Speaker. To the Minister—Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. How is that decision to terminate Mr Goldsmith's questioning even slightly reasonable given that we've sat here and listened to exceptionally long answers today from Government Ministers presumably positioning ahead of an event later next month? It seems unreasonable when there's only more one day of questions—SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. I indicated to the member that he should stop. His question wasn't terminated because his question was too long; it was because he argued with me afterwards on his feet without even taking a point of order. I mean he knows that he's not allowed to do that.5. MARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: Is the Provincial Growth Fund on track to meet the target of creating 10000 jobs?Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): We have outstripped the target. The Provincial Development Unit has undertaken a robust and comprehensive stocktake: 13000 people have worked on Provincial Growth Fund (PGF) projects up and down the country; an additional 11000 have enrolled also on skills and employment programmes—many of them have gone on to additional training and a host gone on to work.Mark Patterson: How else can the success of the PGF be evaluated?Hon SHANE JONES: The actual applicants to the Provincial Growth Fund have reported they expect a further 15000 people to work on projects. That gets us to 28000 people in total. I would also say a key tenet of the PGF was to address low productivity outcomes and also bring the Māori community and the ongoing problems of training land and other resources—and a New Zealand Institute of Economic Research report evaluated that the Provincial Growth Fund's investment has led to an increase of GDP by $250 million per year and the creation of 1257 jobs just in those isolated provincial Māori communities.Mark Patterson: What are some of the highlights of the PGF since it was launched in early 2018?Hon SHANE JONES: Our Government believes in water storage. We know that in this post-COVID time it's important that the productivity and the potential of land is expanded and enhanced so we can cope with droughts floods. We've continued to invest in marine and coastal assets. Some I must say were projects initiated in terms of the last regime but funded by this Government. We've actually gone into the very difficult areas of the employee community and delivered meth addiction responses at the request of employers in our provinces. For fear of protracting the answer it's all on the website.
SpeechAGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to speak on this bill in this short time. This bill is essentially about trying to recoup the cost of managed isolation and the quarantine facilities. As the speaker before me has said it is not fair; it is not fair to the New Zealanders who are overseas but it is also not fair to all the New Zealanders who have been here during lockdown who have sacrificed so much—their jobs their businesses the ability to connect with family to attend funerals to have weddings. Everybody has carried the burden of this. This is an extraordinary situation we would normally not—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry to interrupt the member but it's come time for me to leave the Chair for the evening. The House is suspended. I will resume the Chair at 9 a.m. tomorrow. Kia ora mai tātou.Debate interrupted.Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)
Wood MichaelMICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): I rise briefly in support of the bill and I do so for a couple of important reasons. As the Minister of Housing pointed out in her speech this is a bill the primary object of which is to set up a legal structure within which it is possible to establish a charging regime. The details of the charging themselves actually occur through regulation. This is a fair and reasonable thing to do in my view and as the Minister has outlined in terms of her intentions with the regulations a careful balance is being struck here. It's a balance which accepts the important right of New Zealand citizens to return to their country but does also ensure that those who exercise some discretion about their travel arrangements after the lockdown occurred and those who perhaps planned to come back to New Zealand only on a temporary basis do make some contribution towards the significant cost of managed isolation which we know is incredibly important.I do note briefly in response to some of the comments opposite that were just expressed now that the proposed charge is not a tax in the way that we think about a tax; it is a specific levy which is levied to meet very particular costs related to the quarantine requirements created by the person who is engaging in the travel. Levy costs are in general set by regulation so I don't quite think that some of the arguments put forward there do hold too much water.As I say this is a balanced piece of legislation. It appears to have wide support in the House and I commend it to the House.
Hipkins ChrisURGENCYHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move That urgency be accorded the passing through all stages of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill and the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill (No 2); the passing through the remaining stages of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill the Fuel Industry Bill and the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill; the first reading and referral to select committee of the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill; the passing through the remaining stages of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill; and the consideration of notices of motion on adjustments to Vote Audit the extension of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Air Border) Order the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Maritime Border) Order and the adoption of amendments to the Standing Orders.The Parliament lost around 55 to 60 hours of time for Government business during the COVID-19 lockdown period. As a result of this urgency and the other urgency motions that we have put before the House in recent weeks we have claimed around 41 of those hours back. That is time that allowed the Government to progress legislation it would otherwise have been able to were it not for the lockdown. Two of the seven bills included in this motion relate directly to COVID-19 and to the response to COVID-19. The remainder of the legislation is items of business that the Government wants to see progressed before Parliament breaks for the election period and the notices of motion are all things the House needs to work its way through before we leave for the election campaign.
Motions — Urgency Motion — Government Notices of Motion