4. Question No. 4—FinanceHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 4—Finance4. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Finance: What is the estimated direct cost to the Crown of the change in COVID-19 alert levels since 18 August 2021 and how does that compare with the unallocated portion of the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I am advised that it is not possible to quantify the direct cost to the Crown of the change in alert levels at this time as that relies on many variables including the length of time that alert levels rise for and the impact on tax revenue and how much of that is temporary or permanent. However what I can say is how much money the Crown has spent on schemes since 18 August up to today. In the case of the wage subsidy scheme it has paid out $876.3 million supporting 205509 businesses and protecting 781364 jobs including 98339 self-employed people. As of the beginning of today the resurgence support payment has paid out $378 million covering 122231 applications. In addition to that around a million dollars has been spent supporting the leave support scheme and short-term absence payment obligations. I would note at this stage that that figure which adds up to around about $1.25 billion is tracking a bit behind the estimate of around $2 billion of cost per fortnight for these schemes when we are at alert level 4. In answer to the second part of the question there is still sufficient room in the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund (CRRF) to support our ongoing response to the Delta variant. As I told the Finance and Expenditure Committee last week there was a little over $5 billion unallocated in the CRRF at Budget 2021. There is also additional funding of just over $1 billion allocated for business support that had not been spent and can now be spent and I am now advised to update from what I said at the Finance and Expenditure Committee that there is approximately an additional $3 billion of unspent funding in other allocations in the CRRF that is available to be spent. In closing I'd also note that the CRRF is not the only funding source to help deal with our ongoing response. Agencies are also looking to use their existing baselines and in addition to that if there is a need to top up the CRRF we can do that without going above forecast net debt figures due to the exceptional performance of the New Zealand economy providing significant fiscal headroom to do so.Hon Michael Woodhouse: So when he told the Finance and Expenditure Committee last week We have the money that we need to pay the bills of the Government including what we need to do for the wage subsidy scheme." was that confidence because he knew he could go back to the taxpayer and dip into their pockets given that the wage subsidy scheme is now 60 percent higher than the imprest supply bill No. 1 had appropriated?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No that is not what I meant. I was answering a question that member had put forward—actually perhaps his colleague Mr Bayly had put forward—about whether or not we had the cash on hand to make the payments we needed to make. We absolutely did have that. In addition to that I provided him in my answer today that there are sufficient resources within the CRRF to deal with the support scheme payments that the Government is making.Hon Michael Woodhouse: When will the $50 billion set aside for the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund run out and how much more will he need to borrow for next week's second imprest supply bill?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member is confusing two things there. One doesn't borrow money per se for the imprest supply bill. In answer to the first part of the member's question as I said in my answer to the primary question we have sufficient resources within the CRRF to deal with the payments in the wage subsidy scheme and resurgence support payment that we have made and that we will make over the coming weeks.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Given that answer can he confirm that the imprest supply provided just $1.642 billion for COVID response and how does that compare with the $2 billion per fortnight that he's just told the House it's costing for this lockdown?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The imprest supply bill is in effect a way of making sure that the Government has cash on hand to be able to make the payments the Government needs to make before an appropriation bill is passed through Parliament. As I said in my earlier answer to the member there is sufficient funding in the CRRF beyond anything to do with what cash might need to be made available for it.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Why has he spent so much of the $50 billion COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund on non-COVID - related projects rather than actual COVID costs?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I reject the assertion that lies behind the member's question and he can refer to material that is now publicly available I believe on the Treasury's website which shows that the vast bulk of expenditure from the CRRF has gone in social development which is indeed the support schemes that we provide such as the wage subsidy scheme; support through Inland Revenue which is indeed the support we provide to businesses through the small business cash-flow scheme and the resurgence support payment; well over $5 billion that's gone out to the health system; and further support for the education system transport and other areas in our recovery. I've already said in this House a number of times: there are two Rs in the CRRF—"response" and "recovery"—and we're supporting both.Hon Michael Woodhouse: So will he commit to showing the discipline needed to spend COVID money on COVID-related costs and not on things like three-quarters of a billion dollars on three waters reform?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I will commit to is a continuation of the Government's work to make sure we support the response and the recovery. What I won't do is what the member's party committed to do which is spend up to $8 billion worth of the CRRF on tax cuts and his pet transport projects."