edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
10. Question No. 10—HealthGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 10—Health10. GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister of Health: How has New Zealand ramped up its testing for COVID-19 and what is the current daily capacity?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Testing is one of the key health measures we can take to stamp out COVID-19. New Zealand began testing on 31 January and has steadily increased capacity ever since. We've now 12 labs conducting tests and have completed more than 128000 tests. Our daily testing capacity stands at more than 8400. New Zealand has developed a world-class testing regime and I encourage anyone who has COVID-19 symptoms to seek medical advice and get tested.Greg O'Connor: What progress has been made in testing for Māori and Pasifika people for COVID-19?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: It's important that we test as broadly as possible. We want to see testing in all communities and across all ethnic groups. The most recent data I have available shows that Māori make up 16.1 percent of those tested. For Pacific peoples the number is 8.2 percent. Those numbers are important and encouraging because we know that Māori and Pacific people have some of the poorest health outcomes in New Zealand.Greg O'Connor: How does New Zealand's rate of testing compare internationally?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: New Zealand has now tested 23 people per thousand of population. That puts us comfortably in the top ranks internationally. For example I'm advised that in the UK seven people per 1000 have been tested. In South Korea that number is 11 and it is 14 in Singapore. Germany which has been widely praised for its testing has tested 25 people per thousand. The volume of tests being conducted in New Zealand and the low rate of positive results shows our approach to COVID-19 is working and we need to hold the course.
Mallard TrevorSITTINGS OF THE HOUSEHon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Deputy Leader of the House): I seek leave for the House to adjourn until the next sitting day.SPEAKER: Is there any objection? There is none.The House adjourned at 4.36 p.m.
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I move That the committee report progress.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Sixty-five-year-old women's bladders are important.Motion agreed to.House resumed.The Chairperson reported progress on the Appropriation (2018/19 Confirmation and Validation) Bill.Report adopted.
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. This will be a very short question to the Minister and I want to stress this is on behalf of a very dear constituent. In relation to the Government's order to open golf courses but close their toilets does the Government appreciate that a game of golf lasts four hours but a 65-year-old woman's bladder does not?
SpeechANNUAL REVIEW DEBATEIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 28 April on the Appropriation (2018/19 Confirmation and Validation) Bill.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): The House is in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2018/19 Confirmation and Validation) Bill. All annual reviews are available for debate but only specific Ministers will be available each day to respond. The Government has indicated that the Minister for Social Development—who I see is in the Chamber—and the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety will be available today. The time remaining in this debate is three hours and 19 minutes. Kiritapu Allan moved that progress be reported and the call is now available to her if she so wishes.
Speaker's Observation — Seating Changes
Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Perhaps you might consider locating more of the disinfectant materials around the Chamber. SPEAKER: Sure.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I think there are three stations in the Chamber.SPEAKER: I'll be happy to replace the one that was behind the Leader of the Opposition and taken away by his members yesterday.Hon Members: It's still there.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh it's still here. Sorry—I hadn't seen it there. So there's four—that's right—except that—SPEAKER: There's one in each quadrant.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Yes I know but it requires significant movement which I'm sure you'd be upset about. And quite often—SPEAKER: I'm very happy to—Hon Gerry Brownlee: —the proximity is closer than a metre.SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. I will be happy to double the numbers in order to save the members moving 3 or 4 metres.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is a completely disingenuous comment from you and quite unnecessary. The reality is that we are seeing people wandering in this Chamber in a closer proximity than 2 metres of the other. The most senior member in the Chamber left today and had a conversation within about a metre of another person inside the Chamber. Similarly when the second most senior member left the Chamber a similar exchange occurred. Now either we're doing it properly or not at all. And having more opportunity to wipe down—SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. We've had enough. We're not going to have an inquiry into it and the second most senior member in the Chamber hasn't left yet.
Mallard TrevorSPEAKER'S RULINGSSeating Changes—Request to Use DisinfectantSPEAKER: Before I call order of the day No. 1 I just want to say that I have noticed while I've been sitting here there's been some changing of seats between members which of course is allowed but members were requested if that did occur to always disinfect the surfaces as they shift. I've noticed it's happened on both sides today.There's a real danger with this place that it could become a hot spot and a vector for COVID-19 to get around the country. So I would like people to comply with the written request that they've received. I'll say that I've looked in two directions and I'd ask those members to do it.
Tuesday 28 April 2020 - Volume 745
11. Question No. 11—TourismHon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) to the Minister of TourismQuestion No. 11—Tourism11. Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) to the Minister of Tourism: What official estimates has he received if any of business failure and job loss in the tourism and hospitality sector as a result of the COVID-19 level 3 and 4 restrictions?Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister of Tourism): Treasury has clearly outlined the various unemployment scenarios that could be possible as a result of COVID-19. Many of those job losses will come from the tourism sector. At the moment Tourism New Zealand is undertaking a stakeholder survey which will provide more of an insight into the current state of the sector—how we work together to respond restart and reimagine the tourism sector into the future.Hon Todd McClay: Is he concerned that the Government's wage subsidy doesn't go far enough to protect jobs in industries like tourism and event management where business has been entirely closed for an extended period of time?Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Preliminary results from Tourism New Zealand stakeholder surveys show that 1382 respondents or 87 percent had accessed wage support including the wage subsidy and essential workers leave payments as well as 18 percent of respondents who had accessed tax relief measures and 11 percent who had accessed support to assist in assessing finance. We know that businesses are hurting and businesses in tourism are hurting but the Government has done the best it can to try and cushion the blow.Hon Todd McClay: What reports has he heard of tourism businesses like Ngāi Tahu or Skyline or Te Puia having to close or reduce staff despite the Government's wage subsidy scheme?Hon KELVIN DAVIS: As the Minister of Finance has often said the wage subsidies in the business assistance package were there to cushion the blows. And he's also been very clear that we will not be able to save every job.Hon Todd McClay: What specific action is he going to take now to help the tens of thousands of workers in the tourism sector who are facing job losses irrespective of the job subsidy?Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Tourism New Zealand has been tasked with the job of reimagining the future of tourism. They're working alongside the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment and the Department of Conservation and stakeholders. A plan is coming together and the member will have to wait and see exactly what that plan is in terms of us supporting the tourism sector into the future.
9. Question No. 9—HealthKIERAN McANULTY (Labour) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 9—Health9. KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What public health measures are the key to the ongoing strategy to eliminate COVID-19?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): By going early and going hard New Zealand has managed to stop community transmission of COVID-19 and eliminate the unknown spread of the virus for now but we are not out of the woods. As other countries have seen the virus can bounce back and resume its spread. That means we must continue with our strict border controls and use of quarantine. We must continue to test widely for COVID-19 and trace all close contacts of any confirmed or probable cases. We must continue to use self-isolation appropriately and follow strict rules around physical distancing. We've proven we can do this together. We must remain vigilant at alert level 3.Kieran McAnulty: How have our health services responded to the challenges of eliminating COVID-19?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Can I start by thanking the doctors nurses midwives and other allied health staff who have been at the front line and have continued to provide top-quality care while adapting to new ways of working. I want to highlight two areas in particular where our health system has ramped up capacity: testing and contact tracing. In total we have completed more than 120000 tests and we now have capacity to process more than 8000 tests per day. That compares well internationally and gives us great confidence that we're getting an accurate picture of the extent of COVID-19. In contact tracing we have built from scratch the national close contact service and an information technology solution to support it. The national service can now make 5000 calls per day which can be scaled to 10000 and public health units can trace 185 cases per day between them.Kieran McAnulty: How can the public continue to play their part in eliminating COVID-19 at alert level 3?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The public response to the challenge of COVID-19 has been remarkable and I want to thank New Zealanders for their collective efforts and their commitment to stamping out this virus and by doing so saving lives. We cannot relax at level 3. While more people are now at work and there is some more movement within our communities we need to follow the same sensible measures that have served us so well during alert level 4. Stick to your bubble observe physical distancing stay home if you are sick and perhaps most importantly of all if you have any symptoms of COVID-19 seek medical advice and get tested.David Seymour: Can GPs expect the remaining funding promised to their sector to be released and when?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I am aware that there are conversations ongoing between the Ministry of Health and the primary care sector around the nature of the costs they are facing with COVID-19 and there is a desire to work together actively to make sure that any additional costs that are being incurred are supported.
Allan Kiritapu; Mallard TrevorSITTINGS OF THE HOUSEKIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I seek leave for the House to adjourn early and resume tomorrow at 2 p.m.SPEAKER: Is anyone foolish enough to object to that? No. The House is agreed.The House adjourned at 5.34 p.m.
Allan KiritapuKIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move That the committee report progress.Motion agreed to.House resumed.Progress reported.Report adopted.
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): It will be fairly quick. What a sophistry and it worries me that someone could be the Minister of Health with such a shallow view of public policy. The question is if the Government is going to—[Interruption] A hell of a cyclist though. If the Government is going to be responsible for providing a service then there are legitimate questions that occur equally in private organisations as in public organisations of what the correct economy of scale and structure is. So this is not a market versus Government question; it's a question of getting your organisation done right regardless of who owns you. Yes there should be a lot more private provision of healthcare—Hon Julie Anne Genter: Working very well in the United States David!DAVID SEYMOUR: —but isn't it incredible just to see how bad the Minister of Health's grasp is.Madam Chair I was going to end my contribution but I just heard some moronic comments from Julie Anne Genter. The irony is that her comments—Kiritapu Allan: You may as well wrap it up.DAVID SEYMOUR: —and Kiritapu Allan very kindly said That's all we ever hear." The crazy thing is that the moronic comments were made about the United States and Julie Anne Genter seems to think that the problems in the United States' healthcare system are caused by the fact that it's private. Well she might like to know that Medicaid and Medicare two Federal Government programmes in the United States spend far more per capita than New Zealand spends on healthcare through its public system. That's the first thing—the first fallacy. And then she might like to know that distortions introduced by the Federal Government through its tax code have ensured that you don't buy your insurance directly. Your insurer does it—your employer does it through a tax deduction to your insurer who pays your doctor who treats you.So by Federal Government decree which came out of World War II the United States has some of the worst incentives and structure in its healthcare system that you could possibly imagine. Nobody has the information; no one has the incentives. It's shameful that I have to stand up here and correct Julie Anne Genter about the most basic facts of the American healthcare system but I'm happy to do it.Hon Andrew Little: What about debating the New Zealand system?DAVID SEYMOUR: We're getting asked by Andrew Little: why don't I talk about the New Zealand system? I did and then I heard this barracking from Julie Anne Genter and I felt compelled to answer it.So there are two good reasons why—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Can we possibly relate that to the annual reviews?DAVID SEYMOUR: It was as related to the annual reviews Madam Chair as Julie Anne Genter's barracking was. She set the tone and maybe the lesson is we shouldn't follow the example of Julie Anne Genter. With that Madam Chair which was the point I was really trying to make I'll leave you to it."
Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Very quick response to those issues. I think I've heard it all. I'm equal measure I think bewildered and delighted to hear the member David Seymour saying that a distributed system run by private enterprise is inadequate that we need a more centralised system with a nationalised process for the distribution of goods. I do pledge in response to continue to grow and strengthen a healthcare system with a more centralised directive approach to ensure that New Zealanders get the services that they need.David Seymour: Well Madam Chair—Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Just quickly.
Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I'll try and keep this contribution short but I acknowledge that the member's figures are out of date. Of course there are thousands of counselling sessions that have already been offered under the programme of access and choice and of course something I've failed to mention so far in the debate the 1737 number which has really ramped up during this time to ensure that while people are under lockdown they can access telehealth services to support them if they're facing challenges. So I want to just put on record of course that the programme will continue to roll out. We will continue to build and access the workforces but we're starting from a situation where the need had grown quite dramatically over the most recent decade and the services had grown by roughly half the growth in need.
Doocey MattMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much Madam Chair. Quite rightly the Minister of Health outlined that the new front-line mental health service is over four or five years $455 million. Can I tell you what? The public would not expect that as of February this year—through written parliamentary questions—there has only been $3.2 million spent on that roll-out out of the $455 million. How have we got in a position—and I hope the Minister will answer this—where out of the $455 million allocated—yes over four or five years a much needed front-line service that was announced with big fanfare—only $3.2 million has been spent? And then the Minister pulls out the card as he did on Newshub Nation on Saturday Oh the delays are because of the GP practices themselves or the workforce."So why am I—and I'm sure the Minister is as well—receiving several emails from DHB counsellors New Zealand Association of Counsellors (NZAC) accredited? The last one I got today. She's an NZAC-accredited DHB primary care counsellor who works in the Nelson DHB who has been told by her DHB that there is no funding available to respond to the growing number of referrals due to mental health and COVID-19 and the upcoming economic downturn. So I'd like to ask the Minister: why does he say there is no workforce when we have 3000 counsellors who were ready to go and they've been told there's no funding? Yet the Minister is saying that in fact this has been stalled by no available workforce. It doesn't add up. Only $3.2 million spent to date. We have a workforce that is there ready to go.What I'd like to do today is call on the Minister—like the last former National Government did post-earthquakes with Ministers like the Hon Anne Tolley who announced when she was a Minister for the Ministry of Social Development 50000 free counselling sessions that were accessed through GPs for the many Cantabrians that were suffering from the Christchurch earthquakes. I think the Minister should be announcing a policy like that for New Zealanders who are suffering because of COVID-19."
Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): It's helpful that the member phrased that question right at the end of his contribution. Where is that money to be seen the $1.9 billion he refers to? I think it's very important to remind the member that that is a five-year programme. It is not $1.9 billion that rolls out the door within six months of the financial year beginning or even one year of the financial year beginning. What that $1.9 billion is a recognition of is the need for mental health support across the board in New Zealand as a result of neglect over many many years of our mental health services.It's so important in my view and the Government's view that people are able to access mental health support. In particular the centrepiece of that Budget announcement was the access and choice programme in primary care enabling access for New Zealanders with mild to moderate mental health challenges to access services for free a programme worth $455 million over those five years. Of course we can't roll those things out on day one because there are no workforces sufficient to do that on day one because workers haven't been trained under previous Governments. Of course nurses take a number of years to train and certainly before they become senior nurses we've got years and years to wait. We've got psychiatrists that take you know 10 years to train and the like. So it's not a case that you could just overnight suddenly magic up all of these people that the previous Government had neglected to train for this need.However we're not accepting that as a limitation and we are determined to train up workforces to take advantage of those who have experiences of mental illness who want to support alongside to build on the skills of those who are already health practitioners like nurses and other health experts and give them additional training so that they can be a part of providing those services with a short course. That is the kind of strategy that we're putting in place and we are rolling out a new workforce. We've just announced over the recent period that 100 new practices will be brought into that scheme over the next year. That of course extends coverage to 1.5 million New Zealanders for that free access scheme. Now that is of course the first steps. We've got more to roll out in that five-year programme; that is taken for granted.But I do want to thank all of those who have been involved in that initial roll-out—the doctors the nurses the allied health workers—and also those with lived experience who have stood alongside others coming forward with those challenges. Together we can make a meaningful difference in terms of addressing the mental health need that has amassed in New Zealand while our services over many many years have been left to languish.
Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I'm delighted to respond to that member's questions. In terms of the Holidays Act his assertion that perhaps this goes back to the prior Clark Labour Government is I would say inaccurate. The previous National Government recognised that there were challenges with the Holidays Act and passed law to change the way in which it worked. So they recognised the challenges that were in there and the mounting liabilities which needed to be addressed under their watch. They did it in a way that was ineffective that didn't come through successfully and then as it became apparent that Government departments under the previous Government's watch were not paying their employees adequately—and I got to prosecute this as the Opposition economic development spokesperson so I present as evidence those questions that I asked in the House in respect of the software they were using and their compliance with the law. It was discovered that the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment was not compliant under the previous Government's watch. It was also clear that the Police had not been compliant. Those things were beginning to be addressed under the previous Government's watch. They began to rectify them. Steven Joyce when he took over began to rectify those things. I also saw under the Official Information Act the advice provided to the previous Government on what they could do about the situation including comply lawfully with the law and it was advised against—a curious situation they found themselves in.But I would say that that previous Government was very well aware there was a challenge there.Hon Member: Rubbish!Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: They did not—I've just supplied evidence. And I challenge him to go back and read the transcripts from question time pointing to the very software used by DHBs which was the same as that which was pointed out to be non-compliant in other areas of the economy.So the member asked the question and probably should not have asked it given the answer which is able to be supplied. They have failed to address the Holidays Act and therefore the majority of the deficit we faced last year is something that we have inherited from the prior Government. Now I don't want to make too much light of that. I do want the facts on record. We've accepted that that's a problem we've inherited from the previous Government and we think it's right to make sure those workers are paid correctly. So that's what we intend to do as a Government.
Robertson GrantHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): We are as I understand it by agreement coming towards the end of this particular bit of the debate so can I thank members for their questions. In terms of Mr McClay and the comments he's just made he—I'm not allowed to refer to that but Mr Little responded to earlier questions around this around the ongoing work that we are doing with regards to commercial property space. I do note his comment right at the end there about the fact that many landlords are in fact themselves quite small businesses actually. That's been recognised by the Government and one of the reasons why we wanted to make sure that we had a balance here. I've seen excellent reports from around the country. One that springs to mind was one that was in the Nelson Mail a couple of weeks back around the cooperation and collaboration and exactly that situation that has gone on. We continue to encourage that but we also understand that there are pressures here and as Mr Little said solutions to that are under active consideration.In terms of Mr Bayly's comments—in particular about the business loan guarantee scheme—I did scribble some numbers down of the amounts of money that the banks are claiming to have lent in this period of time. It doesn't separate out in the way that Mr Bayly asked around the difference between consumer and business lending but it does include up to 46000 people having either interest only payments or deferred payments and around 24000 people to the tune of a couple of billion dollars as at 24 April of new lending.Now I am not here to defend the way that the banks have gone about what they've gone about; what I do want to do though is make sure that the scheme we designed works the way that we wanted it to. So we've listened carefully to the concerns that have been raised. We have ongoing meetings with the banks and indeed with the Reserve Bank to make sure that that scheme actually operates the way that we want it to and we'll no doubt have more to say in the coming days on that.David Seymour: Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Quickly yes. I think we are looking to move to health but—
Robertson GrantHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Just to address the last question first the New Zealand Bankers' Association will be producing regular data on the uptake of the scheme and I believe the first of that data will be later this week but it may be next week. I can check and confirm for the member. The scheme itself has not been fully operational for that long so the initial numbers will not be that large.Also what banks have reported to us is that they have lent between $5 billion and $6 billion—or a combination of their lending and their changes to existing things like mortgages moving to interest-only and so on—since 20 March. That's because obviously the banks have got existing relationships often existing lines of credit that are available to businesses. The business loan guarantee scheme was set up to ensure that there was a window of opportunity available to businesses who felt that they needed this kind of working capital and were able to access it. The guarantee element of it—and I'll return to that in a moment—coming from the Crown was to give security to both the banks and those borrowing.In terms of when the scheme will find its greatest utility it may be that that moment is still to come as businesses begin to take stock of how they're going to be able to trade under the different levels of our framework as they get confidence as we move towards level 2 that they're back trading and they're prepared to take on a debt such as that. So in terms of how the scheme will shake down I feel like it's probably got some time to run and we'll have the numbers as to where it is right now in the coming days.In terms of the question of guarantee this is a matter the member has raised separately and I understand the concerns that are being raised. Personal guarantees were not to be part of the scheme. What there are though are what are called general security agreements. And if—in the case of particularly sole traders or those from very small businesses—they don't have other forms of security it ends up potentially turning into a personal guarantee. We are meeting this week to discuss—as we said we would when we announced the scheme—what tweaks or changes might be needed. I certainly take the point that in establishing the scheme we were trying to avoid personal guarantees but the way that general security agreements have ended up working particularly for those smaller businesses it has ended up potentially for some of them being turned into those personal guarantees. So we will take that on board.In terms of the member's first question the $250000 floor was around the fact that most of the people who had turnovers around or under that level tend to be those sole traders who were actually eligible and did take up the 12-week wage subsidy scheme which really was thought to be a more appropriate vehicle to provide assistance to those businesses rather than a loan scheme. But again as we said we would revisit the scheme to make sure it's fit for purpose and working. I've heard that feedback just as I have about personal guarantees and we'll now take that into account as we review the scheme.
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you Madam Chair and I intend to ask a very succinct question in the hope that you will consider that in the allocation of future calls. To the Minister of Finance I see the Government's loan guarantee scheme—there's a few aspects of it I wonder about. One is that the floor on the amount of turnover that a company can have at $250000 has excluded a lot of small to medium sized enterprises including some that spoke to the Epidemic Response Committee this morning. I wonder if you could address why that $250000 floor is there. Secondly I've had correspondence with people who have said that they have been asked to give a full personal guarantee for loans and they ask why is it that if the Government is covering 80 percent they should have to guarantee more than 20 percent. They've subsequently been told—and I've heard from representatives of the Government—that actually the Government only will cover 80 percent if the bank has used all other avenues to recover the loan including personal guarantees at which point some people might ask Well what exactly is the point of the policy?" because it really effectively guarantees nothing. It's the last guarantee to be used or at least that's how it appears. I hope the Minister can give an explanation. Finally perhaps to put a lot of the speculation around the scheme to bed it would just be helpful to know how many loans and what aggregate quantum has been taken or loaned under the scheme because I think if people could understand that we could get a sense of is there a point to it is it working and is it helping the right people? Thank you."
Robertson GrantHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Just in the nature of the fluidness of this debate I'm going to ask my colleague Andrew Little who's the Minister of Justice and responsible for the property Act under which commercial lease arrangements are dealt with to say a few words about this. But in terms of the very specific example that Mr Brownlee is giving he actually did raise that previously. Obviously the issue of personal guarantees in this current environment is hugely challenging because as the member notes people making those guarantees had no concept that this kind of activity could take place. But on the more general issue of the approach to how we can manage commercial rents I'll get Mr Little to comment on that.
Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Thank you. I don't know how we're going to work the clock yet because we had about two minutes or something left to go. But all I really want to focus on finally is the issue around support for businesses that find themselves probably not able to continue for various reasons but had rental payments or lease payments that are personally guaranteed.Now this is a very big problem because where there's a clear case their business—perhaps a travel agency or some other such—is not going to be all that viable going forward due to the current crisis that the world is facing if they have got a personal guarantee on that that's a pretty rough position to find themselves in. We need to have something that balances that against the surety that landlords want and should expect and that their lenders require of them. But it's something that I think should be looked at because it's an unexpected circumstance for those people to have to deal with—and they can in most cases face the loss of their home and other personal assets that they would never have expected to have on the line.
Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I'm sorry that in the first opportunity for an interchange in this debate that the Minister didn't leap to his feet to engage in the way that he was so enthusiastically speaking of just a few minutes ago. I've only got a short question for him and it's how does this tax clawback work for small business—because it doesn't look on the face of it to be as friendly as is being projected?So a lot of businesses will face a tax bill on 7 May—literally a few days' time. To avoid that they're going to have to forecast a 2020 loss that would offset the payment that they have to make. Now the problem with that is that effectively they are going to have to project or endure a 133 percent loss of profit by the end of 2021. Now it seems to me that a lot of businesses would be able to manipulate their circumstances to actually fold up early because if you're going out of business it's good value but if you're continuing it's not a huge amount of help.One of the problems—well the Minister could shake his head—with it is that most businesses facing a 133 percent profit loss don't survive. How many banks are going to be happy for a business to wander in and say I need one of these loans to keep me topped up."? Oh yeah the Minister agrees: it's not going to happen. So there are a lot of aspects of this that I think do need to be clarified. I look forward to the Minister perhaps being able to positively clarify some of these today.The other point I'd make is that for small business in New Zealand the largest number of small businesses in New Zealand are sole traders—sole traders who pay themselves a salary and pay their PAYE out of that. What do they get? Absolutely nothing.So it's great for big businesses—for great big businesses it's fine. Air New Zealand will benefit from this enormously over and above all the other assistance that has been given to them—and other businesses of that size will benefit from it. But your small to medium enterprise that does function in a company structure that does have perhaps multiple shareholders they are going to find this extremely difficult to get the greatest benefit from and sole traders miss out.Now Minister if I've misinterpreted or misread the information that's been put out please correct me."
SpeechIn CommitteeCHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): This is the debate on the financial position of the Government and the annual reviews of departments Officers of Parliament Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises as reported by select committees. In accordance with a determination of the Business Committee the time allocated for this debate is five hours. In accordance with the leave of the House Standing Orders 349(2) and (3) have been set aside so there will be no sector specific debates.All annual reviews are available for debate but only specific Ministers will be available each day to respond. The Government has indicated that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Health will be available today. A motion to report progress on a bill must be moved on a call not a point of order—Speaker's ruling 77/5. When a member moves to report progress in this annual review debate the presiding officer will call on that member first when the debate resumes. This is a similar process to that followed in other debates when they are adjourned. At the conclusion of the debate questions will be put noting the committee reports on annual reviews and on the provisions of the Appropriation (2018/19 Confirmation and Validation) Bill. There is no amendment or debate on these questions. Also to maintain our social distancing I remain here in the Chair and the Minister can remain in their seat. The question is that the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the annual financial statements of the Government for the previous financial year be noted.
Mallard TrevorANNUAL REVIEW DEBATESetting Aside Standing OrdersSPEAKER: A point of order the Hon Grant Robertson. Hon Grant Robertson: No I don't believe I have one Mr Speaker. I was standing up to take the chair. SPEAKER: I think someone is going to take a point of order in relation to Standing Order 349(2) and (3) being set aside for the annual review debate. Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Leader of the House: Just one moment Mr Speaker and I will attempt to do that for you. Following discussions in the Business Committee I seek leave for Standing Order 349(2) and (3) to be set aside for this annual review debate. SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.
Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I think it's no secret that from all quarters in the House there has been a concern for a long time that the financial review debates and even the Estimates debates become somewhat perfunctory a bit of a knock 'em over drag 'em out" type of fare all inside the space of five minutes designed to get a Minister into a position where they are so concerned about the time that they don't bother to answer questions and therefore we see just a utilisation of the House's time to no good purpose at all. The Standing Orders Committee had considered this matter prior to the events that have transpired over the last five weeks but I think it is timely that we make the change today in time right in front of the review debate that we will have shortly.The intention is that if an Opposition member is raising an issue with a Minister the Minister may be able to take the floor deal with that particular issue and then the person who was asking that question would be able to resume without particular loss of time or opportunity to speak. It will be somewhat iterative over the next couple of days and I do encourage the presiding officers to be slightly creative. We are living in more creative and innovative times at all sectors of the country and in the endeavours of New Zealanders because of what is in front of us. It's appropriate then that Parliament seeks as much information for people inside the parameters of the Westminster system that we operate in and in a way that I think will become the norm for the future operation of these two debates the annual review debate and the Estimates debate which will follow the Budget.Motion agreed to."
Standing Orders — Suspension
Robertson GrantSTANDING ORDERSSuspensionHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Leader of the House: I move That the 4-speech limit for each member in the debate on each Part or provision during the committee of the whole House stage of bills be suspended and that Appendix A of the Standing Orders be read accordingly.The Standing Orders impose a limit of four five-minute speeches per member on each question during the committee stage of any bill. This motion abolishes that limit. The effect of the limit has been that members try to fill the full five minutes each time they speak. Abolishing it is intended to encourage shorter more focused speeches. It is also intended to promote more exchanges between members and the Minister in charge of the bill.The House's agreement to this proposal today will allow the annual review debate to proceed in a way that is more appropriate for the unusual circumstances in which it will be conducted. It will mean that the limited numbers in the Chamber will not diminish the level of scrutiny that the debate is intended to provide. Implementing this change now will give new rules a trial run so that the Standing Orders Committee can judge whether to recommend that it be made permanent when it reports to the House in a few weeks' time.
Ministerial Statements — COVID-19—Move to Alert Level 3 and State of National Emergency
Wednesday 25 March 2020 - Volume 745
Mallard TrevorSPEAKER: Members as we go to the adjournment I want to thank all members for their contributions today. It's been an unusual sitting. We have got some things right and some things wrong—we never quite got the date changed on the wall—but I do want to thank the very skeleton staff who have helped us through today both from the Parliamentary Service and the Office of the Clerk and indicate that I think all of them knew that there was some risk involved in doing it. I want to say that both the Clerk and the CEO of the Parliamentary Service will be available through this entire period by phone and by email and possibly by Zoom. I am in the same category although I wouldn't recommend a Zoom conference with me; I think a phone call is probably a better approach.The House adjourned at 5.31 p.m.
Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Mr Speaker quite obviously the National Opposition will be supporting the motion moved by the Leader of the House. As he has just said these are extraordinary times; we'll all be judged in the future by how we handle things moving forward.There's no real need I think for me to say a great deal more other than to agree that we should acknowledge all of those essential service workers who are out there particularly those in the health field; but then all those others who do jobs that aren't often all that glamorous that just make life a little easier for us when it comes to providing services around sanitation clean water and those types of community things that are so important. There'll be a number of people who think that they should be on the essential services list and they will probably make a case for them to get on that essential services list. I don't think the Government will be closed to looking at whether or not there should be some changes to that as needs arise. But when we look today at the model that—based on the experience in Wuhan and in Lombardy in Italy—sees us at an alarmingly escalating rate of infection then this is absolutely the right thing to do. No question. And so by closing the House down for just 28 days for having a process that is a new innovation for keeping that scrutiny then this place is showing the rest of New Zealand what needs to be done at a time like this.But there will be pain—an enormous amount of pain. While we're all sort of saying Let's go back to our homes and isolate with our families but not communicate too much or too closely with other people" there are groups in our society who could be left out and left in quite miserable conditions. So we will probably use the select committee process to find out what is happening for those who for example are homeless; people who are living in circumstances that really are only suitable for going home and having a sleep and then going back to work; or people who are disabled in some kind of way. These are all the things that we need to look at because while we don't want the potential death toll to come from the virus we also don't want people's lives to be compromised to that extent because of the other choices that we have to make as a nation.So we support the motion by the Leader of the House. We salute all of those who are going to keep the place—that is the nation—ticking over in the meantime and look forward to a point when we can put all of this behind us and enjoy what will be the innovations that come from these next four weeks of isolation.Motion agreed to."
Hipkins ChrisOFFICES OF PARLIAMENTAddress to Governor-GeneralHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I seek leave to move the Government notice of motion in my name that a respectful address be presented to Her Excellency the Governor-General.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There appears to be none.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I move That a respectful Address be presented to Her Excellency the Governor-General commending to Her Excellency the alterations to the appropriations for the 2019/20 financial year in respect of Vote Audit Vote Ombudsmen and the estimates of expenses and capital injection for the 2020/21 financial year in respect of Vote Audit Vote Ombudsmen and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.Motion agreed to and Address agreed to.
Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): This is a very sensible move well supported by the Business Committee. These are—as we've all been saying over and over—unusual times. It's good that the written question process will continue. The extra days will make a difference. I think even beyond that there will need to be a little bit of tolerance as people do set themselves up.I also perhaps foreshadow from the Government that with 80-odd MPs at home in lockdown the flow of questions might somewhat increase meaning there will be greater pressure on those who answer them on behalf of Ministers.But it's a good move an appropriate one and quite clearly the extension of select committee deadlines and other such is simply practical and the right thing to do.Motion agreed to.
Hipkins ChrisSessional—Times for Replies and Government ResponsesHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I seek leave to move the motion in my name relating to the sessional order on written question times for replies and Government responses to committee reports.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I move That the following sessional orders be adopted: TIMES FOR REPLIES AND GOVERNMENT RESPONSES1 Time for replies to written questions(1)Despite Standing Order 382(4) the reply to a written question must be lodged no later than the tenth working day following the day on which the question was published.(2)Any written question that has been lodged before the day on which paragraph (1) ceases to have effect under Rule 3 remains subject to the time-limits set out in that paragraph.2 Time for Government responses to select committee reportsFor the purposes of Standing Order 252(1) a working day does not include any day in the period commencing with 25 March 2020 and ending with the day on which this rule ceases to have effect under Rule 3.3 Cessation of effectRule 1(1) and 2 cease to have effect on 28 April 2020 unless the Business Committee determines otherwise.This is a very straightforward resolution. The issue that we're really grappling with here is that we're all moving to new ways of working. The written questions system is an integral part of our means of accountability of our scrutiny function as a Parliament. It's important that members who are not part of the executive can continue to ask questions of those who are and written parliamentary questions are a good way to do that. Unfortunately at the moment getting replies prepared in an environment where everyone's working from home setting up their offices from home trying to find new ways of working within the time frames that are currently required just isn't possible. This gives people a bit more time. It's not a huge amount of time but it is a bit more time to allow us to do that.The second part of the resolution is of course making sure that the Government replies to select committee reports aren't due until after the House has resumed.
Business of Select Committees — Epidemic Response Committee