TUESDAY, 5 MAY 2020
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Karakia.
SPEAKER'S RULINGS
Seating—Request to Move
SPEAKER: Before we move on to questions, I am going to make an unusual request of Mr Brown and Rt Hon David Carter to move one seat each to the left and thereby have the separation.
Rt Hon David Carter: I don't like moving to the left.
SPEAKER: I thought that might be a problem for the member, but there's a first time for everything.





REMUNERATION AUTHORITY (MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT REMUNERATION) AMENDMENT BILL (NO 3)
Introduction—Leave Declined
DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I seek leave for a bill in my name, the Remuneration Authority (Members of Parliament Remuneration) Amendment Bill (No 3), to be set down for first reading at a time chosen by the Leader of the House this week, to stand referred to the Epidemic Response Committee for report back by 12 May 2020, and to pass through all remaining stages next week at a time determined by the Leader of the House.
SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There is objection.





ORAL QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Prime Minister
1. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government's statements and actions?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, particularly the Government's work to prevent and respond to COVID-19, including the announcement last week by Ministers Robertson and Nash to provide interest-free loans of up to $100,000 for a year to small businesses impacted by COVID-19, and the announcement by Minister Parker that we will fast track eligible development and infrastructure projects under the Resource Management Act to help get New Zealand moving again. The global pandemic is hitting every nation hard, and we are moving to cushion the blow for businesses and workers in this country. 
Hon Simon Bridges: What is Treasury's estimate of the number of New Zealanders that actually returned to work last week under level 3, as opposed to the 75 percent being technically available to return to work because restrictions had been eased?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: My recollection is the estimates, and I will put emphasis on that: the estimates were an additional 400,000 New Zealanders.
Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept estimates from ANZ economists that New Zealand's economy will shrink by 10 percent this year, while Australia's will fall by less than 5?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I've seen a range of estimates. Ultimately, though, what will be important are the final results coming out of both New Zealand and Australia, but you'll understand why my focus is on getting the New Zealand response right, both the health response which, if we succeed, is the best way we can support our economy by recovering quicker. There are very few scenarios we can fall back on with previous global experience. In fact, we have to look back as far as the flu of 1918, but one of the learnings from that was that those countries that moved quickest and hardest to try and prevent the pandemic taking hold were also the economies that recovered the fastest.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Did the Prime Minister also learn that the ANZ economist who was quoted on Q+A last night said that "the New Zealand / Australia recovery percentage speed would be about the same"?
Hon Simon Bridges: She doesn't do the economics.
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I've said, I heard a range of—
Hon Simon Bridges: She doesn't, I'm sorry.
Hon Member: I'll let her know!
SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat. I think the use of that pronoun back and forth is not that helpful, and I think it would be helpful if the interjections didn't go back and forth through the answers. The Rt Hon Prime Minister, please start again.
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As the member will well know, my focus is on the New Zealand experience and making the right decision for New Zealanders. 
Hon Simon Bridges: Considering Australia and New Zealand have had almost identical health outcomes, why is she still imposing tougher restrictions on economic activity than Australia?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, as I've reiterated in this House multiple times, at the time that New Zealand took the decision it did to go into lockdown which, as I recall, that member supported a mere five weeks ago, we had an infection rate modelled by the likes of Rodney Jones of five—that was higher than Australia. We have a different population base, but also, even the health professionals within Australia reference the fact that there is more in common with our response than there are differences. As members in the House well know, I've been in fairly frequent dialogue with the leadership in Australia, and there are a lot of similarities with our approach. Each of us is now looking at removing restrictions and the phased approach in order to do that.
Hon Simon Bridges: Rather than making a decision at the start of lockdown and then leaving it, shouldn't the Prime Minister make a new decision every single day about how she can safely get more businesses back to business, saving jobs and livelihoods in this country?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I'd love to see the member's evidence that that's not exactly what we are doing. We make decisions every day to look after people's lives and their livelihoods. What the member needs to remember, of course, is that we cannot get ahead of ourselves. We need to lock in all of the results we've had to date, we do have cycles of transmission with this virus we have to take into account, and we are listening to the evidence, the research, and the best available advice to make our decisions, which is in the best interests of our economy as well.
Hon Simon Bridges: Well, in light of that answer, is she telling the House that she may well bring forward the decision about whether to move to level 2 from Monday and it could, in fact, be made this week?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I also said in the answer I just gave, if the member was listening, we have to look at the cycle of transmission. Making a decision today, based on a number today, is a reflection of level 4, not about where we are right now. That member may have the luxury of sitting on that side of the House, not bearing the consequences of a wrong move, but we do not. We have to factor in the livelihoods of every New Zealander.
Hon Simon Bridges: What does she say to the business owner who emailed me to say, "We have a business in Australia as well as our New Zealand business. Our Australian business is pumping, sales for March were well ahead of last year. Contrast that with our New Zealand business: close to zero both March and April. I don't think the Government have any idea how bad things are going to get over here."
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I hope that is a business, therefore, that accessed the more than $10 billion we've put into the wage subsidy to support those businesses.
Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept New Zealand's more extreme economic lockdown—
Hon Gerry Brownlee: It's just a complete misunderstanding of how it works.
SPEAKER: Order! Mr Brownlee.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, I don't want to be pinged across the House.
SPEAKER: I think the Leader of the Opposition doesn't need your assistance.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, he certainly doesn't—and nor your intervention.
SPEAKER: Mr Brownlee, I've been trying to be quite flexible during this period with people who are breaching the rules as to interjections. It is just not helpful when he interjects over the top of his leader's question. Mr Bridges.
Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept New Zealand's more extreme economic lockdown is why the IMF predicts New Zealand's unemployment rate will rise by 5.1 percent this year, compared to just 2.4 in Australia?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, the member's assessment is premature. If he looks at even some of the decisions recently from credit rating agencies, for instance, they are talking about the resilience in the New Zealand economy, and, of course, time will continue to tell. But I am confident that, based on the investment we put in early—which included things like our wage subsidy, which went out the door faster than Australia's support—including our interventions to support businesses through IRD, including the small business loan scheme, and our focus on getting back to a level of normality and for businesses to operate as soon as possible, that will then bear out in the results we have. It is simply premature to make comparisons. The final point I'll make is, having spoken to my Australian counterparts, they have more in common with our approach than the member describes.
Hon Simon Bridges: Is her Government taking into account the fact that there have been 1,000 job losses a day so far under lockdown in its decision about whether to move out of level 3 next week?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course we take into account economic impacts. We also take into account the economic impact of yo-yoing between levels and further outbreaks.




Question No. 2—Finance
2. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: What advice, if any, beyond the economic scenarios published on 14 April 2020, has he received from Treasury during the COVID-19 health and economic crisis?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): As the member might imagine, I have received a considerable amount of advice from the Treasury on a wide range of matters during the time period that he specifies. This includes advice on the many announcements that the Government has made, including advice on the wage subsidy scheme developed with the business community to protect jobs and incomes and keep businesses and workers connected during the lockdown; advice on the Small Business Cashflow (Loan) Scheme to boost cash flow and help viable businesses with costs like rent, which has been welcomed by the business community; advice on the business finance guarantee scheme, a partnership between the Government and banks to get working capital out to business; and advice on the largest business tax support package in modern New Zealand history to support cash flow, encourage investment, and make it easier for businesses to manage their tax obligations during the crisis.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why has none of this advice been released?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Decisions around the release of the advice have been taken under the normal rules that we have, and I'm sure, in time, the member will receive it.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does the Minister think this is in any way a normal situation where the normal rules of disclosure apply?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As the member knows, I've realised the situation we're in. I've come to the Epidemic Response Committee on the occasions that I've been invited, I have provided information to that, and, as I say, I'm sure the material the member wants will be released in due course.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why does he not trust New Zealanders with this information now?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I do trust New Zealanders.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: What was the nature of Treasury's advice on the Small Business Cashflow (Loan) Scheme, mistakenly enacted last Thursday?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I reject the premise of the member's question. This is a scheme that has been worked on for some time—including advice from the Treasury about how to best assist small businesses—in addition to the wage subsidy scheme. It's a scheme that's been widely welcomed by people in the small-business sector as one that will get money into their pockets and help with cash flow.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: How could he possibly dispute the fact that the loan scheme was mistakenly enacted last Thursday?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The loan scheme was intended to be announced this week. It ended up in a piece of legislation that, I believe, will be the subject of a later question on the Order Paper today. That was the outline. The framework of it—the loan scheme itself—is something we're very proud of, and it's something that New Zealanders and New Zealand businesses will benefit from significantly.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Based on the advice he's received, what's the best estimate from Treasury of what the lockdown is costing the New Zealand economy each week?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, as I think the member will be aware, the Treasury has done its scenarios, which show the significant impact on the economy. As we've been discussing today, in level 3, we're operating at about 75 percent output. On a per day basis, I'll have to get back to the member.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Well, isn't the figure of $1.4 billion a week, based on the Treasury scenario of level 3—dropping 25 percent—burnt on his brain and keeping him awake at night?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I find myself, after working, like most members of this House are at the moment, about 18 hours a day, that, when I do get to bed, I sleep relatively well, and then, when I get up in the morning, I work every minute of the day to make sure that New Zealand households and businesses get through this crisis and flourish at the other end.




Question No. 3—Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti
3. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti: What actions has he taken to assist Māori in helping to keep communities safe from COVID-19?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti): Before the country headed into level 4, we announced a $56.5 million Māori response package to assist Māori in their fight against the spread of COVID-19. Māori were quick to activate their network and deliver practical support in the early stages of our fight against COVID-19. Their response was immediate, and we as a Government worked with Māori to ensure the resources and funding announced in our Māori response package helped them in all the work they were undertaking. I'd like to thank iwi up and down the country for their hard work, for their cooperation, and for their future efforts as we move through these unprecedented times.
Kiritapu Allan: What did the Māori response package funding deliver to Māori?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: This package was able to support 43 Māori groups and iwi to develop their own pandemic response plans. It delivered business support and advice to 632 businesses, it enabled 2,029 interactions with Māori business via an 0800 number, it provided extra funding to Māori health providers and Māori-led testing stations, and it helped Māori to resource volunteers to reach out to our most vulnerable and isolated communities, and in particular our kaumātua and kuia.
Kiritapu Allan: How did this funding provide support for vulnerable Māori whānau across Aotearoa?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: This funding helps support some of our most vulnerable communities, in particular kaumātua and kuia and those in isolated areas. Part of the package was to boost the work of Whānau Ora commissioning agencies, who, because of the Māori response package, were able to deliver close to 120,000 care packages to vulnerable whānau, and over 64,000 whānau members have received support through commissioning agencies. This proves that, when Māori and the Crown work in partnership, we can successfully deliver to Māori across the country.




Question No. 4—Tourism
4. Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) to the Minister of Tourism: What action, if any, will he take this week to save businesses and jobs in the tourism sector?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister of Tourism): This week, like every week since this Government has been responding to COVID-19, we will continue to support tourism businesses through our Economic Response Package, which includes wage subsidy assistance, the business finance guarantee scheme, changes in tax provisions, as well as the tax loss carry-back scheme, the Small Business Cashflow Loan Scheme, changes to the tax loss continuity rules, and further business consultancy support.
Hon Todd McClay: Thank you. Will he confirm today that wage subsidies will be extended for tourism businesses—who this week face laying off staff—so that these New Zealanders can keep their jobs?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: In consultation with the tourism sector that is one of the—they would like certainty around the wage subsidy scheme. Those sorts of decisions will be made by the appropriate Ministers at the appropriate time. The wage subsidy scheme—the Minister of Finance was the architect of that. It's not a decision that the Minister of Tourism makes by himself.
Hon Todd McClay: Will he today confirm that tourism businesses will receive cash-flow grants rather than Government debt, so they have certainty and Kiwis can keep their jobs?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I've already rattled through a list of things that tourism businesses can access, and to just expand on that a bit further, there is up to $12 billion in wage subsidies so that affected businesses can keep their staff. There is $2.8 billion in business tax changes to reduce cash-flow pressure, including provisional tax threshold lift, the reinstatement of building depreciation, and writing off interest on late payment of tax. There is an initial $600 million package to help the aviation sector. There is a $6.25 billion business finance guarantee scheme for small and medium sized businesses. There is further support for small to medium sized enterprises, including the $3.1 billion tax loss carry-back scheme; as I've said, changes to the tax loss continuity rules; further business consultancy support; and there is greater flexibility for affected businesses to meet their tax obligations. The Government has done a heck of a lot to help businesses, not just tourism businesses.
Kiritapu Allan: How is he ensuring that the tourism sector is involved in his work to respond and restart the industry in a post-COVID world?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: As the Minister, I've hosted a webinar. By the end of this week, we should have been in touch with over 3,000 people from the tourism industry: tourism operators and businesses. I'll continue to host multiple regional webinars every week, where each webinar involves about 150-plus tourism operators. Tourism New Zealand is also engaging in one-on-one contact with industry players, to ensure everyone gets a chance to be part of the restart of our tourism industry in a post-COVID New Zealand.
Hon Todd McClay: Will he tell tourism businesses today what restrictions they will face under level 2, and whether New Zealanders will be able to travel domestically so these businesses can this week make decisions to save jobs?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Well, again, if the member waits until Thursday, then a lot will be revealed. But the thing is, tourism operators have said to me that they want certainty around the wage subsidy scheme, they want restrictions on domestic travel lifted, and they would like a trans-Tasman bubble to be created. But the thing is that all of those decisions are made by other Ministers, whereas I have input—and represent the interests of the tourism industry—on behalf of the tourism industry. But one thing I will not do is stand up and undermine my fellow Ministers by talking out of turn on areas that impact their portfolios.
Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: Can the Minister confirm that on the last opportunity that myself—as Prime Minister—had to sit with tourism operators in Rotorua, they highlighted the importance of a successful campaign against COVID being part of their recovery, so that people can look to New Zealand both from a tourism perspective in the future, but also from a trade perspective, with confidence in our response?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: That's right. Do it once and do it right. We know that the best thing for our economy is to stamp out COVID-19, and not to risk going up and down between levels. That would be the worst thing ever for not just tourism but the whole economy.
Hon Todd McClay: Will he give certainty to the tourism sector today about when his Government hopes to open the trans-Tasman border and under what conditions, so these businesses can keep people in work and save jobs?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I have it on good authority that the Australian Cabinet are still meeting about this very issue. And, again, if we're talking about lifting border restrictions, we need to talk to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Immigration, the Minister of Customs, and, certainly, the Minister of Health. I represent the interests of the tourism sector, and I make sure that my colleagues know exactly what the tourism sector wants. We're heading in the right direction, and that is the best thing that we can do.




Question No. 5—Social Development
5. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social Development: What action is she taking, if any, to support the more than 1,000 people who have lost their jobs and gone onto jobseeker support each day since the lockdown?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development: On behalf of the Minister for Social Development, supporting people into work has always been part of this Government's agenda, which is why at last year's Budget, we announced an investment into 263 new work-focused case managers. We acted in early March, establishing rapid response teams to support redeployment activities all across Ministry of Social Development regions. This has continued through the lockdown. We established the wage subsidy scheme and leave support schemes that have supported over 1.7 million Kiwis to stay connected to their employers. Last week, I announced a range of initiatives to keep New Zealand working, including an online recruitment tool. We have 35 new employment centres that are up and running, and operating virtually, to work with employers and clients to support accelerated redeployment.
Hon Louise Upston: How many applications for jobseeker support have there been since the start of alert level 4, and how many have been declined? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In reference to the second part of the question, I don't have that information with me around declines. What I can say from publicly available information to the member is that it is around the 30,000 mark of additional people on the jobseeker support.
Hon Louise Upston: Does she have any estimates of how many people have lost their job since the start of alert level 4 but were not eligible for jobseeker support?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member would need to put a specific question like that down in writing.
Hon Louise Upston: Does she believe that the 1,000 people going on jobseeker support each day has peaked, or will this number increase when the wage subsidy ends in a month?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Our forecasts around what will happen with New Zealand's unemployment rate have been provided by a large number of people. As with other countries in the world, there is an expectation that we are facing a period of significant economic downturn. The Government is and will continue to do everything in our power to limit the number of people who find themselves in need of jobseeker support.
Hon Louise Upston: What recent reports has she read, if any, on the social and health impacts of unemployment, and what actions is she taking to reduce this harm?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Minister, I'm not sure exactly what reports the Minister will have read around the health impacts of unemployment, but it's certainly an issue that the Minister and this Government are very well aware of. It's why we have worked so hard to reduce unemployment in New Zealand, taking it down to its lowest levels in a decade in the period leading up to COVID-19, and we'll continue to take that approach of prioritising reducing unemployment and hope to continue the success that we've had with that up until COVID-19.




Question No. 6—Finance
6. GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What actions has the Government taken to support businesses and households to respond to COVID-19?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The Government's ability to support businesses and households is backed by our actions to ensure a strong underlying economic base for the New Zealand economy and our strong fiscal position going into COVID-19. Standard & Poor's yesterday held New Zealand's credit rating at AA+ with a positive outlook because of the Government's low debt relative to the rest of the world and the economy's underlying strength. This has allowed the Government to go hard and early in our economic response to COVID-19 to match our health response. This has been led by the $10.7 billion wage subsidy scheme, supporting more than 1.7 million workers; the business finance guarantee scheme, the largest business tax support package in modern New Zealand history; and further measures announced last week to support small businesses with cash-flow operating costs.
Ginny Andersen: What actions is the Government taking to support small businesses through COVID-19?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On Friday, the Government announced the Small Business Cashflow Loan Scheme to provide graduated loans of up to $100,000 to viable businesses with 50 or fewer employees to give them access to cash flow to meet fixed costs such as rent. The scheme will provide $10,000 to each eligible firm, and, in addition, $1,800 per equivalent full-time employee. The interest rate will be 3 percent for a maximum of five years, with repayments not required for the first two years. The loans will be interest free if they are repaid within the first year. IRD will have the scheme up and running by 12 May to start accepting applications, and we expect the first lending decisions to be made about 48 hours after applications are received.
Ginny Andersen: What reports has he seen of reactions to the Small Business Cashflow (Loan) Scheme?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Many. Employers and Manufacturers Association chief executive, Brett O'Riley, said his members would welcome the Small Business Cashflow (Loan) Scheme. He said the terms of the scheme are very similar to the Canadian approach, which we and other members of the Business New Zealand network encouraged the Government to look at. "We thank the Minister of Finance, Grant Robertson, for this response." I've also received letters of support and emails from a number of other small businesses and, indeed, the Mayor of the Queenstown Lakes District Council, Jim Boult, on behalf of the businesses in Queenstown. This scheme has been welcomed.
Jami-Lee Ross: Will the Government further support businesses and households by legislating for a rates freeze for the 2020-21 local government rating year; if not, why not?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That is not the intention of the Government.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Minister had regard to a more recently announced scheme, in the last 24 hours, where businesses will not be able to qualify unless they can prove they've had a 50 percent loss?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I've seen a number of ideas proposed in recent times. One of the things that are important in these situations is to have consistency. I certainly know that, in the case of the people proposing that scheme, last week they were describing our scheme as both too loose and too restrictive within hours of each other. Mr Goldsmith and Mr McClay should have a chat with one another.
Jami-Lee Ross: Why is the Government not considering providing relief to businesses and households by legislating for a rates freeze?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We believe that local government needs to make its own decisions about the level of rates that it's charging at this time. Many of them have responsibilities to co-fund projects that are important to productivity and creating jobs. I'm sure that each local government authority will think very carefully about the level of rates that they charge in this environment.




Question No. 7—Health
7. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Associate Minister of Health: Does she agree with Dr Ashley Bloomfield that "all New Zealanders are now able to get a flu jab"?
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Associate Minister of Health): Yes. On Monday, 27 March, the prioritisation criteria that the Government had put in place to ensure our most vulnerable were able to get their flu vaccine was lifted. This means that all New Zealanders are now eligible to ring their GP or pharmacist and make an appointment to get vaccinated. In previous years, there was never a prioritisation system put in place, so this year, we acted early to ensure that the most at-risk New Zealanders had a head start on getting their flu vaccine in this unprecedented time of a global pandemic.
Dr Shane Reti: How does that align with her statement this Saturday that "not every New Zealander will get a flu vaccine"?
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Well, as we have maintained the entire time, we have a record number of flu vaccines this year: that's 1.768 million. He will realise that that is less than the population of New Zealand. None the less, in previous years one out of four New Zealanders got a flu vaccine; this year, we're on track for more than one out of three. We already have record numbers of people over the age of 65 having been vaccinated—that's on the Nation Immunisation Register (NIR)—more Māori over the age of 65 have been vaccinated than in any previous year, and that's with us only having the records of about 770,000 vaccines. So there is still yet a million vaccines to either be administered or for the records to come through.
Dr Shane Reti: What does she say, then, to New Zealanders who may eventually miss out on a flu vaccine because there are not enough?
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I would say that there's very low risk of flu this year. The flu tracker is showing us that we have record low levels of the flu, due to the borders being closed. In all of the precautions that we are taking to prevent the spread of COVID-19, we are also preventing the spread of the flu. We have already vaccinated record numbers of vulnerable people. So I think the clinical outcome of this year's flu vaccine is excellent, and I want to thank all those hard-working GPs, nurses, and pharmacists who have been vaccinating people at twice the rate of last year—an excellent outcome.
Dr Shane Reti: Why is this the second winter in a row, under her watch, when the front line have had no flu vaccines when they needed them?
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I'm really not sure what the member's referring to. This is actually the first year that I've had the delegation for this, firstly. But, secondly, I believe that some GPs are running low, and that is because they are vaccinating people at twice the rate of last year. Also, we're in the midst of a global pandemic with unprecedented travel restrictions, both internationally and nationally, and that has led to some distribution issues. But everybody is working as hard as they possibly can. The clinical outcome, so far, is so good that I think GPs, nurses, and pharmacists are going to look back on the outcome of this year and the record numbers of vulnerable people who were vaccinated and say that this was a very big clinical success.
Dr Shane Reti: When people look back, will it be the same distribution issue she has mentioned now as the distribution issue she quoted for the flu vaccine last year and the measles vaccine?
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I think that the circumstances that we're facing right now with a global pandemic and a 90 percent reduction in international travel, and significant reductions in inter-regional travel here in New Zealand, are not comparable to issues that we've previously had with vaccines, no. But I will come back to: the outcome is very good because GPs have actually been vaccinating people at twice the rate they had last year, they have had significant supplies, they've administered them to record numbers of New Zealanders, and we still have a million vaccines to either be administered or to be entered for the records to come through in the NIR.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table an email from my own Nelson Marlborough DHB, received today, saying they have run out of flu vaccinations.
SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that occurring? There is none.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.




Question No. 8—Education
8. KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What actions has the Government taken to ensure that students in need can access support to learn online in tertiary education?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): The Government announced over the weekend $20 million for technology access for tertiary students so that we can make digital devices and internet connections available for students who do not otherwise have those in their homes. While online learning is being undertaken by tertiary organisations in response to COVID-19, many students don't have access to the appropriate devices or the appropriate internet connections to enable them to undertake technology-enabled learning. Many students still go on to the campus in order to access equipment to learn. Since the country moved into lockdown, officials have worked with the tertiary institutes to identify the number of students—[Interruption] 
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Look, I apologise to the member, and with my previous history I'm reluctant to say it, but if members want to do something like that, they should take it outside. Chris Hipkins, continue.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: When the country moved into lockdown, officials worked with tertiary institutes to identify the number of students who they thought didn't have access to the right devices and didn't have broadband internet. So the $20 million fund is part of our overall response, which, of course, includes $87.7 million that the Government is funding across schools and early learning services for devices, connections, and hard packs of materials. 
Kieran McAnulty: How many learners were identified as needing support for digital devices and technology?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The work undertaken by the institutions identified that around 11,150 learners at tertiary organisations probably don't have appropriate devices to engage in technology-enabled learning, while a slightly higher number—11,350—don't have access to broadband at home. The package that we are funding provides for devices and internet connections for up to 18,500 learners.
Kieran McAnulty: How will this money be distributed to universities, private training establishments (PTEs), polytechnics, and wānanga?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In the first instance, half of the fund is being allocated to tertiary organisations on the basis of the number of learners that they have, with a particular weighting to priority learners. For example, the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology has been allocated $2.3 million to start purchasing devices and connections. The second half of the fund will be available on application from organisations. 
Kieran McAnulty: How will students be selected for support for devices and internet connections from the universities, wānanga, PTEs, and polytechnics?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We want to make it as easy as possible to get these resources to the students that need them, and we want to enable institutions to use their existing supply chains where possible, so the funding is being allocated to the institutions, and the students that need them should speak to their university, wānanga, PTE, or polytech in the first instance.
Hon Nikki Kaye: How does that support students that are currently locked out of their accommodation, paying bills to their tertiary providers? How are they going to benefit from that online learning?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, if the accommodation that they are in does not have broadband access or does not have a device that they can use to access the internet and to access online learning, then they will be able to do that. With regard to the institutions continuing to charge rent for rooms that students are unable to occupy, I've been very clear around my expectations on that. Those organisations that are accessing the wage subsidy should not be charging full rent to the students for rooms that they cannot use. The universities in particular have a very healthy balance sheet position, which means that they do not need to take some of the measures that they are taking now, and I expect them to behave responsibly and with a degree of compassion towards their learners.




Question No. 9—Revenue
9. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) to the Minister of Revenue: Did he know that the Small Business Cashflow (Loan) Scheme was in the COVID-19 Response (Taxation and Other Regulatory Urgent Measures) Bill that was introduced to Parliament on Thursday, 30 April; if so, why didn't he notify the Opposition that the scheme was not in the bill supplied to them that morning?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister of Revenue: No. The Government had directed that the bill be divided into two, with the small business loan scheme to be progressed through a separate subsequent bill. A miscommunication between the IRD and the Parliamentary Counsel Office resulted in an earlier version of the bill being tabled. I was not made aware of the error until after the House had concluded its business for the day. I regret that the version of the bill supplied to the Opposition differed to the one that was tabled. The Leader of the House has received an apology from the Chief Parliamentary Counsel for the error, and I seek leave for that letter to now be tabled. 
SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that occurring? There appears to be none.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Has he had discussions with the Leader of the House that would lead to any bills that might be coming into the House next week in his name being provided to the Opposition ahead of them being tabled in the House so that there can be no confusion about what is in them and what their purpose is?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, there have been several conversations between myself as the Minister of Revenue and the Leader of the House around expectations around this. Also, there have been conversations between the Leader of the House and the Chief Parliamentary Counsel around how to ensure that this sort of error can never happen again in the future, and the Chief Parliamentary Counsel has initiated an independent review to ensure that the process is tightened up.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: The question was: will the Minister, if he has bills coming into the House next week in his name, make those bills available to the Opposition ahead of time or, ahead of them being tabled, in a more timely fashion so that there can be no doubt about the purpose of the bills that are being put in front of the Parliament?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The shorter answer to that question is yes, and that is what the Government endeavoured to do last week. The copy of the bill that had been approved by Ministers for introduction was supplied to the Opposition. The Parliamentary Counsel Office introduced a different version of the bill.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Can we take it from the Minister's answer that there will be no taxation bills in the urgency motion next week?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: That said, is it the job of the Opposition to oppose and propose, to forensically examine bills before Parliament—
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters: —and that democracy only works—
SPEAKER: A point of order—[Interruption] Order!
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Sit down.
SPEAKER: No, don't tell me to do that. The member will be in real trouble. A point of order, the Hon Gerry Brownlee.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, Mr Speaker, I think it's pretty clear where this question is going, and so I just want to make it clear that we do understand what the role of the Opposition is, but the—
SPEAKER: Order! Now the member will resume his seat. I was giving the right honourable gentleman a chance to get his question into order. It seemed to me the further it went along, the further away he got from it. I'm not going to give him another shot. We're just going to move on.




Question No. 10—Justice
10. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by all his policies and priorities?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I stand by all the policies and priorities of the Government.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why is the Government rushing his legislation to extend voting rights for prisoners during a national emergency when the Government stated at the beginning of lockdown—and I quote—"All parliamentary business before select committees that is not COVID-related will be suspended."?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The bill to which the member refers is in the hands of the Justice Committee. It is not a matter over which I have any control; it is a bill that is in the control of the select committee.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: How can the Minister say he has no control of the bill before the select committee, when for the other two bills before the Justice Committee, one on sexual violence and one on first responders, the Minister has written to the Business Committee seeking an extension of time; and is it the Government's priorities that prisoners' rights are ahead of those of victims of sexual violence or first responders?
Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There has to be a factual inaccuracy in the assertion made in that question. Ministers do not write to the Business Committee seeking extensions for bills; select committees write to the Business Committee seeking extensions.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Speaking to the point of order, the Standing Orders of the House are that the member in charge of the bill can advise the Business Committee as to whether they approve the extension. In the case of the sexual violence legislation before the Justice Committee, the Minister has—
SPEAKER: All right, OK—I get the member's point. Unfortunately, the way he expressed his question didn't quite get there. I am going to give him another shot at getting the question accurate.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why has the Minister written to the Business Committee approving an extension of time for other justice bills like the sexual violence legislation but not the prisoner voting legislation, when the prisoner voting legislation is on fast track and when the rights of rape victims should come ahead of the rights of prisoners?
SPEAKER: OK, I'll let the member answer the question, and I will just get it in order by saying "indicating support for" rather than "approving".
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Again, any correspondence I've had with the Business Committee is in relation to a request by the chair of the select committee and is not a matter over which I assert any control.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does the Minister agree with Professor Andrew Geddis of Otago University that his bill, in clause 8—and I quote—"gives prisoners more electoral rights than other citizens."; if so, is it Government policy that convicted criminals have greater rights than victims—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. For the second time, this member's asked two questions, not one, and he's about to do it again.
SPEAKER: Well, I accept that the member has very long phrases that make up his questions, but he's so far in order. I'll ask Dr Nick Smith to start again.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister agree with Professor Andrew Geddis of Otago University that his bill, in clause 8, "gives prisoners more electoral rights than other citizens."; if so, is it Government policy that convicted criminals have greater rights than victims of crime or law-abiding citizens?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: In answer to the second part of the question, no.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can the Minister confirm that he has written to the Justice Committee stating that officials will not be able to provide full answers to the committee's questions or a comprehensive departmental report on the bill, and, if so, why would we continue to rush such legislation?
SPEAKER: No, well, that is out of order.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can the Minister assure the House that the Justice Committee will have access to a comprehensive report from his ministry and that the ministry will be able to answer all of the committee's questions thoroughly?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As far as I know, that is exactly what ministry officials are providing to that committee.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The answer that the Minister has just given contradicts the letter that he has written to the select committee.
SPEAKER: Dr Smith, you are the most senior member of the House—well, the one with the most experience, anyway.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, he's not.
SPEAKER: No, he's not that either? All right, OK—he's the father of the House, let's put it that way. [Interruption] The member has a question; if he wants to ask it, he'll just zip it up. Dr Smith—the member has been here for a long time and he should know what assertions he can and can't make by way of point of order, and the fact that he disagrees with an answer is certainly not a reason for a point of order. If we had that, we'd have one of those on just about every supplementary answer in the House.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I appreciate your ruling and just seek advice: if the substance of that question was prefaced with "has", would that put it in order, because it seems to me we're getting into some pretty pedantic sort of space? We're in unusual times. The Opposition has agreed to truncated versions of Parliament because it's the right thing to do at the moment, but on the basis that the business-as-usual sort of stuff would be pushed off until a later time—and probably facilitated at that later time. But in this case, clearly there is a hell-bent desire by someone to get this piece of legislation through. It's not unreasonable to question whether or not that is actually being driven by the Minister, and a question "Has he written"—would that stand as opposed to the question that was asked by Dr Smith?
SPEAKER: Well, I didn't rule out the question in that particular case that was asked. What I said was that I wasn't saying that the member has to be happy with the answer, and taking a point of order to say that he disagrees with the answer—it didn't matter really what the question was, because the question was ruled in. To say that the member was unhappy with the answer is not the case. If there is an allegation that the Minister was inaccurate, and deliberately so, the member knows how that should be taken up. If the member has other evidence that he thinks contradicts it and would cause the Minister to correct his answer, then he could be kind enough either to pass it to the Minister or to table it in the House, and that way it would put more pressure on the Minister to correct his answer, if, in fact, it was inaccurate.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I seek leave of the House to table the Minister of Justice's letter to the Justice Committee saying that justice officials would not be able to provide complete answers or the normal standard of departmental report.
SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There is.
Hon Chris Hipkins: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can the Minister confirm that the bill does little more than reverse a law change passed by the previous Government with the narrowest of margins in the House?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: That is precisely what the bill does, and it is a bill that has also been the subject of questions and submissions made to that committee in the last two years under different types of legislation that could've touched on that question. The issues that are in the bill are not new to the current makeup of the Justice Committee.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can the Minister confirm that clause 8 of the bill before the select committee, that Professor Andrew Geddis has not only pointed out is new but confers on prisoners rights that victims and other citizens do not have, has never been on the law books of New Zealand before—clause 8?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I understand that the committee has received submissions and, indeed, advice from officials to that effect. That has never been the intention of the Government, but it is in the hands of that committee to make a change to make sure that the provision of that clause is consistent with the rights that every other citizen has, and I eagerly await the unanimous recommendations of that committee to that effect.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not a fact, with respect to that last question, that until 2011, that was the extant situation on the law, supported by Holyoake, Marshall, Muldoon, and, dare I say it, Jim Bolger and others, and then all of a sudden it changed? So Professor Geddis is profoundly wrong.
SPEAKER: Order! Order! This member has responsibility neither for Professor Geddis or history.




Question No. 11—Regional Economic Development
11. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: What recent announcements has he made regarding regional economic development?
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): The dispenser of the provincial panacea has the following to say: during the COVID alert period 4, phase 4, great work took place to recalibrate and repurpose the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF). I can announce, as of today—because digital connectivity is incredibly important and many areas in New Zealand were left neglected in a former period of nine years—places including Murupara, Gisborne, Katikati, will now enjoy the presence of five new digital hubs. In addition to that, last week, over $439 million worth of investment in 60 PGF projects began to work in earnest after moving into level 3. That is evidence that this Government is quick on the fiscal trigger. We have also seen iconic projects that were neglected, unfortunately, but brought to life by the Provincial Growth Fund in the form of the Hundertwasser Art Centre, the Taranaki Crossing, and the Westport Airport seawall—places in those areas of New Zealand that have suffered far too much neglect in the period of time of the former regime. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters: How will he ensure that progress on projects happens quickly during the post - COVID-19 recovery?
Hon SHANE JONES: I'm incredibly pleased to have worked with my colleague Mr David Parker and his announcements to fast track a consenting process so that projects crucial to the recovery will not be subjected to undue delay through Resource Management Act (RMA) processes. This lays bare the extent of the former Government's failure to reform the RMA—instead, leaving us with a type of bureaucratic voodoo. It has fallen to this particular group of Ministers to do what the former regime could not do. This is incredibly important, because jobs are very important.
Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is a general debate tomorrow, and I think that is the time for Ministers to make speeches. These answers are incredibly long.
SPEAKER: The member is absolutely right. They are incredibly long. But, tangentially, they are relevant, and I will remind the member, as she knows—because she's been around here a while—that responsibility for the interruption on the length of answers is mine and not hers and not to be raised by way of point of order.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. 
SPEAKER: Oh, Mr Brownlee—the Hon Mr Brownlee!
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would have thought, sir, that you might have had a greater interest in the answers from Ministers being more forward focused than the jaundiced history that's constantly presented to the House—
Hon Simon Bridges: He's obsessed with us.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: —by the Hon Shane Jones. Now, his own fixation on the past is interesting. It does reflect in most of his policies. But, in essence, at the present time, where the country is facing significant economic challenge, as well as the health challenge that New Zealanders have so well risen to, it would be appropriate, I think, that you did require that he speaks more to the future than to the past.
SPEAKER: I want to thank members for their advice and to say that the Leader of the Opposition's interjection during his colleague's point of order probably made up for what happened earlier in the day. I will listen very carefully to the answers, but I will say to the member that I thought his point of order was something which was approaching something the Hon Paula Bennett was suggesting earlier. It was more a contribution to a debate rather than a serious point of order.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister saying that having been wrongly blamed for nine long years of non-reform of the RMA, he took that experience to collegially work with the Hon David Parker to get dramatic change right here and right now?
Hon SHANE JONES: In the very short term, the RMA will be reformed. In a very short period of time, projects will proceed with alacrity, because jobs are essential. Bureaucratic entanglement is something that the future does not find a place for that type of activity, which is why, as the provincial champion, my colleagues on the other side of the House will find great worthiness in this transformational initiative which I'm championing.
Hon Judith Collins: Does the Minister, looking back to the past, remember how many times New Zealand First supported any amendments to the RMA in the last nine years?
SPEAKER: Order! I think the member's probably the most experienced member of the front bench of the Opposition, and she knows that that question is out of order.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Given his very bold claims in the House today, can he assure the House that the Government has the numbers to pass the provisions that he's so boldly claiming will make such a difference?
Hon SHANE JONES: We are such a collegial crowd on our side of the House.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: With respect to the last question, did he hear Morning Report and the effusive support from the National Party for this dynamic legislation? That being the case, how will he assist the COVID-19 economic recovery being balanced and resolved to meet the changes faced by the long hitherto neglected regions?
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Which one of those questions, on two different topics, is allowed to be answered by the Minister—completely different topics?
SPEAKER: What I'm trying to work out, Mr Brownlee, is whether I should lift my standards or not in relation to the linking of legs of supplementary questions. I think that I tried to tighten up not very long ago and was subject to some pretty intense criticism from members not very far away from him. In this matter, my natural inclination is actually to agree with the member and to be very tight, but I want to say that if I do, there would have been at least 10 of today's questions that would have been ruled out, and they all came from his side of the House. So I'm not going to rule that way now, but if the member wants to come back to me and say that it's the view of the Opposition that the supplementary questioning should be tightened up with regard to relevance and the relationship with prior supplementary questions or prior answers, then I would be more than happy to oblige the Opposition.
Hon SHANE JONES: In contrast to the other member, I shall demonstrate my verbal acrobatic skills. There is a serious drought, for example, affecting Northland. That is a simple example of one of the challenges the Government inherited, with poor outcomes with the water storage in those neglected parts of the country, which is why we are going to charge ahead and deal with the anxieties and the uncertainties as the primary sector generates more wealth in the post-COVID environment, marrying land to water, equalling greater prosperity.




Question No. 12—Health
12. GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Health: How has the rollout of new frontline mental health services been affected by COVID-19?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Despite disruptions caused by the global COVID-19 pandemic, work has continued on the roll-out of the free front-line mental health and addiction services funded through Budget 2019. By June next year, 1.5 million New Zealanders will have access to free mental health care at their GP or primary care outlet. This work is well under way, with more than 100 sites receiving a combined investment of $40 million in this roll-out. Rolling out such an ambitious new service requires an entirely new workforce. We've made sure not to lose momentum during the lockdown and have adapted the training so that it can be delivered virtually. 
Ginny Andersen: How has the provision of these services been affected by COVID-19? 
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I am pleased to report that services have continued to be delivered via phone and videoconferencing throughout alert levels 4 and 3, and, more broadly, mental health services have always been considered an essential service. Therefore, their provision has continued throughout all COVID-19 alert levels. 
Ginny Andersen: What other extra mental health support has the Government made available to New Zealanders feeling the effects of COVID-19? 
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Many people across New Zealand will be feeling distress or anxiety about the future because of COVID-19. I want people to know that it is normal to feel this way in times of uncertainty and that there is a range of free support available. Over the past weeks, the Government has announced online information for parents, awareness campaigns, apps, e-therapy, and tools to help people maintain their mental wellbeing throughout this unusual time. These tools have been brought on stream quickly to complement a wider package of support such as face-to-face sessions and the 1737 number. 
 





COVID-19 RESPONSE (FURTHER MANAGEMENT MEASURES) LEGISLATION BILL
First Reading
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): In accordance with a determination of the Business Committee, I move, That the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill be now read a first time. I nominate that the bill be referred to the Epidemic Response Committee. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported back to the House by 12 May 2020.
The bill follows the COVID-19 Response (Urgent Management Measures) Legislation Act, which this House passed on 25 March 2020. That Act canvassed a wide range of issues that were considered necessary to effectively respond to COVID-19 and to aid our recovery from it. Altogether, this bill amends or modifies the application of 45 different statutes. It will better equip New Zealand businesses and charities to ride out the impact of COVID-19. It will ensure that essential workers are able to contribute their skills to the recovery effort without being disadvantaged. It will provide an equal opportunity for people to participate in local government by-elections, and it will address a range of potential problems that regulators and regulated parties might encounter administering and complying with statutory requirements in the context of the COVID-19 response. 
There are two tiers of amendments that are included in this bill. The first tier are more significant amendments that will enable businesses, civil society organisations, 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. Changes to insolvency and corporate law will increase the prospects of businesses surviving the COVID-19 response. Changes include the addition of a business debt hibernation regime that will allow companies and other entities to enter into agreements with their creditors in relation to existing debt, and adding safe harbour for insolvency-related directors' duties. Other changes include giving registrars the ability to issue exemption notices in relation to compliance with statutory obligations, and relief for entities that cannot comply with rules in their constitutions because of COVID-19. 
Changes to commercial property law will support commercial tenants and borrowers to manage situations where businesses are unable to pay their rent or to meet their mortgage obligations. The amendments extend the notice period before landlords can cancel commercial leases for non-payment of rent, and they extend the notice period before mortgagees can exercise their rights to sell or repossess a property. Changes to parental leave will allow essential workers to temporarily return to work to assist in the response to COVID-19 without being disadvantaged by losing certain leave entitlements and payments. 
Changes to local government by-election timing adjust the timing requirements for local government by-elections. The bill enables key stages of these by-elections to be postponed until COVID-19 movement restrictions are no longer in effect. They're temporary changes that will ensure that COVID-19 doesn't prevent New Zealanders from being able to have a reasonable and equal opportunity to participate in local government by-elections as and when they arise. The first change postpones the start of voting for the current Ōtorohanga District Council by-election if significant movement restrictions are still in place by the time this bill is enacted. The second change establishes an Order in Council mechanism to make further by-election timing adjustments if these are necessary. The final amendment enables council chief executives to postpone any further by-elections if public health concerns mean that holding a by-election to fill an extraordinary vacancy isn't appropriate due to COVID-19. 
Changes to the Gambling Act will allow for a period of 18 months for the Heart Foundation, Coastguard, and Countdown Kids Charitable Trust to send and receive forms and take payments for their lotteries online or by phone. This provides these organisations with the ability to operate their existing lotteries despite social restrictions and the continuing impact of COVID-19 on face-to-face sales. 
The second tier of changes in the bill concern 22 minor amendments considered necessary to respond and recover from COVID-19. Rather than outlining each of these amendments individually, I'm going to highlight the general policy parameters of these changes in their groupings. 
Three amendments are proposed to defer new regulatory requirements in circumstances where Government agencies or businesses would have difficulty implementing the new legislation or requirements that are due to come into force while New Zealand is responding to COVID-19—for example, delaying the commencement of a new regime to regulate financial advisers. This is necessary, as the requirements under alert level 4 in particular made it difficult for the sector to prepare for the regulation while at the same time responding to an increase in demand for financial advice services. 
Four amendments are proposed to defer existing statutory deadlines and other minor exemptions where compliance would not be possible or would be unnecessarily burdensome—for example, extending the duration of firearms licences and dealers licences that are expiring in a situation where COVID-19 restrictions have resulted in deferred processing of licence renewal applications. This is necessary to avoid situations where people are non-compliant with the Act through no fault of their own. 
Seven amendments are proposed to mitigate impracticality issues that have arisen through the COVID-19 response—for example, amending the Coroners Act 2002 to enable a coroner to direct a pathologist to take swabs to test for COVID-19 as part of a post-mortem examination in a situation where the deceased is suspected to have had COVID-19. 
Finally, eight amendments have been proposed to mitigate problems with legislative compliance that have arisen due to the physical presence requirements or other technological reasons—for example, to allow for clinical examinations and reviews taking place under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 to be undertaken by audiovisual link rather than in person.
In closing, I'd like to acknowledge the support of colleagues in the development of this bill. The bill cuts across quite a large number of portfolios and it does demonstrate the wide-reaching impacts of the COVID-19 epidemic, and I commend the bill to the House.





Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. My pleasure to speak on this COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill, which the Opposition will support to the first reading and to select committee.
I'm holding two copies of the bill here: this one here, which I've picked up from the Table, and this was the one that was sent to us last night, and I'm glad—
Hon Chris Hipkins: They're both the same. I can assure you they're both the same.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I'm looking very carefully, and there are 133 pages on each side, and I've read them before, and I do think they are the same law. That is a relief, following the last piece of legislation. So I'm hoping that we are not inadvertently going to pass another several billion dollars of spending by mistake. You would think it was a laughing matter, but it's not a laughing matter. Actually, it's been quite a dramatic period that we've had in the House here, where I think New Zealanders have understood that the Parliament and the Government has to respond swiftly to an incredible situation that we're facing with COVID-19 and the impact that it's having across the economy. So they do need to respond quickly and effectively, but it is also important that the legislation that's brought before the House is properly scrutinised so that we can have a reasonable understanding of it, and that system failed last week.
But I'm hoping this piece of legislation, which does a number of things which are designed to—well, there's a whole heap of things, but if I was to focus primarily on those activities that are trying to deal with some practical issues that business is having to deal with because of the consequences of the lockdown that we've had for coming up to the seventh week now, and we've had a number of businesses that, in the national interest, have been told that they can't trade and so they've had very little revenue, and that creates all sorts of problems, as one can imagine—problems for paying the bills, keeping a company solvent. That's a very difficult issue for directors of companies who obviously face very substantial legal threats and dangers if they are seen to be trading insolvently. 
But, of course, we don't want to have a situation made even worse where many businesses will fail, many people will lose their jobs, and so we're looking for practical ways. So the safe harbour provisions around insolvency-related issues, duties, and the business debt hibernation are practical things that we support and will make a difference around the edges. What they probably won't do sufficiently is make the sort of difference that a scheme to get cash in the hands of small businesses, such as was suggested by the National Party today and Simon Bridges, the National Party leader—which is to say, let's have a look at the GST that you paid last year and allow businesses to get those payments repaid up to $100,000. Cash in the hand would make a real difference to businesses right now. These provisions in this legislation will help a bit, but certainly not, on their own, bring an end to the situation.
The other thing that's being covered in this bill is changes to the company property law area where, again, we're seeing right around the country a lot of businesses struggling to pay the rent. We've had the Government's wage subsidy, which has brought in a lot of money—$10 billion to help pay wages for people employed. That money, I've heard the Prime Minister say a number of times and lots of other Ministers say, is going to businesses when, really, that money is actually going to employees in order to keep them employed and to pay their wages. But the businesses themselves are still having to struggle with, particularly, rent and a whole heap of other costs, interest costs, and they've put out a whole new fit and all sorts of material that they've leased for the company to trade, and there's costs associated with that.
Now, rent has been a real issue. Five weeks ago, six weeks ago, the Minister of Finance said he was going to sort it, don't worry, and an announcement is imminent. At one point, we heard that it was going to be announced before Easter, and Easter came and went and nothing happened. Then, eventually, a week or two ago, they made this very underwhelming announcement that what they were going to do is extend the notice period before mortgagees can be thrown out—not mortgagees, but also lessees in arrears to the landlord—so from a few days to a few more days. That was met with a great deal of disappointment right across the country.
Again, the best remedy to that is a mechanism to get cash directly into the hands of those small businesses affected. Now, people might ask, "Well, what's going on here? The National Party is in favour of giving cash out to businesses? I thought they understood that businesses had to stand on their own two feet." Yes, indeed, that is our general approach, but what we're dealing with here is a situation where the Government, on behalf of all New Zealanders, has said, "You cannot trade for seven weeks. You cannot sell your stuff. You cannot open your store and effectively do your business." That is an extraordinary situation, one that we haven't really had in this country's history, and that is why there is a very strong argument to support businesses properly. So this legislation, in so far as it extends a period that leases must be in arrears before landlords can cancel leases, is very much too little, too late on that score and very much inferior to the policy that the National Party announced today.
The only thing I'd also mention is changes to the Commerce Act around cartels. As a former commerce Minister, I've always been interested in this, and this is, again, a minor thing but not insignificant. We're in the heat of the battle as companies try and organise things to keep trading when they're under extreme limitations during this period. You now have the ability to go to the Commerce Commission to get an authorisation of an arrangement between companies, and this legislation waives the application fee. So, you know, we're broadly comfortable with that, and, again, it will make a slight practical difference to some parties.
So all in all, if I was to sum up this legislation, we will go off and it will be considered by the Epidemic Response Committee, and I'm grateful that it has a little bit of time—you'd probably want a little bit more time, but we can understand the urgency here. These things in this bill will make a small difference, but if you really want to save jobs and enable reducing the carnage amongst the small business battlers of this country, then the best thing you can do is get some cash in their hands right now. So alongside this bill, I'd encourage the Government to seriously consider changing their approach to that. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.





Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a great pleasure to take a call on the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill. I can agree with the member who's just resumed his seat, Paul Goldsmith, that this is no doubt utterly extraordinary circumstances for New Zealand and for any Government in office at the time. We've had to respond to a situation that pretty much every other country around the world is having to face but do so in a way that understands and respects and is sensitive to the needs of New Zealanders and our peculiar circumstances. 
Our particular circumstances are this is a condition that is largely imported. With a border like ours and New Zealand as a destination that it is, not only for its expatriates but for tourists, a lot of people cross our border and that is how the virus made its way here. So the measures we've had to take in response, knowing what we knew at the time and know now—because knowledge about the virus is changing by the week and by the day. We have responded and taken measures to protect New Zealand and its interests, and there's no question that the more we understand about this virus, and until we get the ultimate control mechanism, which is a vaccine, then some measures that we have in place now are going to last for some considerable period of time. That will have an impact on sectors in our economy. 
So it was vital, absolutely vital, with the support of members opposite, that we put in place the initial set of protections—this is after the controls on the border and a variety of other measures. But those measures are in place to sustain and support business—and we've done that. Bucket-loads of cash, frankly, have been provided to support business to get through this very difficult phase. That's the immediate phase. Then there will be the next phase of response for those businesses and those communities who have all done the right thing. Then there'll have to be, as we move down the alert levels, a range of other measures as we start to get back to something closely resembling normality. But we'll still be a significant way off that.
Then there is the really long-term stuff, which is what we do, which is the real jobs-generating stuff, knowing that there will be workers displaced from their current jobs, and some sectors will be worse affected than others. It's the investment that the State can encourage and provide, and also work alongside private investment to get new endeavours of new activities and new investments up and running that's going to generate those future jobs. 
This bill is partway between the initial responses and the next wave of responses to enable measures to be put in place, rules to be put in place, that allow public organisations and private organisations to make decisions, make judgments, and get on and do their thing. So that's what this is about. 
In relation to the Property Law Act, which comes under my responsibility as the Minister of Justice, we have been very concerned—and it was predictable that it would happen; that businesses that were forced to cease trading and therefore couldn't cover their overheads beyond just their wage costs, which could be supported through the wage subsidy scheme, were going to need some assistance to manage that relationship with their landlord. Of course, it's not just the tenants either. There are some landlords who are somewhat vulnerable too. If your small business is as a landlord with a tenant who is a big multinational corporate, actually you as the landlord are not the one with the whip hand, necessarily; it's the tenant. So these measures in relation to the Property Law Act are about pushing out the time frames by which a landlord could issue a notice of termination for breach of covenant, principally the covenant requiring the tenants to pay their rent, to provide a breathing space and hope that the parties will take the opportunity to come to terms, understanding that this is an extraordinary set of circumstances, and so that the landlord who thinks there's a bunch of other tenants queuing up to take their premises when, actually, that queue isn't very long—in fact, there's no queue at all—might be able to come to terms with their tenants.
I'm announcing this—the signal was very clear, and I'm pleased to say, at least anecdotally, the response I've had has been very good. Many landlords have responded, many tenants have responded, and they've been able to come to terms and reach agreements. But it is fair to say too that there is some residual effort required to deal with those landlords and tenants who haven't been able to reach agreement, and work is under way in Government to explore and to look for a solution that will deal with that, but that is not in this bill. But Schedule 14 of this bill covers those changes to the Property Law Act.
Another area that is my specific responsibility is the Coroners Act. There is a small administrative change, if you like, to deal with the situation where a person had died and it is assessed as most likely as a result of the virus but they have not been able to return a positive test or even be tested prior to their death, and this allows a coroner to order a test to be taken so that it can be determined that that death is associated with COVID-19. So those changes appear in Schedule 6.
In Schedule 15, there are changes to some of the time frames under the Local Government Act, because—would you believe it—less than a year after the last local body elections, there are some by-elections that have to be held, and this is simply not a time to be running by-elections with the difficulties of people getting their post, getting their mail, and what have you, and officials and potential candidates being able to communicate with their constituency. So there have been some pragmatic judgments made about some changes to time frames to allow that to happen.
Another area that is of specific interest to me is in Schedule 8, the changes to the Courts (Remote Participation) Act, in relation to Corrections to allow, where audiovisual link facilities are not available, audio-only means to be used to conduct hearings and get decisions made in those crucial areas.
So this bill deals with, I think, some very practical questions that might be around for some time. It makes it appropriate to make these changes to this legislation—changes that could not be made under the Epidemic Preparedness Act and the immediate management order provision under that legislation. So this bill makes some very useful changes. It is good that it has got to this point, good that the bill we're debating is the one that in fact the House should expect to pass—because we have learnt from last week. On that note, I commend the bill to the House.
SPEAKER: The Hon Roger McClay—Todd McClay.





Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Thank you, Mr Speaker. 
SPEAKER: Taumarunui rugby club.
Hon TODD McCLAY: That's right, exactly. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I too rise to speak on this bill, and the National Party will be supporting it. It is an important time for New Zealanders to see that the House can work together where we can pass legislation or make changes that will help everyday New Zealanders and, in this instance, a lot of businesses who are facing great uncertainty. 
But I am going to preface that by saying I don't think the bill goes far enough, or at least there are many other things that we need to focus on and that need to be done with great urgency, because we have a great number of New Zealanders and their businesses. When I talk about businesses, I'm talking about individual New Zealanders—the people that live in our communities that go to work every day and work hard, and that business is more than just a business for them. For many of them, it's not only their livelihood and the way they pay for their children's education and other things; it's actually their life. They are facing great uncertainty and a huge amount of challenge, and I want to address that in a moment.
Indeed, some of the parts of the bill make a lot of sense: the extension of the rent arrears. I can see why the Government would see that's important at the moment, but it is talking about arrears and death; it's not talking about, or finding ways to, helping those that are in arrears or those they owe money to—the landlords—and I'll come to that in a moment.
The business debt hibernation also buys time for businesses. I suppose it gives us some certainty, but it doesn't take away the weight that's on the shoulders of small business, where they wonder how they can even come close to dealing with the debt that has been built up over the last five or six weeks—for some, seven and longer. The reduction around the impact of regulations is very important, but, actually, there are many more areas where regulatory reform is needed at all times, but particularly today, to get burden off business. As we look at how some of these business people are going to try and rebuild their lives—how they are going to go out there and try and get their business back on an equal footing—there are many areas of burden from regulation that will impose cost upon them, and if the Government doesn't look to focus and do something about that very quickly, there will be far more businesses that fail that should and could otherwise survive.
The safe harbour around directors is very important. It's technical but it is very important because we're not in, as far as business rules are concerned, normal times. Therefore, the normal rules and the responsibilities that directors have can't have the same impact upon them.
In everything I'm about to say, this is about the jobs of New Zealanders. Now this comes to the deficiencies in the bill and what more needs to be done and how it could be added to and what is needed. It's around saving jobs and making sure that New Zealanders can see that the taxpayer, through the Government, is going to work with them to protect them, to help them, to keep them in jobs, to keep their businesses going. I would say this House did a very important thing. It's almost seven weeks ago, maybe eight, when we came in recess and met and we passed legislation, and we gave the Government the ability to spend up to $52 billion without a lot of direction, or a lot of direction from the Government at least, as to what that was to be spent on. One of the first things they did was the wage subsidy, and that has meant that New Zealanders, as they sit at home during lockdown, have less uncertainty more certainly, I suppose.
But the wage subsidy for 12 weeks runs out in four weeks' time, and this bill should be dealing with that. It should be extending that or talking about how, in many sectors, it will become available or extended. The reason for that is that a company that has taken 12 weeks of the funding for wage support is giving that to their workers. It doesn't actually do anything for the business other than mean they didn't have to lay them off at the time it was given. They didn't have to make those workers redundant or to sack them. But it hasn't been productive for them, because during the lockdown—that's the reason we have this bill here: to deal with the implications and the flow-on of that lockdown—their employees were sitting at home. They weren't generating anything for them, so the taxpayer subsidy that kept people at least on the books, in as far as work was concerned, didn't help the business at all, other than their employees are still there.
Kelvin Davis, when I asked in question time earlier, said, "Well, there's still money left available." Grant Robertson was the same. There is four more weeks. But if you are a small business or a large business in New Zealand and you still are not able to open, because this bill doesn't allow you to open, and you have four weeks' worth of the subsidy left and you don't know what it is you will be able to do with it—whether you'll be able to trade or not or the conditions of that or what level 2 looks like—you have so much uncertainty that you are this week faced with the decision of whether or not to lay those workers off, to make them redundant. The reason for that is generally the redundancy period would be four weeks.
So the problem we have is that, actually, if there is not the certainty from the Government that this bill should be providing, that the subsidy will continue or they'll be able to open and trade again, they can't wait, because in four weeks' time the full subsidy will have been used up and they won't have income to the level they need or they won't have reserves to then—I'm coming back to that, Mr Speaker—be able to lay those workers off. So this week, New Zealanders face uncertainty of whether they will return to their jobs because businesses up and down the country are facing uncertainty. They don't know whether they can open, they don't know what the rules will be yet because the Government hasn't provided that to them clearly, and they don't know whether or not that subsidy will continue.
In this bill, there's a lot of work around rent and landlords. I want to be cautious, because there have been times when it seems that, on purpose or not, the Government has tried to demonise landlords. We certainly saw that during the Epidemic Response Committee hearing when we discussed this. I asked Grant Robertson seven weeks ago, I think it was now, whether or not he would look to do more with landlords and businesses that couldn't pay their rent. He said at the time it was a few days, maybe a week, away. Well, we're still waiting.
So in this legislation, there are provisions to help businesses with debt and around what landlords can do and so on. But that's not good enough, because we have many situations where businesses have had no turnover for seven weeks. They've had no grant from the Government at all. There is a small interest-free loan for a year, that for the average business may be $20,000 or $30,000, but that doesn't come anywhere close to the debt that's been built up, and still landlords are sitting there, not sure what will happen, even though they've been working hard and reducing their rents and giving rental holidays and so on, and the economic burden—the weight of this debt upon businesses in New Zealand—continues to grow.
So what is it that actually is needed? This bill should be actually talking about the wage subsidy and extending it. It should be looking at cash-flow grants for businesses in New Zealand—
SPEAKER: Order! I've been very generous with the member, but I think he better come back to what's in the bill. Just the last two minutes.
Hon TODD McCLAY: Good. All right, thank you, Mr Speaker. And therein lies a problem, because whilst there are some good things in there, actually there is not that much to fill up 10 minutes.
SPEAKER: There's no obligation to fill the time. If the member feels he can't stay in order, I'm happy to terminate his call.
Hon TODD McCLAY: Thank you. I'll do my very best. Why don't I finish with this, Mr Speaker: a heartfelt plea on behalf of the business community in New Zealand—the tourism sector, the small businesses, the people that are still locked away and can't open their shops—for the Government this week to address the challenges that they face. The weight of the debt and the uncertainty that's upon them is going to have implications not for days or weeks or months but for years to come. This bill is a start, which is why we are supporting it. But, actually, they can't wait until the Budget next week. They can't wait until some politics plays out. They need certainty today around what's going to happen so they can plan, and if that doesn't happen quickly enough, there will be businesses that close that shouldn't close because those people have done—
SPEAKER: Second warning.
Hon TODD McCLAY: —what they were meant to. Then, finally, there will be people that will lose their jobs this week that wouldn't have to otherwise. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): I rise to support this bill—an extraordinarily broad piece of legislation. Mercifully, I will not be taking my full allotted time, but I want to talk about some of the significant provisions.
I want to start speaking very briefly about insolvency and corporate law support for businesses to survive and the development which has already been elaborated upon by Minister Kris Faafoi about the concept of a safe harbour. Whilst it is important for firms—whether they are large or whether they are modest—that the directors feel that they have the latitude to continue to maintain the firm's operations despite the threat of liquidity, crunches, or insolvency, Kiwi businesses and the men and women in those businesses need to strike a balance. It would be a very, very dismal outcome if, in actual fact, firms are already insolvent and they continue to trade, racking up bills with their suppliers that will never be paid. So whilst this provision does give the necessary latitude and it removes the fear of litigation and statutory action being taken against directors, it does impose upon those directors an additional duty—largely unenforceable—of judgment to be very, very careful with the decisions that they make. They don't actually have, under this bill—the directors—a carte blanche level of entitlement to engage in reckless behaviour, but much is the fiscal cost of slip between company cup and debtor lip.
In relation to the mortgage support for commercial renters and landlords, this is a vexed issue. Obviously, tenants and many of us as members of the House have received stories of woe in the sense that income's dried up. The medical emergency has shrunk revenue and it's caused an enormous amount of stress amongst people who love their businesses, derive not only their livelihood but virtually a sense of being, and the pride associated with taking an idea—whether it's in tourism or retail, whatever the service is that's being offered—and building up a nest egg and building up a sense of esteem, and all that has been severely disrupted as we've managed our way through the COVID crisis. This particular provision will assist both landlords and leaseholders to work together to resolve their problems. Many landlords are up to the gills in debt, and they do depend on the cash flow from those that occupy their buildings to service the debts that they have against their assets. Not only do we expect a level of common sense; it may come to pass that further work is required in this area, because inevitably what we might like to see as an act of pragmatism and economic kindness may not necessarily come to pass.
In terms of local government elections—of course, we think about the own election in the House, but more on that at a later date—this enables widespread participation at local elections that could be disrupted. It's a moot point as to how long restrictions are going to impact on us in terms of our ability to move freely around—a key entitlement that Kiwis have taken for granted—but, having said that, this bill reminds us that when it's been necessary for us to act in a collective fashion, we have done so over the last four or five weeks. But it's important that these statutory processes continue—i.e., the ability to elect from the community our representatives and they not be halted because of inflexibility in various laws.
So I stand, once again, and I say that our party supports this piece of legislation.





Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's my pleasure to be able to stand to speak in the House, since we were suspended, to this COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill. If you'll humour me, Mr Speaker, can I just start by first of all acknowledging all our first responders and essential workers that have carried us through what has been a challenging time for us as a nation, through both the level 4 and now the level 3 lockdown. 
Can I acknowledge the Government and the work that they have done. None of us could have predicted or expected to be hit with something as serious as a global pandemic, and I think that everyone in this House has responded and worked as hard as they can to do the best that we can for the country. 
On saying that, I felt very strongly six weeks ago or seven weeks ago, when we moved into level 4, that—and we went into a full lockdown. All of us could see and understand, or should have seen and understood, just how significant the impact was going to be on us as a nation. We had to be focused on flattening the curve, and I think that the country's done a very good job of doing that. But we understood that there was going to be a price to pay on that, and that was going to be the economic harm that we now have to face and try and deal with in terms of recovery. I felt very strongly at the time—and I raised this with the Minister for Small Business and the Minister of Revenue, the Hon Stuart Nash. I said to him, "If you are going to move us into level 4 and if you are going to shut the country down, of course we'll get behind you."—and the country has got behind that decision—"But you must have an equal and opposite response when it comes to the economy." 
You must have someone—Dr Bloomfield's done a very good job of protecting the health system and leading the health response. You must have a focus on what we're doing from day one in terms of the support that needs to be put in place, especially for our small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) but across our whole economy. If you don't do that, if you fail to do that, and you take too much time, then the pain and the suffering and the damage is going to be far worse. 
I feel that we're in a position right now where although it's good to have this bill in the House, and most of the provisions in it we are supporting—and I will talk directly to the issues that the Hon Andrew Little has raised in his role as the Minister of Justice and in my role as the portfolio holder in our party in Opposition. But I just want to say and put on record that this is way too slow. This should have happened four, five, six weeks ago. 
I indicated clearly and signalled clearly to Stuart Nash that we were already working on this. There was no problem. Our leader, Simon Bridges, had indicated that we would cooperate and work if it meant passing legislation to make sure that the enforcement agencies actually had the powers under a state of emergency to be able to actually police the lockdown, right through to our economic response in terms of—and especially with—businesses having cash flow. 
Having had my own company and having done my own start-up, and having carried the burden of understanding clearly the responsibility to my employees and the fact that they had families that they were feeding and children that they needed to school—they needed certainty. They needed to be able to financially plan themselves. Understanding all of that, I understood very clearly that there were two things that were going to be front of mind. One was cash flow coming into the company and the other one was payroll, and you had to make sure and you had to be confident and work hard so that you could match those two things together. 
Now, the Government has responded—sorry, Mr Speaker. I will get back to the—
SPEAKER: Well, hardly back to it—the member hasn't quite been there yet. 
Hon MARK MITCHELL: The Government has responded in terms of the wage subsidy. We could debate the effectiveness of that, because, unfortunately, a lot of companies have fixed costs, and they may have to use some of that when it's actually intended for the employees. So we could have a debate about the wage subsidy. Fundamentally, that was good. A good response—good to put that in place. At least employees had some certainty around three months on the 80 percent, but there was a massive deficit and hole around cash flow. 
Coming to the—thank you for your patience, Mr Speaker, and I want to acknowledge that. I will come back to what's being proposed in the bill. Very quickly, on the rents—to me, that's good, but it's messing around on the fringes. We're going from 10 to 30 days. I understand the sentiment that the Minister was talking about in terms of allowing the landlords and the people renting to have that space to be able to negotiate something, but one thing I think we can all agree on is that there is no square peg going into a square hole here. 
I know that with every single case that I deal with in my own electorate in supporting my own constituents, every case is different. Some landlords are not wealthy commercial property owners. They might have invested their life savings in one commercial building and, actually, that revenue is quite important to them. So I agree with the Minister: let's not demonise the commercial landlords, because many of them are working very hard, and they're trying to accommodate the businesses that are renting space in their buildings, without a doubt. I just don't feel that this goes far enough. 
It extends it from 10 days to 30 days. It's putting off the inevitable, because what's happened is that the tap—that cash flow I was talking about—has been turned off, and the hand that turns it off has got a responsibility to find a way of actually filling that gap that's created. It's through no fault of their own. It's not the Government's fault that we had to deal with coronavirus and it's not the country's fault that we had to deal with that, but the reality of it is that the Government's hand was the one that turned the tap off, so we have to find solutions and ways to be able to bring those SMEs through. 
SMEs run on two things, fundamentally. They run on confidence and they run on energy. If you remove the confidence or the energy is driven down, you've got a big problem in terms of trying to recover and have them lead the recovery, because the Government—they don't generate revenue. It's our businesses that generate the revenue. They are the ones that pay the tax that runs our health system and that runs our education system. So, fundamentally, they need to be supported. 
In terms of the electronic communications in our courts—look, this is common sense. We have got a backlog. I understand that we're going to have to deal with that, so, basically, what the Government's proposing is that instead of using the audiovisual link (AVL), we can go to an audio link. I agree with this. I think this is a good move. I don't want to see it used once we transition out of lockdown and when we can get the courts back up and running again. I think that it's important that we transition back to having the default of an AVL, because, obviously—the Minister's agreeing. He knows the issues around going to just an audio link only. 
In terms of being able to swab a deceased person—absolutely. It makes complete sense. We're in support of that. 
So, Mr Speaker, thank you again for your tolerance. I just felt very strongly that I wanted to make some comments that I feel, fundamentally, are critically important for us as a nation. I'd just finish on this: it feels like there's been a sense of urgency—I think that there has been a genuine sense of urgency. That sense of urgency needs to scale up and not be reduced. Every day now is a wasted opportunity in terms of how we respond, and I'd rather see—people are starting to feel "Why are we staying in level 3?" They want more information and they want more transparency around that, and I feel very strongly now that, daily, the Government should be looking at ways to be able to get the country moving again. That means having that rapid testing regime in place. That means having—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! I have been very tolerant. 





JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call on behalf of the Green Party on the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill, and in my speech I will talk to the content of the legislation, starting with the title of it. Just pointing out that this is further management measures, and this does sit in the context of a huge amount of work that has been going on in Government, working with business and with our communities to make sure that we all get through this together and reset ourselves to be as strong as possible in the next stages of our recovery.
This piece of legislation is not the headline-grabbing legislation—I don't think anyone would characterise it that way—but it's really important, and I think it does demonstrate the extent of the work that's required at the moment, because this legislation amends 45 statutes and it's in two tiers. So there are some substantive policy issues, and then there's a lot more technical amendments that are helping just make sure that the law is meeting the needs of people in the changing times and that we're not putting undue expectations on them that are actually impossible with the restrictions that we have in place at the moment.
So, just to talk to some of the headline changes that are in this legislation—although I will just say that I am really pleased to see, considering the breadth of amendments in this, that it will be going to the Epidemic Response Committee for consideration and submissions, because it is very easy, in the speed that all of Government is operating in at the moment and the range of people coming together to work on these responses, for mistakes to be made. So to have that public scrutiny is very welcome to us. That there'll be the report-back date on 12 May, back to this House—that also acknowledges the urgency of this work, and I think that the Government has got the balance of that right. 
So, back to some of the headline substantive changes—that probably won't be headlines—that are around changes to insolvency and corporate law, and that creates a business hibernation regime to allow companies and other entities to enter into agreements with the creditors in relation to existing debt and adding a safe harbour for insolvency-related directors' duties. That has been raised, and we have heard those issues coming from the community, of people wanting that added security, and it does, I think, make sense in this context to add that in. I will also endorse, though, the messages from the Hon Shane Jones in relation to safe harbour not being an incentive to neglect duties and responsibilities, and that is not the intent of this.
Another point that has had quite a bit of discussion from the Opposition members is around the changes to commercial property law and extending the notice period before landlords can cancel commercial leases for non-payment of rent, and extending the notice period before mortgagees can exercise their rights to sell or repossess a property. While more is being called for in this space, and I suspect there will be more work needed in this area, it is good to see this coming in now in the context of a wide range of changes and that that can happen more speedily while the other policy work can be properly considered.
Another aspect in this, which has been about just—and is—securing that the essential workers and people who really put themselves out there to keep us going through this really difficult time, of just making sure that none of those people are unintentionally penalised, and so I haven't heard anybody else mention in the House that in here is the change that, if somebody has returned or returns temporarily from paid parental leave, but to be able to help keep us going, they're not going to lose their parental leave. I think that is really important, because we know that people really want to be part of the solution and be part of trying to get us all back on our feet, and I'd hate to see people penalised from time with their children in the future for that instinct and that assistance that they've offered us. So it's great to see that change.
There's also a change to local government by-election timing, as I understand that there are by-elections that are scheduled. So voting in the current Ōtorohanga District Council by-election would not be possible with the restrictions in place, and we don't—certainly in the next phases, either—want people congregating. So this just enables postponement from any by-elections to a time when it would be appropriate for people to be coming together.
Another thing that this bill is changing which is considered substantive and, I think, speaks to some of the Government's connection to community, that this has come through in the changes, is a change to the Gambling Act—not something that I, certainly, would have expected to be part of our COVID response. But it enables charitable organisations, specifically the Heart Foundation, Coastguard, and Countdown Kids Charitable Trust, for whom one of their primary fund-raising mechanisms is through those raffles that people may have seen or bought at other times, and that keeps those organisations running. But the legislation prevents those organisations from selling raffle tickets via online or by phone. So this is recognising that we don't want these organisations to fall over; we want them to be able to maintain their traditional funding base. So it makes a change to the Gambling Act to enable them to do that in this time when they can't do that on a face-to-face basis. I do really just want to acknowledge the extent of the Government's communication and connection to community that this type of change is being picked up and is being responded to so promptly in legislation. It gives me a lot of confidence for our future.
So there's also the second tier, as the Minister referred to it, of technical changes, and there are 22 minor amendments that fall into that category, and they cover a wide range of things—so, deferring regulatory requirements where we know that either the Government or the sector covered by the regulatory regime actually just won't have the time to be able to put the new system in place. So that covers, I think, the new system or regime that's been set up to regulate financial advisers, just because, in this context, people haven't had the chance to get together to be able to do that work. It defers existing statutory deadlines and other minor exemptions where compliance would just not be possible. So firearms licences, where people are not able to go in, and we certainly don't want, I'm assuming, our police time taken up with renewing firearms licences at this time—there is other work for them to be doing. So this just extends that and makes sure that people aren't at odds with the legislation, through no fault of their own, and makes amendments to mitigate impracticality issues. So, at the moment, one example of this is to enable coroners to direct a pathologist to take swabs to test for COVID-19—pretty straightforward but actually not something that's supported by legislation at the moment and, I think, something that we all, while it's a technical change, have an interest in seeing that change happen quickly.
Then, also, amendments to mitigate problems with legislative compliance, and one of the examples of this is to allow clinical examinations or reviews under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act to be undertaken by audiovisual link instead of having to be face-to-face, which is what the law requires at the moment. I think that is a good temporary measure—and, obviously, a temporary one; we wouldn't want to see that become the norm in other circumstances. But, again, we're happy to commend this bill.
SPEAKER: Before I call the member, I'm just going to ask Mr Faafoi to move the offending object. Thank you.





Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's with pleasure that I lend my thoughts to the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill. In particular, I want to focus on the clauses as they relate to local government. But, first, before I do that, I would like to thank and acknowledge the work that the Government has done over the past nearly six weeks, and that's all encompassing for all Ministers, and also to widen out my acknowledgment to all members of this House, who, from their homes in isolation, and their bubbles in isolation, have kept up particularly the pastoral care work, which is an important part of an MP's role. It seems that just reaching out at the end of a telephone line to an individual somewhere in the electorate or in New Zealand is a really good way of connecting at the moment. If we can do anything more than provide information and reassurance, then I would say that we have all been gainfully occupied in this time and will continue to do so for some time.
So this COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill does make a number of amendments to a number of bills. I want to focus my attention, as I said, on local government. To add context to that, I want to say that on 24 March this year, as I was going into the fruit and vege shop for the last time in what will probably be more than a month or so, I got a phone call from a former parliamentary colleague, now Mayor of Northland, the Hon John Carter, who alerted to me and raised the issue with me the future of local government within COVID and after the COVID epidemic has been brought under control, and that is the impact on local government funding.
What the Hon John Carter raised with me is that he knew the day before we went into lockdown—as, no doubt, a number of mayors and CEs knew—that local government revenue would be badly impacted. John Carter raised with me commercial rates, that businesses would be struggling and unable to honour their rents sometimes, and that therefore the commercial landlord would then be unable in some instances to honour their rate obligations. John Carter had done some calculations about the impact that would potentially have on his district council, and I imagine that district councils all throughout New Zealand were doing the same sort of calculations about the impact on revenue—not only from rates revenue but also fees and charges, development contributions, and so on. And such has come to pass. 
The conversation very quickly turned to the issue of rate increases. Should it be a zero rate increase—very attractive in some quarters? Should it be a managed rate increase? Should that expenditure be more targeted towards recovery—more targeted towards infrastructure? So there's been a lot of thinking in local government all around New Zealand on just how they were going to respond to the COVID-19 epidemic and what their response was going to be.
This legislation makes several amendments to the Local Government (Rating) Act, to the Local Electoral Act, and to the Local Government Act, which are set out in the bill. I'm not going to go through every one. Some of them are practical and sensible. Jan Logie, the previous speaker, mentioned a few of them. Timing milestones, which are set in statute for by-elections, have been given greater flexibility for carrying out their by-elections. There is one current by-election currently under way. There will be allowance to fill extraordinary vacancies on councils as they arise from time to time. 
I think what is probably quite undervalued but a very useful amendment is that there is a clause which removes the requirement to publish a notice in the newspaper. Those of us who have been around legislation for a while know that there have been amendments in a number of statutes where public notices are required to widen out that requirement to wider than just a notice in the newspaper. As we know, a number of newspapers still cannot publish, and particularly in smaller communities. Those small community newspapers are the very place where people do see public notices, but now, due to this bill, those local authorities can use other forums. I think a happy consequence of that is that people who do take notice of public announcements will get used to perhaps following councils websites as a good source of information for them.
The only clauses that give National members a little cause for concern are those that allow for consultation to be limited on current long-term plan changes. Normally, there is a prescribed consultation process for LTPs, long-term plan, change processes, and due to the nature of timing and the limitations on consultation we find ourselves in now, there are clauses in this bill to limit that consultation provided that the Office of the Auditor-General (OAG) provides a report on the changes within the LTP proposed changes. That is a good measure. 
But there is a concern that there are clauses where, because of the timing—where waiting for a report from the OAG would prevent a change in an LTP if it had to take effect before 30 June this year, which is not a long way away; it's something like seven weeks away—it will then be acceptable for the LTP to go through without an Auditor-General report, but the report must state that there has been no OAG oversight and state the reason why. I understand that fail-safe. I understand the reason for it, but as my colleague and spokesperson for Auckland local government, Denise Lee, pointed out in a conversation to me last evening, Auckland Council, for example, is dealing with a very large annual budget. For scrutiny of any changes of any kind where in legislation consultation is prescribed, any change to that should be done rarely and reasonably. So that is one of the clauses—the only clause, to be fair, in the local government part of this bill—where National does have some concerns.
So I will just about conclude my contribution by just saying to the local government sector that the local government sector may be at home in their bubbles, mayors and chief executives may be zooming their meetings instead of having them in person, and councils may be meeting with or without their pants on—David Benson-Pope, Dunedin City Council today; most unusual—but, none the less, business is still being done, communities are still being minded, and I commend and congratulate them for that.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Ginny Andersen. Well, it is a split call. This is the next split call.





GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity for speaking on this bill at this important time in New Zealand's history. This bill forms part of the Government's plan to get New Zealand moving once again. It provides support and certainty—certainty at a time when we need it. It amends 45 different pieces of legislation to allow businesses, workers, local government, families, and charities to adapt to the changed environment that we are now operating within to enable us to manage the immediate impacts of COVID-19 but also to mitigate those longer-term impacts. This Government took immediate action to cushion the economic blow by protecting jobs, incomes, and businesses, and this bill forms part of the foundations now being laid to chart our course to recovery. So far, we have already seen over 1.6 million New Zealanders supported through the wage subsidy; also, the introduction of new tax and rent measures to support small and medium businesses; and we have worked with banks to help guarantee finance to businesses that need it. 
This bill enables us to adapt, and it does it in five main areas. This bill includes changes to insolvency and corporate law to help businesses facing insolvency increase their prospects of remaining viable, and to keep New Zealanders in jobs during the COVID-19 response. Secondly, there are measures to support commercial tenants and landlords who are struggling to pay rent or to meet mortgage payments, which I know from my own area in the Hutt is a real concern. Thirdly, it changes the parental leave scheme to allow essential workers to return to work without being disadvantaged by losing entitlements to certain leave payments. It changes the local government area, as already has been mentioned, by looking at the by-election timing so that this continues to be a fair process. Finally, changes will also be made in the charitable space to allow groups such as the Heart Foundation, Coastguard, and Countdown Kids Charitable Trust to process their fund-raising lotteries through email, phone, and electronic payments. These are important adaptations and changes to enable our country to continue working under such extraordinary circumstances.
We have a hard road ahead of us in New Zealand, and I would like to conclude today by simply acknowledging firstly those essential workers and their families that have gone above and beyond for New Zealand at a time when we have needed it more than ever before. I would like to acknowledge all of those businesses that are doing everything they possibly can to keep ticking over at a time that is incredibly difficult. I would like to acknowledge all those Government workers in the public sector who have done work so that we have bills like this to continue to pass legislation when we need to. And I would like to acknowledge all those people at home who are working, alongside trying to school their children every day. I know it's not easy. It's a hard road ahead, but I know that by working together across this House and getting agreement, as we have today on this bill, New Zealand can work together to make sure we recover from the shock which is COVID-19.





Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to talk to this bill and to collaborate on a piece of work that we think is important. I want to talk to three schedules in this bill: Schedule 11, Schedule 4, Schedule 6. The first two comments I make will be brief, the third—to Schedule 6—will be a little bit more substantive. 
Section 11—I want to talk to the mental health component. The audio and teleconferencing abilities under this schedule are useful. I just want to exercise some caution—a mental health examination done by audio or done by teleconference will be incredibly difficult. It's already difficult in person and there are so many cues in person that you pick up that I would just exercise some caution and great skill in using that part of the bill. 
Schedule 4 talks to the business debt hibernation scheme and also alludes to the wage subsidy, both of which we support and would be particularly useful for people like those we saw in front of the Epidemic Response Committee this morning: the hairdressers, for example, who tell us that, unfortunately, there are host employers already handing back their apprentices; the master plumbers who have written to me and said if the wage subsidy is not extended, an estimated 35 percent—or about 970 apprentices—will be laid off. 
I would also like to point to the travel industry, who may benefit from this, and encourage the Government to look at what they might particularly do for travel agents. The reason I say that is this. It turns out there is about $100 million of offshore refunds, cash refunds, for New Zealanders who booked with travel agents. If travel agents don't survive, the ability to bring that back into New Zealand will be severely compromised because it was done through a one-to-one relationship. Imagine if we could bring that $100 million back—those refunds in fares; cash fares, not credits—into New Zealanders' hands. To do that, we're going to need to keep some of the travel brokers, the face-to-face travel brokers, alive. So if we could just apply ourselves to that—how we could also do something good there. 
I particularly, though, want to talk to Schedule 6, which is amendments to the Coroners Act. The particular line I want to talk to here is new section 21B(2) inserted by clause 2: "a preliminary inspection of the body performed under section 21A of the Act must include the taking and testing of nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs in any case where the deceased is suspected to have had COVID-19 at the time of death." Now, we already have, under several provisions in law, the ability and the requirement to do testing on deceased people. So I see this more as a reminder rather than something dramatically new into the law. I also point out there that the requirement is to do a nasopharyngeal—nose—swab as well as a throat swab and that's a reflection on the times when we've been running out of nasal swabs during this lockdown period—just how important that is, that we're going to put that in legislation: you've got to do them both, a nose and a throat swab. 
I also want to comment on the large body of work that needs to wrap around this particular provision, so everyone in the House is absolutely agreed it's the right thing to do. We need to do swabs on those who are deceased who we think might have had the infection. But here's my problem. My problem comes from a written parliamentary question four days ago, 5604 to the Minister of Health: "How many coronavirus tests, if any, have been undertaken on deceased patients?" And here's the answer: "I'm advised that this information is not collected by the Ministry of Health in a form that is able to be reported on." Why on earth are we passing legislation if we're not going to be able to do anything with it? 
Substantially, the ministry, if they want this piece of legislation to be effective—and it's good. It's important. We need to know if people have deceased and actually had coronavirus, because that will give us some sense of where it is in the community and what we may or may not be missing. But if we do that, if we pass this, if we say yes, that's what must be done. It helps us nought if we're unable to report on it. As of four days ago, the Minister of Health said to me, "We're not able to collect it and we're not able to report on it." That will be a substantial body of work, and I'd suggest it's a digital collection, because we found that out with contact tracing—you can't answer the questions because it was manual, manual, manual through until about 6 April, when they moved to a centralised digital platform, and now we can start getting some reporting on it. These will be important figures. Let's do it right from the beginning. Let's get to a digital platform as soon as we can so that we can report on the nose and throat swabs that are done on deceased patients who we suspect coronavirus. 
So the point I'm making here is the argument for it to be in the bill is good, but it's going to need a lot of wraparound work to actually bring it to life. So if the Government could apply themselves, please, to get it into a mechanism where we can easily collect and easily report, I think it will fulfil the ambition of this schedule. Thank you, Madam Speaker.





DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill. It's commonly said that the Government makes laws. That is not true. This Parliament makes laws, and New Zealanders overwhelmingly and voluntarily follow the laws of this Parliament. Why? Because they believe that our processes are robust, that we think carefully about the laws that we are making, and that we listen. As a result of that, we have a long tradition of democracy in this country that has done pretty well for us.
Now, lately, things have been a little different. We have been facing a global crisis, and we've been asked to unite against a common enemy. I think it's fair to say that Parliament has come to the party and given the Government a free pass. Well, the anaesthetic is wearing off. This Parliament cannot afford to continue to be a rubber stamp for the Government sweeping its mistakes under the carpet. I think the turning point we saw just last Thursday when I read in the newspaper "Parliament passes wrong law". Well, actually, I often think that's happened, but I never imagined it would happen because the Government couldn't even make sure the right piece of paper was on that Table and Parliament really did pass the wrong piece of legislation. It is time to bring democracy back and for Parliament to do its job that New Zealanders elect us for, of scrutinising the Government's legislation properly.
No member of this House can say in good conscience that the 133 pages that they received less than 24 hours ago have been properly read or understood in terms of their implications. I suspect that there will be serious unintended consequences of some of the headline issues in this bill. The Hon Shane Jones pointed out that the safe harbour against trading while insolvent may well be abused. Well, I've had a number of people in the business community raise this possibility with me. They've said that for every director who continues to trade and is able to keep the nexus of a company together because of this exemption, you are going to find people who take advantage of it and put bad debts on to other companies, and it may well turn out that this so-called safe harbour is net negative.
But what of the other major initiative in this bill, which is the change in the time after which a bank can foreclose on a landlord who's borrowed from them, or a landlord can move on a commercial tenant? Well, what I'd say to the Government is that over the last four or five weeks, overwhelmingly, landlords, tenants, and banks have come to voluntary arrangements. I know there are some egregious and sometimes heartbreaking exceptions, but, overwhelmingly, people have come to arrangements. I said to the Minister of Finance at the Epidemic Response Committee five weeks ago now, "With respect, Mr Robertson, you have to move on commercial leases and you have to move soon." Well, five weeks later, he moves, but it's far too late. If people have got through the last five weeks, they probably don't need his help now. What they do need is a serious cash injection for those companies that have no money—no good passing the buck from tenant to landlord to bank, because the buck has to stop somewhere.
It's with considerable regret that I oppose some aspects of this bill. I think allowing charities to continue raffles digitally is very sensible. I think some of the local government amendments allowing people to have digital meetings and some of the administrative changes allowing forms to be filed digitally are very sensible. I think extending firearm and driver licences is very sensible. But the question, when a member of Parliament decides whether or not to vote for a piece of legislation, is not "Does the member of Parliament think there are some sensible things?" but "Can they in good conscience vote for a bill that not one person in this Parliament"—I can guarantee—"has properly read and understood?" For that reason, I stand in opposition to this bill on behalf of the ACT Party.
I'd go on to say that the regulatory impact statement requirements have been neglected in the case of this bill, and that is a great shame. Throughout this COVID-19 response, the Government has said, "We don't believe that there should be a regulatory impact statement." The Government hasn't taken the option even of using cut-down regulatory impact analysis on this bill. What they have done is said "We don't believe regulatory impact analysis gives any value.", and that's in the departmental disclosure statement for this bill. The best they could come up with is a vaguely related regulatory impact statement from another bill which doesn't actually really have anything to do with this particular bill. The fact of the matter is that if the Government thinks that regulatory impact analysis has no value, then they believe the impact of their laws on New Zealanders has no value, and the property rights and the rights of New Zealanders in general have no value. The fact that there is no—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sorry to interrupt the member, but the member's time has—
David Seymour: —regulatory impact analysis is another reason to oppose this bill. Madam Speaker, can we get some clarity on how long this speech is?
DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's finished.
David Seymour: Oh, it's finished. So what you mean is 7½ minutes?
DEPUTY SPEAKER: It was my mistake. I beg your pardon.
David Seymour: I appreciate the extra time. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do apologise to the House. I thought that the Labour member went first and ACT came second, in which case no Labour member stood up, so I gave you the full 10, but it's been pointed out to me that it was my mistake, that you go first and the Labour member goes second. So I will now call the Labour member.





KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): Thank you to my colleague Mr Seymour, and I understand that, look, we're operating in relatively fluid and flexible times, so I don't intend to take much time of this House this afternoon. This is unprecedented times. We are passing immeasurable amounts of legislation to ensure that we can protect New Zealanders, and consistent with the comments from this side of the House, we commend this bill to the House.





BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in support of the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill. I'm going to limit my comments predominantly to the matters relating to commerce and the matters particularly relating to changes to insolvency laws to give some protection to businesses, and particularly to directors of those businesses, and also to the debt hibernation scheme as proposed.
I'm going to speculate that, clearly, Ministers and Government members had the same sorts of conversations that many National Party members had with business owners and directors preceding and then into the early stages of the lockdown. Given previous issues in our history, there are very stringent requirements on directors and their obligations regarding their oversight of companies, and particularly where they might be trading when they are insolvent. If we actually look at the conversations that we had with people in those roles, and the situation today and in the weeks preceding, it's quite possible—a debatable point—that there are any number of businesses whose directors should possibly already have instigated measures towards potential insolvency, simply because the outlook has been so bleak, and remains to a large degree, that it is completely uncertain, and their very clear legal obligations would no doubt and did, in fact, given the conversations we had, lead many to believe that they were at risk of being deemed to have failed to have met those obligations and were permitting a company to continue trading when they had every or sufficient reason to believe that insolvency was in very severe doubt.
So if these measures were not to be taken, unquestionably we would have many more businesses folding in very short order in New Zealand. Now, this is no guarantee that they won't, but it is very clear that without these measures, there would certainly be any number—and probably a great number—of businesses that would have to be put into insolvency because of that gross uncertainty of the outlook and the legal obligations that rest upon those that govern those businesses. So we support the principle of the measures. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are guaranteed to work, and it doesn't mean that as they are written they will have the consequence that they intend.
If we look at it, the fundamental issues that are facing businesses right now—yes, there is the future uncertainty, a massive uncertainty which persists and will probably persist for some time to come, but the immediate greater issue, actually, is a lack of cash flow. So many businesses have been shut down if not completely, as near as complete as possible. Many are still either unable to trade or unable to trade anything like their normal levels under the current alert level 3. What they really need is income, cash flow, to help keep those businesses solvent and going.
Just today, the Leader of the Opposition announced plans that National, had it the opportunity, would do to help to address those very immediate issues, which are things like the GST cash-back, the ability to recognise capital investment very rapidly—things that would help to keep a company trading today and give a greater sense of optimism and certainty about the future to maintain themselves or to sustain for some time. Alas, we're on the wrong side of the House at the moment. We can have great plans but we can't legislate for them.
In the absence of being able to put that very good plan into action today, we would instead say that these measures are important but they are just a part of it. There is no bill on the Order Paper that seeks to do anything like what the Leader of the Opposition proposed today. There is this, these measures around the safe harbour and the debt hibernation, but there is no other side of the equation which is putting cash flow into businesses, money into businesses, in the immediate sense. So it's about a half of the puzzle in that respect.
But further to that—and we are absolutely going to support this through to select committee—I note with some trepidation, as I went through the provisions related to these measures, yet again—and I have at least been consistent in my criticism of Government bills which have large, broad, powerful regulation-making powers riddled throughout. I've done so on the Arms Legislation Bill, on the Fair Trading Amendment Bill, and the conduct of financial institutions, and these measures are, again, measures that have enormous scope of regulatory amendment to them once this bill, should it be enacted, is enacted.
The worry I have with that—it's two: one is, really, that, as I've said previously in other bills, it's a bit of a sign that the Government hasn't actually got its policy sorted out. Now, the circumstances we're in sort of justify that to some extent: there simply isn't the same time that there would normally be in the formulation of policy and the translation of that into a bill. But none the less, it's indicative of the fact that the policy is not concrete in its detail yet, so that is an issue. But the worry I have about it is: what will it mean for directors of companies who may be relying on these—the safe harbour and this debt hibernation and the certainty that it's supposed to help to bring—if the regime is one which can be changed readily without recourse to Parliament?
Almost any manner of the provisions of these items can be changed. For instance, in the debt hibernation, there are certain excluded debts through regulation. Excluded debts can be changed at any time over the period that these protections would otherwise apply. So what a director signs up for today may change before the term of the crisis and the term of the provisions of the bill apply or expire. So my question to that is: how are directors going to respond to that? Are they going to say it introduces uncertainty which might limit their ability to actually sign up and take advantage of the debt hibernation and safe harbour provisions? Or will they say, "No, we're comfortable." and that the intent of Parliament is clear, and "Although the power is with Government to change things almost at a whim, we won't hold that that introduces so much uncertainty as to prevent us from using the provisions.", that they might think differently?
So my point is: to raise this is not to say it's a reason to not support the bill but to emphasise with the Government that it is important that they listen to the submissions that are made in the very short select committee process this bill will receive. We know that the Epidemic Response Committee will give it very good attention, but it is important that the Government is prepared to listen to what submitters say and the implications of the bill as written, what it will mean for them perhaps being able to take up the intentions which rest behind it. Because if they say, "It's fine, no problem.", well, that's all well and good. But if we have submitters that come and say, "Well, actually, the way you've written it is good from a legislator's point of view but from a director's point of view, actually, you've not given us the certainty around the regime that we need in order to be able to sign up to it.", then I would implore the Government to heed that, if those are the messages that come through, and make changes.
It may actually be better to have the regime very clearly articulated in the primary legislation and accept that if during the course of events it is determined that something was not quite right, well, that's what an amendment bill is there for, rather than have a very broad and almost unrestricted regulation-making power, if it is the case that submitters tell us that having that would create an uncertainty which might make it difficult for them to use the safe harbour or the debt hibernation provisions that are being put there to protect—or the idea to protect and sustain businesses.
So we support the bill. I note comments made from the ACT member a few moments ago. We will support the bill. It's not enough on its own; it is a piece of the puzzle. Really, the Government should be looking at how they can get cash into the hands of businesses now so that they can sustain themselves alongside these sorts of measures which do help, to a degree, deal with the fact that there are so many uncertainties into the future yet. But we will support the bill to the select committee.





Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I wish to speak very briefly on behalf of the Government in support of the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill. This is an omnibus bill which contains provisions that have been worked on by Ministers across the Government who have, alongside their officials, been working day and night to identify the practical and pragmatic ways in which the Government can support the response and the recovery to and from the COVID-19 epidemic. I look forward to its consideration by the COVID Epidemic Response Committee. I look forward to their feedback from it, and I commend this bill to the House.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill be now read a first time.
Ayes 119
New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; Ross.
Noes 1
ACT New Zealand 1.
Bill read a first time.
Bill referred to the Epidemic Response Committee.





Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Deputy Leader of the House) on behalf of the Leader of the House: I move, That the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill be reported to the House by 12 May 2020.
Motion agreed to.





IMMIGRATION (COVID-19 RESPONSE) AMENDMENT BILL
First Reading
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister of Immigration): In accordance with a determination of the Business Committee, I move, That the Immigration (COVID-19 Response) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Epidemic Response Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 12 May 2020.
The coronavirus pandemic has had, and will continue to have, an extraordinary impact on the global economy and, of course, on our local economy here in New Zealand. The scale and speed of the epidemic has meant that we have had to work quickly and nimbly to respond and ensure that New Zealand is able to manage its consequences—the immigration system is a good example of this. 
The underlying principle of the Immigration Act 2009 is that, except in limited circumstances, individual applications are processed by an individual immigration officer who carefully considers all of the circumstances of the applicant before deciding whether to grant a visa. This one-on-one consideration enables Immigration New Zealand to manage risk and make decisions tailored to each applicant's circumstances. However, the scale of the epidemic means that we need to be more nimble. 
Since the start of the epidemic, New Zealand has closed the borders to all but a few visa holders. Other countries' travel restrictions and the consequential decline in flights from 700 per week a year ago to 25 per week now have meant that it is also difficult for travellers to leave New Zealand. Visa holders in badly affected sectors may lose employment and, as a result, no longer meet the conditions of their visas; others may be trapped outside of New Zealand and unable to meet visa time frames for travel to New Zealand through no fault of their own. Immigration New Zealand has had to suspend most of its offshore processing activities and has limited onshore capacity while the level 3 restrictions remain in place. 
Previous Governments foresaw the possibility of an impact on the immigration system from an epidemic. The Act has a small number of emergency provisions that were triggered when the Prime Minister issued an epidemic management notice under the Epidemic Preparedness Act. Valid visas held by people in New Zealand, which would otherwise be due to expire, are automatically extended, so they will expire three months after the day on which the epidemic management notice expires, and adjustments can be made to detention on immigration grounds. Those settings have the effect of buying us time to address some of the practical challenges by giving onshore visa holders certainty about their visa status at a time of significant disruption. Around 80,000 temporary visas, which have been automatically extended under the epidemic legislation, will now expire on 26 September.
This certainty has been useful but more is needed to ensure that the immigration system can react in a timely and nimble fashion. It is the Government's view that new powers are needed for a time-limited period. Under existing settings, temporary migrants who wish to remain in New Zealand must submit individual applications for a new visa or to vary their existing visa's conditions when the migrant's circumstances change. This can be where they need to be redeployed by their employer into a different role or to a different region, or to look for another job after being made redundant. 
Applications are also required by regulation to include fees, passport photos, and travel documents. Receiving and processing such applications is not practical when Immigration New Zealand staff are working from their homes. In particular, they cannot meet banking requirements for handling payments. Waiving requirements on an individual basis is not practical, while individually processing thousands of applications at once is time-consuming and expensive and provides little certainty for affected applicants at a time where we need Government services to be able to be flexible and efficient. This bill therefore amends the Immigration Act 2009 to provide powers to enable the Government to respond appropriately and efficiently to the COVID-19 epidemic by providing additional flexibility in the immigration system. These powers will expire 12 months after enactment. 
It is important that this bill is passed without undue delay, to enable immigration responses to the COVID-19 epidemic to be a flexible and efficient as possible at this time. The timetable I'm asking the House to agree to will enable these powers to be brought into effect this month.
This bill aims to ensure that the Government can respond appropriately and efficiently to the immediate immigration issues arising from the COVID-19 outbreak by providing additional flexibility in the immigration system where, for example, large numbers of visas need to be changed or extended at once. It does so by introducing eight time-limited powers. In order, through the bill, they are: (1) the power to extend, vary, or cancel conditions for classes of resident class visa holders; (2) the power to impose, vary, or cancel conditions for classes of temporary entry class visa holders; (3) the power to waive any prescribed regulatory requirements for applying for a visa with respect to classes of people; (4) the power to grant visas to individuals and classes of people in the absence of an application; (5) the power to extend the expiry dates of temporary class visas for classes of people; (6) the power to waive in any individual case the requirement to obtain a transit visa; (7) the power to revoke the entry permission of a person who has been deemed by regulations to have been granted entry permission; and (8) the power to suspend the ability for any class of persons to make applications for visas or submit expressions of interest in applying for visas.
Examples of how these powers could be used include making changes to visa conditions; allowing workers to be redeployed to a different employer or location; allowing visa holders currently offshore more time to travel to New Zealand within the validity of their visa; and suspending new applications for particular visa categories until global border restrictions are loosened and visa holders are able to travel to New Zealand. 
One power, the power to grant visas without an application, is likely to be used only in limited circumstances—such as where individuals are too unwell to be able to make an application. I'm hoping that this will not need to be exercised, but there is a precedent. This power would have been useful to support people severely injured in the Whakaari / White Island eruption. 
The powers in this bill are subject to a range of safeguards. The majority need to be exercised by special direction, and one, the ability to suspend the making of applications, requires an Order in Council. Some can be only exercised by myself as Minister of Immigration.
When it comes to special class directions, these directions must be published on the internet and tabled in this House. All the powers are also time-limited and subject to a 1-year sunset clause. 
This bill will provide important powers to enable the Government to respond to the COVID-19 epidemic through providing additional flexibility in the immigration system. This will enable Immigration New Zealand to work appropriately and efficiently to support the welfare of some temporary migrants and situate us well for our economic rebuilding. I commend this bill to the House.





STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to begin by thanking the Minister for his briefing last night on this bill. It is helpful to have a heads-up on the bill, and it is important that we get these things right. The Immigration (COVID-19 Response) Amendment Bill is one of those bills that is being rushed through. Of course, there are good reasons for that, but we can't lose sight of the fact that last week a bill went through the House and passed something that the people that debated it didn't know was in the bill. Even the Minister responsible didn't know it was in the bill. We don't know if there's anything like that in this bill—I don't see anything like that, but that's possible. So it is important that these bills get good scrutiny.
I think that this is hugely important, this bill, in that we had arrived at the situation prior to the COVID outbreak, Immigration New Zealand (INZ) were well behind with 11,500 residency applications waiting to be processed. So they were already under extreme pressure and were in trouble, really, trying to deal with what was ahead of them. Now, this has been exacerbated, of course, by the current situation where we had a thousand people working for INZ that weren't at work. Under level 3, 20 percent of those people are back at work, and when it goes to level 2, there will only be 50 percent of those people back at work. So we don't have the resource on the ground to deal with these issues that are in front of us. Yes, I think we need to deal with these variations of conditions quite quickly and deal with them appropriately. I know there are people in Queenstown—it is a really good example of a lot of people that will be out of work in the hospitality sector and the tourism sector in general. That will be the same in other places like Rotorua and my own electorate in Hanmer Springs, with the announcement of the closure of the Heritage Hotel. Those things are going to be happening all over the country. At some point we will need to have a debate about what the future looks like for immigration in New Zealand, because it's unlikely that we'll need a lot of people to come into the hospitality sector to work where a lot of immigrants have come in, but that's a debate for another day. We need to deal with this issue here and now.
That issue is often that people are stuck here through no choice of their own, and they are unable to work. In my own electorate's case—and particularly where I live in Marlborough—people came into New Zealand to work in the wine industry as winemakers or cellar hands, skilled migrants on temporary work visas came in. Now their job is finished, they're in Marlborough, they are actually willing to work, and they want to go out and prune grapes. Unfortunately, the way the system works at the moment, if the winery employs them as a grape pruner, that's fine, or they can go and get another winemaking job with another employer. But they can't do both. Unfortunately, a lot of the winemakers don't prune grapes, but vineyards do. And, as we don't have the people to do the job, we have these people in Marlborough and in other places sitting there and, in some cases, being supported by civil defence because they can't go home; they don't have the economic capability to look after themselves now. So we have a mess, and it's caused partly because of the way this has played out. It's not anyone's fault; it's just the way it is. 
The thing is: how do we fix it? Yes, this bill—I hope that the Minister will be prepared, and his officials, to address that very issue. Hopefully this bill will allow that issue to be dealt with quickly and efficiently so that those people can go back to work in a different role. Yes, it's Kiwis first and always will be and should be, but we don't have the Kiwis for some of those jobs, and we're supporting those people anyway.
I think that there has been some criticism of this bill, and particularly from Lane Neave, a law firm in Canterbury, who put an article out that was quite critical of the bill. As one immigration adviser described it to me, this is a leap of faith, this legislation; we don't have time to consider it. Yes, I think that's a fair criticism, and it's something that this House does reluctantly, but it has to. But it is incumbent upon the Epidemic Response Committee and the Minister's officials to ensure that all of the questions are addressed, that the questions are not only just addressed, they are addressed in detail so that we ensure all the fish-hooks that will be in there are dealt with.
I think one of the other key things with this bill is that there is little to prevent the Minister from using his powers outside of the direct health response. I'll give you an example: an international student visa holder, the Minister could, overnight, strike out their right to work while they're here. Now, how would they support themselves? There are some international students here in New Zealand, and there's already talk from the universities that they want to restart that. Now, the Minister may give assurances that that's not going to happen, but, nevertheless, under the bill, that could be possible. We know the kind of pressures that will come on when the vast numbers that will lose their jobs materialises. There will be real political pressure on us all to try and soothe those issues and deal with them. That might be one thing that comes out of that, and I think that would be really a very bad move because this bill's premise is to actually look after the migrants that are in here. So that has to be the underlying response to this issue, remembering also that there is an absence of appeal rights for the exercise of these powers.
This is perhaps the one Government department where a Minister has the most controversial power: to have power over individual people's lives. When people appeal for a visa or their right to stay or whatever it happens to be, and the Minister, if they do exercise that right, there is no appeal to that. So we have to be very careful that those legislative powers are tightly defined. That is something I'll be looking forward to exploring further in the select committee. So it's with that qualified support that I commend the bill to the House.





Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just a quick contribution to reinforce some of the contributions that were made by the Minister of Immigration. To reflect on the two speeches that have already been made: these are not normal times, so in order to manage a process which is, obviously, not running at full steam, the Minister and the Government has seen fit to pass this legislation. 
To give us a scale of what the issue is here: as of the end of April this year, there were approximately 350,000 temporary visa holders here in New Zealand; just a little over 200,000 have work visas whose visa employment conditions may need to be varied as we respond to the COVID crisis; nearly 75,000 student visa holders, whose conditions may need to be amended in able to change their course of work or extra hours until the education providers are reopened; and a little under 57,000 on visitor visas whose expiry dates may need to be extended. So there is a scale that we have to deal with, and also a need to do that at speed and to also be nimble. 
Pointing to the comments of the earlier member, there are safeguards within this piece of legislation for the measures that have been put in place, most notably the 12-month sunset clause within it, and the necessary steps taken in some instances to get an Order in Council to use some of the powers that are made in, obviously, not a normal way. So it is needed because of scale and the need to be nimble. But to address the point that the member Stuart Smith made, who was just previously on his feet: there are safeguards built into this to make sure that we are doing the right thing as well as being pragmatic in dealing with the response and recovery to COVID. 





Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have a pretty strict rule of not speaking on matters related to immigration. I get the sense that I would sound like the drunk at the end of the bar talking about the good old days. But I've broken that rule twice in a week, which is another measure of the extraordinary times we are in, basically because members of the select committee that would normally talk about immigration issues aren't here, and, indeed, this bill, the Immigration (COVID-19 Response) Amendment Bill, is going to the epidemic response subcommittee, of which I will be the chair for the next few days. 
That subcommittee is going to have the Herculean task of getting advice, calling for, and hearing submissions on this bill and the bill that has previously been debated, the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill—considering it, suggesting amendments, and reporting back to the House by this time next week. That is no mean feat, but I'm confident that we will be able to do that, and I'm really pleased that we are doing that. I'm not going to relitigate previous comments about the risks of hastening a legislation. As my colleague Stuart Smith said, we will support it, but we do have some concerns, and I want to just articulate some of them. 
The explanatory note is very interesting. It, basically, talks about wanting to assist the visa holders, but, actually, the principal goal of this, it seems to me, is to assist Immigration New Zealand with the potentially overwhelming amount of work that it would be required to do to issue visas past the three-month deadline, or at least it's the later of the three months after the epidemic notice is issued, or the expiry of the visa. So while Minister Faafoi did talk about the 350,000 visa holders that could be in New Zealand right now, it's by no means the total population of what would be required to be done. That would be a much, much smaller number. I was surprised at those numbers, frankly. That seems to be nearly 100,000 more than the number of temporary visa holders in New Zealand a couple of years ago.
I have a tremendous amount of sympathy and compassion for them right now. I cannot imagine what it must be like to be in a foreign country—even one that you've chosen to go to as a working holidaymaker or an international student or an essential skills worker—and to find oneself in the middle of a global pandemic where everything shuts down and the income supply is in the short run immediately curtailed. I commend the Government for including overseas workers in the wage subsidy—I think that was a sensible thing to do—but that's going to end. There is fear—I know there is fear. My colleagues Mses Walker, Dowie, Dean, and I were on a Zoom call with southern mayors a couple of weeks ago, where Mayor Boult from Queenstown Lakes District articulated what was going on there. It is a tremendous potentially humanitarian problem. I don't think that is overstating the issue. I think it is going to be very difficult but very important for the Government to decide what is to be done about that. I see this as very much a temporary measure. I am open to the view that it's not necessary for 12 months, and I trust the Minister of Immigration will be discerning in the application of the powers that we are granting him. 
Somewhat of a gentle rebuke, I think, knowing those terrific staff at Immigration New Zealand, but, nevertheless, we don't have the same problem with the Ministry of Social Development. We don't have the Minister for Social Development issuing a blanket order to give jobseeker support to a population. It still needs to be considered on its merits on application, and while the Ministry of Social Development is under tremendous strain at the moment, it will resource up, it will find ways, to get through that problem. I think this is kind of kicking the can down the road a bit, in a couple of ways, because eventually Immigration New Zealand is going to be hit with a bow wave of applications from people who want to stay but for whom that will not be possible.
While we talk about the humanitarian challenge and potential there—crisis in the minds at least of those people affected by it—one needs to be very clear that, as my colleague Stuart Smith said, Governments of both colours share the view of a Kiwis-first approach to immigration policy. Therein lies the conundrum, because I understand why the Minister would want to do things like a blanket variation of conditions. Indeed, when I was Minister I found that the variation of conditions process was probably on occasion a little too strictly monitored by immigration officials. But now we're going the other way, and what we're saying is Kiwis are going to be losing their jobs in their tens, if not hundreds or thousands, and they are in a contest for what work is available when the hospitality, tourism, adventure-tourism, construction, and education sectors all come back online—how do we apply that Kiwis-first approach? 
It worries me. It worries me because overseas workers right now are not eligible for income supports other than the wage subsidy—and I don't know what thinking the Government's doing there. It's a difficult one because the taxpayer has been very clear in its support for the generosity that needs to be shown to those people and small businesses that are at risk right now. But we're about to go off a cliff and the jobseeker numbers are going to rise dramatically, and it worries me that we are going to pit overseas workers and New Zealanders in a contest for the same roles. The Minister shakes his head, and I'm not sure whether that's more in hope than confidence, because the powers that he has here will enable potentially international students to work more than 20 hours a week. It will enable essential skills workers who have lost their jobs to go into other industries, to go into other parts of the country. 
Now, that in some industries may well be the right thing to do, because, as Mr Smith said, we have a bit of a challenge getting people to work in certain industries. Now, it's not impossible. I was the Minister after the Psa outbreak, where a number of workers were lining up at Work and Income after jobs were lost, but with employers and contractors still wanting to bring people in from overseas to do that work. It does take a firm hand to say, actually, that's not appropriate. So there are challenges. 
However, that said, I also support strongly things like the Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) scheme , and I think there is an opportunity here to be more finessed than this gives the Minister the power to do. That is to say, where there remain genuine labour shortages—and I think the industries that benefit from the RSE scheme could well be amongst them—then that's fine. Let's see if we can get those workers in, and, indeed, most of them come from the Pacific. I'm sure there is thinking going on about what to do about that. But the reality is that most of them aren't; most of them are actually in the very industries that have been decimated by COVID—hospitality and tourism. Why would we be giving extensions to, I don't know, a Chinese tour interpreter, a visa, and then allowing them to go and work in any other part of the industry when we don't have Chinese tourists? So we really do have a problem. 
The biggest problem I think that is going to come before the Government in the not too distant future is the question of the expectations from those people that won't be met. We've got a residency programme that's been slashed by a third, under this Government, nearly, and, yet, a great number of the people who are here on essential skills and temporary visas want to stay permanently, and they're not going to be able to, and they weren't before COVID, and it's going to get much harder after COVID. We need to start that conversation as a country. We'll hear a little bit of it, I think, over the next few days in the consideration of this bill when we hear from the Migrant Workers Association and the Association for Migration and Investment. But it is absolutely crucial that in our efforts to make things better in the short term that we don't make them worse in the long term, either for the overseas people who are here and potentially stuck or for those New Zealanders who have lost their jobs and are desperate to find new work, to provide for their families, in industries that they might not be used to.
So I look forward to that conversation. It's going to be a speedy one. We're going to be back here next Tuesday. But in the meantime, I support the Minister and I commend the bill.





Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): I rise to take a call on the Immigration (COVID-19 Response) Amendment Bill. I rise to support the sentiments expressed by the Minister of Immigration along with the former Associate Minister of Immigration the Hon Kris Faafoi. 
The issue at stake here is a change to our immigration settings that enables the Minister to exercise extraordinary power. That power, obviously, will be exercised within a policy envelope, and, given the tremendous level of interest that our party has in the role immigration policy will play going forward in the COVID recovery, there will be lots of discussions as to what is an acceptable envelope. But the Minister has made quite a compelling case, and I don't think all of our MPs realised how many global citizens were actually caught up by this COVID lockdown—into the hundreds of thousands—and we do need to reflect a level of humanity in dealing with their awful situation. They are not able to pack up and go home. They do want, in many cases, to remain in the country, and I look forward to the submissions that will inevitably flow.
In the general policy statement, the bill outlines—and, actually, the departmental disclosure statement is very helpful as well—the specific time-limited categories of power; eight of them. This enables the cancellation and variation of conditions. Whilst the borders aren't going to be open in any comprehensive sense any time soon, this does raise some deep questions as to how we reorientate and retrain our own young people, rural and urban, whilst at the same time maintaining a flow of international migration that adds to the knowledge base of New Zealand. 
Prior to coming to Parliament today, I took the opportunity to speak to the Auckland University of Technology vice-chancellor, Mr Derek McCormack, who pestered the Helen Clark Government—very successfully, if I recall—to gain the status of a university.
SPEAKER: No. It was his predecessor.
Hon SHANE JONES: Oh—OK. So I thought I'd pick the brains of Mr Derek McCormack. He outlined to me that a university such as his has about 20,000 students, 17 percent of international character. Those are students that do contribute financially, and those are students who are entitled to work for a period of time. But the challenge now lies with the tertiary sector, ensuring, as they go forward, how they can compete in the absence of a comprehensive opening of the border. 
I was left with quite a healthy respect for the level of thinking that is taking place in our tertiary institutions, because I draw a distinction between those legacy anchor institutions and the proliferation of other private training establishments, which I will not taint this speech by talking about, or problems associated with that sector. 
So other than to say that we support the sentiments reflected by the Minister of Immigration, this is a tricky area. This does give considerable authority to the Minister; however, it enables him to deal efficiently with the variation of conditions pertaining to thousands—hundreds of thousands—of men and women from overseas who are here. I do say, however, that those decisions will be exercised within a policy envelope, and that policy over time will be developed by the coalition Government. Thank you very much.





Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm pleased to take a brief call in this Immigration (COVID-19 Response) Amendment Bill. This is, of course, the introduction, and as my colleague Stuart Smith has indicated, National will support it in the first reading. It is really important—this is being considered by the Epidemic Response Committee, and my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse referred to a couple of the larger organisations that represent migrants and migrant workers, but I would encourage others to participate in the process. Sometimes the most effective submissions are those of very personal stories and examples of when things don't work.
Obviously, for most New Zealanders at the moment, COVID-19 doesn't work, but for the 350,000 temporary visa holders that are in New Zealand, they're kind of stuck in a bit of limbo. When, traditionally, as the Minister pointed out, an individual applicant would have their application considered by an individual immigration officer, that's clearly not feasible at the moment. If you look at the different categories of visa holders, because I think sometimes there's far too many generalisations around those who are on work visas—if I reflect on my own electorate, if I reflect on essential workers and those courageous men and woman who got us through the five weeks of level 4 lockdown, many of them were here on essential skilled visas, particularly in our healthcare area and also our aged-care sectors.
So, yes, there is this priority for Kiwis first, but there is a complete and utter naivety if there's an expectation that someone who's working in a hospitality job, or was six weeks ago, next week could turn up and work in an aged-care facility. We are very fortunate in this country to have incredibly skilled workers in a whole range of different sectors, many of those heavily occupied by those on work visas, and the suggestion that they could be replaced any time soon is a bit naive. That's not to say that that work doesn't need to begin, and I think one of the things that I think is really important in this process, and that I hope will come through in the submissions to the Epidemic Response Committee, is managing expectations.
So there'll be a lot of people here on visas, whether they're student visas, whether they're visitor's visas, whether they are essential skilled visas, and, actually, as a country, we need to be clear with them about their expectation of a future here in New Zealand. The future after COVID-19 looks very different than it was six months ago, and, you know, there are many people in very challenging circumstances at the moment. I've heard, unfortunately, from far too many of them who six weeks ago were working and now they're ringing the welfare civil defence line asking for housing and food support. That is never a situation those people envisaged they would ever be in in a country they have chosen to come to because of opportunities. So we do need to do right by them, and I'm hoping that the Government is doing some work on that at the moment.
It's not just about allowing their visa conditions to change and the time frames to change; actually, there's a much broader issue of support for those who are in New Zealand at the moment, in a way that they're not getting supported at the moment. I do hope that people do take the time—although it's a short report back, it will be considered by a select committee. I think the lesson came last week when the wrong bill was passed. That cannot happen again. Even though there's an urgency in terms of delivering a solution, both to those who are here as migrants and also to Immigration New Zealand, who needs to solve this issue, it still needs fair scrutiny.
So, as I said, National will be supporting this in the first reading. We want to make sure the issues are explored fully. There are extraordinary powers that are provided in here and a lot less scrutiny that's going to occur, so any time that happens the unintended consequences do need to be considered carefully.
The other point that I want to just add is whether or not the Associate Minister, who has responsibilities for considering exemptions to policy, is also going to take a "new environment, new rules" approach, because many electorate MPs will have faced some absolutely heart-wrenching immigration cases at the moment, and it is absolutely critical that when there are ministerial decisions to be made, they are also considering those based on the circumstances we face as a country, whether it's a situation I'm dealing with where half the family is overseas trying to get back to continue their work in New Zealand—we've got to be far more compassionate and practical and pragmatic about how we reunite those families and how we ensure that those critical essential workers are able to continue their work in New Zealand. Thanks, Mr Speaker.





DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in support of the Immigration (COVID-19 Response) Amendment Bill. I'll just make a couple of comments about the process there. 
I spoke earlier in the afternoon in opposition to the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill. I think this one has a few aspects that make it worth our support, even in these rushed circumstances. One is that unlike the 133 pages that we had dumped on us, with less than 24 hours to compute what that legislation would mean in the context of the other laws it was changing, what we have here is a 16-page bill that, largely, changes the Immigration Act. 
Secondly, not only is it much shorter, but it is also a piece of legislation that, as Michael Woodhouse noted—although he said this with a certain amount of cynicism—is, by and large, about the administration of the immigration department, and I'll get to why I think that's actually very needed. 
The other thing I think that the Minister's done that is very responsible is that all of this has a sunset clause, and if the principle is we need to rush legislation to deal with the COVID-19 crisis, then it's perfectly fitting that we don't make permanent changes and long-term decisions in the context of a crisis. So I think the Minister's actually made some really good decisions about how this legislation works.
It is absolutely necessary. If you'd asked me a couple of years ago could any Government department drive more people, more constituents, to the door of my electorate office than Auckland Transport (AT), I would have said, "No way. It's impossible." Well, I have to say, over the last couple of years AT's actually improved a little bit, but immigration has become the leading reason that people come to see me in my electorate office, and, I dare say, MPs' electorate offices up and down the country, because I get a lot of similar feedback and chatter from other MPs. That problem is not a subject for today—but it does need to be resolved—but it has been badly exacerbated by the COVID-19 crisis, and some of it is for very obvious reasons. The closure of the border was always going to be difficult for immigration, quite obviously. Secondly, the general sense of crisis was going to make a lot of people's situations difficult—not having work, and so on. 
But as the legislation identifies, it was especially going to be a problem for the administration of immigration law, which is all set up to do one-by-one or case by case consideration, when, actually, whole classes of people have been affected by the COVID-19 situation. So I completely support the idea that we're going to have some general determinations that will help whole groups of people who, through no fault of their own, are caught up. 
Let me just give a couple of examples—people that have contacted me. An immigration agent from Hamilton—they've got people who are all ready to go, to come here, and they're not going to be able to do it, and, yet, they've bought property. You know, the difficulties that people are facing as a result of this crisis, being caught between two countries, are in many cases harrowing. 
I give the example of—the Minister will know a perennial topic for me and people that get in touch with me—the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme (RSE). Now, you know, at the moment, Porirua is closed. They are trying to individually process visas and agreements to recruit, and the result is that the RSE scheme at this rate will be all but null and void for the coming summer. That has real impacts. I think the Government needs to be clear. If they think that the horticultural industry is supposed to employ Kiwis for the season, then they should come out and say that, because at the moment that's the result they're getting to by default.
Nevertheless, this legislation is proportional to the crisis. It's much needed. It's going to solve a real humanitarian problem for a lot of people, and for that reason I support it on behalf of ACT and commend it to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Epidemic Response Committee.





Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister of Immigration): I move, That the Immigration (COVID-19 Response) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 12 May 2020. 
Motion agreed to.





SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
Hon 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 to that? There is none.
The House adjourned at 5.22 p.m.