WEDNESDAY, 13 MAY 2020
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Karakia.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): The Minister of Health is about to deliver a ministerial statement. I seek leave for David Seymour to be regarded as a "specified party leader" for the purposes of that debate.
SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Following discussions across the House earlier on, I seek leave that following the conclusion of Government order of the day No. 1, the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill and the Immigration (COVID-19 Response) Amendment Bill progress through their remaining stages.
SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.





MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
COVID-19—National Transition Period
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): On behalf of the Hon Peeni Henare, Minister of Civil Defence, and the coalition Government, I wish to make a ministerial statement under Standing Order 356 in relation to giving notice of a national transition period over the whole of New Zealand under section 94A of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002.
The national transition period will come into effect when the state of national emergency, currently in place for all of New Zealand, expires at 12.21 p.m. on Wednesday, 13 May. At 12.21 p.m., 25 March 2020—having considered the advice of the Director of Civil Defence Emergency Management and in consultation with the Prime Minister under section 66 of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act—the Hon Peeni Henare, Minister of Civil Defence, declared a state of national emergency for the whole of New Zealand to help manage the impact of COVID-19. 
The Minister of Civil Defence has since extended this state of emergency six times. Minister Henare did not make these decisions lightly, but it was the Government's judgment that extraordinary measures needed to be maintained to support nationwide efforts to combat the virus and to break the chain of infection across the entire country. 
Since then, New Zealanders, through their efforts, have made great strides in combating the spread of COVID-19. This is clearly evident in the numbers of new confirmed and probable cases of COVID-19, which continue to slow and decline. With the relaxing of restrictions provided for under alert level 2, and the decreasing numbers of COVID-19 cases, it is now appropriate to lift the state of national emergency. But while the trends are positive, level 2 is not a return to business as usual. Putting a national transition period in place will help support a nationally consistent and coordinated approach to civil defence emergency management activities. 
The Minister of Civil Defence is satisfied that a national transition period is both in the public interest and necessary or desirable to ensure a timely and effective recovery from the impacts of COVID-19. The national transition period will cover all of New Zealand, including the Chatham Islands, Stewart Island, and other offshore islands. It will remain in place for 90 days, unless it is extended or terminated earlier. 
A national transition period supports a transition from an emergency response into the initial recovery phase. A national transition period provides the national recovery manager, and others, access to special powers designed to assist with recovery rather than response. This includes, for example, powers to enable the conservation and supply of food and essential supplies, or the ability of recovery managers to require information from persons. 
New Zealanders can be confident in the very clear checks and balances on the use of these powers set out in the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act. These powers can only be used if they meet both the tests within the power and the three overarching legal tests. The person exercising the powers must be satisfied that these are in the public interest, that they are necessary or desirable to ensure a timely and effective recovery, and that their use would be proportionate in the circumstances. 
The lifting of the state of national emergency and the move to a national transition period does not signal that New Zealanders should stop being vigilant. It is essential that all New Zealanders follow the alert level requirements to ensure we do not lose the gains we have made. On behalf of the Minister of Civil Defence and the coalition Government, I reiterate my gratitude to each and every New Zealander, volunteer group, community organisation, local government, civil defence emergency management group, Government agency, and business across the country for their outstanding and extraordinary efforts in response to COVID-19.





Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I thank the Minister for that statement. I guess my first response is: about time. We were ready for this; I said so a week ago. We have been under a state of civil emergency for too long. But, as we know, we're moving to another level, and it's clear to the public that what that will look like is not quite what was on the tin last week.
It's worth reflecting, as the Minister has, on the powers that are conferred via the transitional order. It has certain features: it goes for 90 days, it provides for the exercise of powers that are in the public interest and necessary to ensure recovery and that can direct to stop activities that may cause or contribute to the consequences of an emergency or to prevent or hinder recovery, and they are enforceable by a constable. Now, if those things sound familiar, it is because this House has been considering legislation that has similar elements of that, ones which the Attorney-General assured us were not provided for in existing legislation. Yet the reading of section 94 of that Act, I think, provides a very good basis for the transition that we are going through. But I think what section 94 of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act can't handle is power with no fetters.
I think the Government will have heard the message from the public about level 2. They are confused about the inconsistencies. They are angry at being prevented from going to their places of worship or to grieve at a funeral or tangi. They're certainly aghast at the manner in which that power is being granted. I heard the Hon Chris Hipkins say that the virus has no regard to civil liberties. But I say to the Leader of the House: it isn't the virus that the public are worried about with respect to their civil liberties; it is the Government that they are worried about. They are seeing those liberties eroded unnecessarily. It simply comes down to trust. The Government does not trust a public that has done a fantastic job—another zero day today. Yet we are going to be enforced for longer, and the impacts of that, socially and economically, are going to be devastating.
So I say to the Government who is about to deliver a Budget: it's time to look at recovery firmly and to trust New Zealanders that they can lead that recovery, because it's only then that we will truly get over what has been a tremendously difficult time. Whether it's businesses, individuals, sports clubs, bars, restaurants, or new start-ups, it's time to trust them. I implore the Government to do that in order to get over this.





DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I acknowledge the Leader of the House for earlier raising a point of order so that all parliamentary party leaders could speak to this motion, and the House for granting the leave that he sought.
I just make a comment—two questions—about this motion. I looked through section 94 of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act, that allows this recovery notice for 90 days to be put in place. It was a part of the Act that was added in 2016, and I think it's fair to say what Parliament at that time had in mind was recovery from earthquakes. That's why it speaks a lot about clearing debris and breaking into premises where there's danger and so on. It's really not clear what the Government's intention is to bring about a recovery period right now, particularly at a time when Parliament is in the midst of passing a new legal framework to manage COVID-19 from here on in. So I think it has to be said that the Government hasn't really explained why it is seeking to be able to use what are, really, earthquake-era powers for the recovery from a viral pandemic.
The second point I'd raise—and I think this also applies to the legislation, the COVID public health legislation that's going through—is that those of us, particularly, who lead political parties are very mindful that it's 129 days until the election and 115 days until advance voting begins. Now, normally, elections are the time for the public to assemble and organise themselves to elect a Parliament, and they may wish to challenge the current Government as they do so. And so, aside from asking the Government, well, what exactly the purpose is of these recovery powers that seem out of step with recovery from a pandemic, I think it might also be asked how a 90-day recovery notice, and the powers that it gives to Civil Defence and various State agents, will be managed in the context of a time when there's an election under way. Will it give any powers to manage how political parties organise and campaign? Certainly the public, I think, will want to know what effect it has on the upcoming elections.
So I just leave a couple of comments there that I hope the Government will actually rise and answer—why they want these recovery powers, how they intend to use them, and how it will interface with the coming election. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I thank the House for its contributions, and I reflect on the previous member's comments. We have had national transition periods before. There has been one. That was following the Kaikōura earthquake, and it was in place for 180 days. The general point about these periods is that they enable a coordinated response. I would not expect it to have any particular impact on the election period, to satisfy that member's concerns.
I do say to the member opposite from the National Party, Michael Woodhouse, that, despite his reflections, public health has been a driver of this Government's response at every stage. Thanks to the efforts of all New Zealanders in response to the frameworks that have been laid out, due to the sacrifices they've made, we have been able to move through the alert levels safely. Nobody wants to go back. And I want to thank New Zealanders for their efforts again and remind people that we're not out of the woods yet. 
We continue to learn about the virus overseas. We continue to learn about what stops its spread, what measures are effective. Although we've done well in New Zealand, we can continue to learn from others, and the ability to move in a coordinated way will continue to be important as we make our way through the COVID period.





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, especially the hard work that's being done to make sure that as we transition into a new alert level in New Zealand, we are opening up the economy and getting as many New Zealanders as we can back into the workplace but that we are doing so as safely as possible. Many members will have seen reporting overnight, as we have seen in recent days, of some countries that have been free of COVID-19 cases—in some cases, up to a month free—who are seeing cases now emerge. We do need to make sure that we protect the hard-earned gains of all New Zealanders—all 5 million of them—by making sure that we act cautiously but that we keep moving forward.
Hon Simon Bridges: How much debt is her Government willing to take on in response to COVID-19?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I, of course, won't get ahead of the Budget, which the member only needs to make it through one more day before he will see some of Treasury's work in that regard. But I will just reflect again, as I did yesterday in this House: virtually no country in the world will get away scot-free from the economic impacts of what will be one of the largest shocks to the global economy in our lifetimes. What we're working hard to do is soften that blow, make sure we're positioned to support New Zealand businesses, make sure we're positioned to support their employees, and get us back into the position of rebuilding as fast as possible.
Hon Simon Bridges: Will the Budget show Government debt rising by $100 billion over the coming years?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, the member can use up all his questions, if he would like, making speculative statements, but I'll keep giving the same answer. But, again, what I would also point out is that that member's Government went through a significant economic shock once before, as well. This one is rivalling that. This is a one-in-100-year event. What we have made very, very clear, though, is that we will not take an approach of cuts and austerity when New Zealanders know that we saved for a rainy day, we got debt down for a rainy day, and that rainy day has arrived.
Hon Simon Bridges: Who is suggesting, as she has, cuts and austerity, and is she simply scaremongering with no foundation?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No.
Hon Simon Bridges: Does she agree with Cameron Bagrie that the increase in Government debt is a "liability with interest on the next generation, our kids. They are going to have to pay it back. Spending needs to be reprioritised, KiwiBuild needs to be redirected"—
SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Hon Simon Bridges: —"we need a pragmatic plan that is not an ideologically driven one."?
SPEAKER: Order! I just want to make it clear that there's not an unlimited use of quotes. Members can use short quotes in order to justify a question, but not a long quote, which in itself included several questions, if the Prime Minister was to respond to them.
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I actually saw other statements made by Mr Bagrie suggesting that, actually, this is the time when we should, equally, make sure that we are investing, make sure that we are supporting our economy and our recovery, and was not making overly simplistic statements or claims about debt and the role it plays in a recovery.
Hon Grant Robertson: On the subject of the comments of Mr Cameron Bagrie, has the Prime Minister seen Mr Bagrie's comments from this morning, where he said New Zealand has got lower levels of Government debt than the rest of the OECD, and so we're in relatively good shape in taking debt to 50 percent—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Again—I mean, I know I've interrupted the Minister more quickly than I did the Leader of the Opposition. He should have taken the lesson—one of those quotes.
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I'll take the quote around lower levels of Government debt and agree with Mr Bagrie. We've always said that we have come into this situation in a better position than most, including the UK, Australia, and the United States. That goes both for low debt and that also goes for low unemployment. This next period of time is going to be painful for every country around the world, but New Zealand is positioned to fare well through that storm.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Prime Minister got any reports on how an adult—or, for that matter, an MP—would take so long to work out that this economic blizzard is going to be against the next generation?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We are all too aware of the impact of dramatic economic shocks on those who will be following after us. There are many politicians on this side of the House who were not only here as decision makers or observers of the 1980s; there are many of us who grew up under it and remember it well.
Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept that an extra $100 billion in debt is equivalent to around $50,000 for every New Zealand household and will have to be paid back over time?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member will know that we are a Government who is very wise to the impact of spending decisions. That is why we actually focused on making sure that whilst we invested in our people, we also got debt down relative to where it was left by the last Government. But the member also, I've noticed, has proposed significant amounts of spending, and if the member now sounds like he is also proposing that there should be no debt, that suggests to me that he is, potentially, suggesting cuts to other services.
Hon Simon Bridges: Does she agree with economist Cameron Bagrie that, in tomorrow's Budget, "We are going to need a plan, not a spend-up—not throwing money around like confetti"?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I absolutely agree that we need a plan for the future that means that we are investing in our people; that we are creating jobs, jobs, jobs; and that we're looking after the wellbeing of every New Zealander. The Budget tomorrow will be the beginning of a longer-term project by this Government to make sure that we respond, that we recover, and that we rebuild together.
Hon Simon Bridges: Does she agree with tax specialist Geof Nightingale that "The short reality is we are going to have an enormous blowout in our debt."?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, if the member is promoting, for instance, his own spending plans—particularly, recently, some of the projects that he's announced—the member would also be looking at options around borrowing. The point that we are making is that it must be investment that is focused on growing jobs and growing the economy. That is how we stimulate the economy. That is how we get growth in the economy. That is how we recover. If the member has an alternative plan, I'd be very interested in hearing it.
Hon Simon Bridges: What is the Government's plan to manage debt in order to reduce the burden on future taxpayers?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Jobs, jobs, jobs.
Hon Simon Bridges: What's the plan on those jobs?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member only needs to wait another 24 hours, but the member also only need look at our response to date. We moved even before we were in a stage of lockdown to put in place a wage subsidy scheme to make sure that New Zealanders retained their attachment to their employer. That has benefited over one million New Zealanders. We put in place stimulus into the economy in the form of a winter energy payment increase that has already gone into the back pockets of those who have the smallest—
Hon Simon Bridges: That's got nothing to do with jobs.
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —incomes, and that—the member doesn't see the connection to stimulating the economy; I cannot help him with that. But if you want to make sure that you see money flowing, you give it to those on the lowest incomes.
Hon Simon Bridges: Will the Government outline a plan, even a long-term one, to return to surplus in tomorrow's Budget?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, the member well knows that, for that form of forecasting, he'll have to wait for the Budget.




Question No. 2—Finance
2. GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister of Finance: How will Budget 2020 support the actions the Government has already taken in response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The Government's plan to take on COVID-19 consists of three stages: respond, recover, and rebuild. Budget 2020 will build on the significant investments we have already made in our initial response to the impacts of COVID-19. The Budget package will complement our existing measures, such as the wage subsidy scheme, business tax changes, the Small Business Cashflow (Loan) Scheme, and others that have been designed to fight the virus and cushion the blow on Kiwi workers and businesses. The Budget will be very much a game of two halves: the core cost pressures package to support and maintain strong public services and the continuation of our response to COVID-19. For any more detail than that, members will have to wait until tomorrow.
Greg O'Connor: What reports has he seen on the Government's small business cash-flow scheme?
SPEAKER: Order! I'm trying to—I suppose it's a prior measure. Away you go. Answer the question.
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Sorry, Mr Speaker. Yes, I've seen the latest report from Inland Revenue, providing statistics for the first 36 hours that the scheme has been open for applications. In that time, we have received 21,000 applications, representing 10 applications every minute; 16,700 of these have already been approved, representing $280 million in lending. This money will be in these businesses' bank accounts within the next five days. We are committed to sharing the burden of the impacts of COVID-19. This scheme is helping support small to medium sized enterprises' immediate cash-flow needs and to meet fixed costs.
Greg O'Connor: How will Budget 2020 support the next stages of the Government's plan to tackle COVID-19?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Budget 2020 will set our direction for the next stages of responding and rebuilding, but COVID-19 requires more of us than that. The world is still learning about what the impacts of COVID-19 will be, and its impact is only just beginning to be felt in our economy. We will continue to work carefully through our next steps. That's why our economic response to COVID-19 has to happen every day, not just on Budget day. Just as businesses and workers are fighting every day to secure their futures, so we will keep fighting to protect lives and livelihoods, every day supporting New Zealanders to get through and to rebuild stronger and better.




Question No. 3—Education
3. Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Education: Does he have confidence that schools will be able to deal with the financial and social impact of COVID-19?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Yes. Over the last couple of months, the Government has been providing support to schools during COVID-19, including $87.7 million for distance learning, funding to cover casual staff during lockdown, and the extension of the wage subsidy scheme to school hostel staff, among other examples. There is, of course, more work that needs to be done. I want to thank schools and all of those working in the education sector for their professionalism and their efforts to support students, young people, and all New Zealanders, in fact, during this very difficult time.
Hon Nikki Kaye: What is the estimated financial impact on schools of falling international student numbers and fund-raising revenue as a result of COVID-19?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: At this point, it's very difficult to come up with an accurate projection of the likely impact. The vast majority of international school students that were expected this year arrived before the border closures started, and, at this point, we haven't had clear feedback on the number of students who have returned to their home countries. In terms of local fund-raising, that's really hypothetical as to how much fund-raising schools will be able to do between now and the end of the year. We are looking very closely at that. I do acknowledge that it's likely to have an impact on schools, and we'll continue to talk to them about how we can help to manage some of that.
Hon Nikki Kaye: What is the public health rationale, if any, and the expected social impacts of no social distancing in school transport?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It wouldn't be fair to say that there's absolutely no social distancing in school transport. There is, for example, distancing around the driver to ensure that the driver doesn't come into contact with the students. With regard to the rest of the school bus, the school bus, really, is no different to a classroom, and there'll be clear tagging-on and tagging-off measures so that we know exactly which students were on the bus, so that, if we have to take any follow-up action as a result of a COVID-19 case, we're able to do so.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Would the Minister be able to assuage the Hon Nikki Kaye's concerns about the school funding by pointing to this Government's recent injection of substantial funding into school administration, which wasn't there hitherto until he came to power?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The current Government has, in fact, been significantly increasing school operations funding over the term of our Government, and there'll be a little bit more to say about that in the next 24 hours, I would predict.
Hon Nikki Kaye: What is the public health rationale and expected social impacts of more than 10 teachers being allowed to gather but not 10 people at a funeral?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think the assertion in the last part of the member's question—I think she might be aware that the Government has made further announcements regarding funerals just in the last couple of hours.
Hon Nikki Kaye: When will he announce a decision on whether international students can come to New Zealand so that schools can address the long-term financial impacts of COVID-19?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: What I've said to all of those involved in international education is that, as soon as we can get a robust arrangement around quarantine up and running, we will look to welcome international students back to New Zealand. It'd be fair to say that, for the schools sector, that's one of the more challenging sectors because of the pastoral care that would be involved in any kind of quarantine arrangement, whereas if you're bringing in tertiary students, the pastoral care needs may be less if they're in quarantine. But we'll certainly work with the sector to get such a scheme up and running as quick as we can, consistent with the public health advice that we need to, I think, all follow to make sure we're keeping New Zealanders safe and stopping a further spread of COVID-19 due to people coming through the border.




Question No. 4—Finance
4. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he seen on the impact of COVID-19 on the New Zealand economy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I've seen a range of forecasts from Treasury and from other economists, some of them very recently. Their estimates of the impact of COVID-19 varies significantly, with the key factor in the variance being how long we spend under lockdown. This supports our "go hard, go early" approach to COVID-19 and that the best economic response we can provide to the virus is to eliminate it. What this evidence also demonstrates is that there is not yet consensus about what will happen to the economy in the future as a consequence of COVID-19. What I can say is that this Government is taking timely and targeted action to support jobs, businesses, and families, and we will provide our next steps in that plan tomorrow.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does the Reserve Bank's estimate, just released, that there will be 150,000 job losses by September match his expectations?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I will deliver the Budget tomorrow, which will include Treasury's forecasts, and I don't want to get ahead of that at this stage. Obviously, those are the Reserve Bank's forecasts.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he absolutely certain that Kiwis such as construction workers weren't prevented from working for longer than they needed to be?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I am convinced of the strategy that the Government undertook to go hard and go early. I know the member is making a reference to the fact that there were different rules in Australia when it comes to the construction industry. Obviously, we will only be able to see the outcome of that when all of the statistics are in for both Australia and New Zealand. What I think, when I think about what's happened in terms of the virus—its impact on people from a health and an economic sense—is that we can say that both New Zealand and Australia have done well.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why has his Government been slow to help small businesses cope with costs such as rents when they have no revenue?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I reject the premise of that question.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he acknowledge that the continuing restrictions under level 2 and 1 will cost many more jobs?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Our goal, as the Prime Minister has articulated, is to ensure that people stay in jobs, that we support the private sector to create jobs, and that, as a Government, we do everything we can to ensure we limit the number of people who lose jobs. That is our plan, that is our goal, regardless of what level of the framework we're at.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Will the Government redirect spending from low value for money areas, such as the free fees policy, to high value for money areas like effective support for small businesses to save jobs?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I'm disappointed that the member believes that investing in education is of low value.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: What does a 4.5 percent fall in GDP, as forecast by the Reserve Bank for this year, mean for Kiwi families?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I think Kiwi families are well aware of the fact that we are facing a one-in-100-year shock to our economy and our society. I said, as far back in this House as 17 March, that we would be in for a significant shock to the economy that inevitably would see GDP go down and inevitably would see debt and deficits. That is what happens. The good news for New Zealanders and the good news for Kiwi families is that we came into this with a very strong fiscal position, which enables us to be able to come out the other side strongly.
David Seymour: Supplementary.
SPEAKER: Before the member asks the supplementary, I'll indicate that the Clerk's Office has just been informed that there's been a transfer of supplementaries to the member, which breaches the rules which require the indication to the Speaker's office before the House sits. Last week, I stopped the Green Party asking questions because I wasn't told before the House sat of the transfer of questions from another party. I am, however, prepared, on this occasion, in order to allow for accountability—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Seek leave.
SPEAKER: No, I'm not going to seek leave, because it's not in the Standing Orders; it's one of the office practices. I am going to allow the member to ask the two supplementaries, but this is the last occasion where it occurs where the proper processes are not followed. David Seymour.
David Seymour: Mr Speaker, thank you for that forbearance. Can he tell the House to what extent the Government intends to take advantage of reports just now that the Reserve Bank will increase its Large Scale Asset Purchase programme from a value of $33 billion, previously announced, to $60 billion? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: All matters to do with the Government's intentions around borrowing will be covered tomorrow.
David Seymour: How does the Minister intend to repay $60 billion of money issued in return for Government assets by the Reserve Bank?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I believe that you'll find that the Reserve Bank has created an envelope of borrowing that is possible. That doesn't mean the Government would necessarily take it all up or that the Reserve Bank would use it all. What I would say is that in our history in New Zealand, we have had times where we have needed to borrow money in order to be able to make sure that New Zealanders get through a crisis and come out the other side. The answer to that, for me, is making sure that we support people to get into work, to be productive, to grow our economy sustainably. The answer is not cuts and austerity.




Question No. 5—Education
5. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) to the Associate Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made regarding support for playcentres?
Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Associate Minister of Education): Minister Hipkins and I were pleased to announce extra funding of $3.1 million over the next four years from Budget 2020. Playcentres are an iconic part of the New Zealand early learning landscape and they have been struggling in recent years to remain sustainable so that they can continue to provide a unique early learning choice to around 9,500 children and their families.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: For those MPs looking for a new career, why is it important that Government support early learning, parent-led environments such as playcentre?
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Playcentre, as it became known in 1973, had its roots in the progressive educational ideas of the 1930s, which placed new emphasis on early childhood and what we now accept as the norm—that children learn through play. But they also support the learning of parents to be better parents, and this is their unique value to New Zealand.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: To ask the crunch question, when was the last time there was a proper increase to playcentre funding rates?
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Playcentre received a cost adjustment in this Government's first two Budgets of 1.6 percent in 2018 and then 1.8 percent in 2019. But aside from cost adjustments, the last major increase to playcentre funding rates was in 2006—14 years ago when New Zealand First was part of that Government.




Question No. 6—Education
6. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What action is the Government taking in Budget 2020 to strengthen and support home-based early childhood education?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Home-based early childhood education (ECE) has been the fastest growing part of the early childhood sector. We're working to ensure that, in the future at least, 80 percent of the home-based educator workforce will hold a required qualification to ensure better and more consistent quality. In this year's Budget, we're investing $36.2 million of additional funding over the next four years to support home-based early learning services' transition to a more professionalised educator workforce. This will lift the quality funding rate for home-based early childhood education by 5.4 percent from 1 January.
Kiritapu Allan: How will this funding support home-based early childhood education services that do not yet qualify for the quality rate to support their educators to be qualified?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It's important to note that there are two rates of funding for home-based services. One is the standard rate and the other is the quality rate for services that have higher levels of qualification. Budget 2020 is providing fees assistance for educators who otherwise wouldn't be able to access fees-free. This funding will provide tertiary fees assistance for up to 2,600 home-based educators. Home-based visiting teachers are likely to experience an increase in their workload as they support those educators to gain their level 4 ECE qualifications, and to recognise this, the Budget is providing additional payments for those who are studying and increasing the visiting teacher hours' allocation by five hours per week.
Kiritapu Allan: When can home-based early childhood education services expect to hear more about the phasing in of strengthened quality requirements?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We've been working very closely with the sector to develop the reform programme and the implementation plan for that, and I expect to be able to announce new regulatory requirements and the time frames around their implementation within the next month.




Question No. 7—Health
7. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister of Health: Has he received any specific advice on the mental health implications of limiting funerals to 10 people; if so, will he commit to releasing this advice in full this week?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): As I said yesterday, the issue of attendance at funerals is one of the most difficult that has faced the Government during the COVID-19 pandemic. I completely understand the desire of people to gather and grieve together. This morning, I spoke with a number of funeral directors, the Prime Minister spoke with church leaders, and I understand Ministers Henare and Davis have spoken with iwi leaders. We are listening and we are consulting. We hear the concerns and I'm confident that we will find a workable solution that keeps people safe and allows more flexibility around funerals and tangihanga. In answer to the member's specific question about advice, the answer is no.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: You're not going to release the advice?
Hon Michael Woodhouse: No, he hasn't got any.
Hon Louise Upston: Didn't ask for any. Does he agree—
SPEAKER: Order! Does the member want to ask a supplementary? 
Hon Louise Upston: Yes, a supplementary. 
SPEAKER: Well, the member should ask a supplementary. 
Hon Louise Upston: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does he agree that it is easier to trace 100 family members at a funeral than 100 strangers at a restaurant, and, if not, why not?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The member raises a hypothetical question. Obviously, it would depend upon the individual circumstances of the gatherings.
Hon Louise Upston: Does he accept that the Prime Minister stating that 100 people would be allowed to gather last Thursday, only to change that on Monday, has added to the enormous distress caused, and that the Prime Minister shouldn't have changed her mind, reducing the number to 10?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I reject the premise of the member's question. 
Hon Chris Hipkins: Which does he think would cause the most distress for New Zealanders: taking our time to ensure that we get the transition right or risking a further spike in COVID cases, resulting in harsher measures in the future?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Of course getting this transition right is the most important thing. We want to make sure that we lock in the gains that have been made. New Zealanders have made considerable sacrifice, and what we don't want to see is the situation we've seen overseas where people attending large funerals have experienced extra tragedy because people at the funerals have become infected with coronavirus.
Hon Louise Upston: How does he respond to the Cambridge funeral director who said families are being left with lifelong scars because of the unreasonable restrictions that he is attempting to defend today of the Prime Minister saying 100 people last week and then this week dropping it back to 10?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: What I would say is that my heart goes out to any family that is grieving. Considerable sacrifices have been made by New Zealanders in recent weeks, and losing a loved one is always difficult. I do accept that current restrictions on funerals have been tough for many New Zealanders over those recent weeks. These restrictions were not introduced lightly. They were introduced to help keep us all safe and avoid situations such as those we've seen overseas that I've just mentioned, which have led to the transmission of COVID-19. I do expect to have more to say about the handling of funerals shortly. And I'd also note that no one needs to feel alone at this time. We have made a range of mental health supports available for people, including those who are grieving, and I would encourage people in distress to seek out help.
Hon Louise Upston: Does he understand why a daughter mourning the death of her father feels that "They have no empathy for families in mourning.", and, if so, will he commit and announce today a changing of the rules on funerals and tangihanga, with the public health evidence that goes with it, to let New Zealanders grieve?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Obviously, grief at any time is a very difficult thing for people to go through, and my sympathy goes out to that family.
Hon Louise Upston: I seek leave to table a letter from Grinter's Funeral Home in Cambridge that talks about families being left with—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Is there any objection to that letter being tabled? There appears to be none.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.




Question No. 8—Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media
8. KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) to the Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media: How is the Government improving broadband access in rural and regional communities?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media): The Government is investing in rural and regional network capacity in order to increase connectivity and the wellbeing of isolated communities as New Zealand's economy recovers from COVID-19. I'd like to thank the Minister Shane Jones, who I worked with to announce a recent package which allocated $15 million for upgrading existing rural mobile towers which are at capacity, upgrading wireless backhaul which connects remote sites to central networks, and installing external antennas on households to improve coverage. This investment in rural capacity will allow the upgrade of existing mobile towers to bring broadband services to up to 8,000 households in areas where they have limited or no connectivity. The capacity upgrades can be implemented relatively quickly to provide urgently needed connectivity.
Kieran McAnulty: Why is it important to improve connectivity for New Zealanders who live in rural and regional communities?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: With the impacts of COVID-19 seeing increasing numbers of New Zealanders using broadband for education, work, and maintaining links with friends and whānau, connectivity is more important than ever before. Upgrading infrastructure is likely to be the fastest way to provide broadband to rural households where there is currently coverage but the towers are at or near capacity. Broadband connectivity is crucial to assist economic activity in rural areas where capacity upgrades are urgent.
Kieran McAnulty: What other work is the Government doing to improve rural connectivity?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: There's been plenty of activity to address connectivity issues in the last 2½ years. On top of the major programmes, there has been additional investment to increase connectivity, there's been the expansion of the Rural Broadband Initiative 2 and the Mobile Black Spots Fund in late December 2018, which saw a $100 million investment; also the West Coast connectivity package, which came out of the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF), of $45 million; and, in February 2019, the Māori connectivity project and digital hubs—again, out of the PGF—which was an additional investment of $21 million.




Question No. 9—Regional Economic Development
9. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: What statements or actions, if any, has he made or taken to protect the 100 Air New Zealand heavy engineering workshop jobs in Nelson at threat from proposed closure?
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): Naturally, the COVID experience has been harrowing for the employees of entities such as Air New Zealand. Funnily enough, the CEO of Air New Zealand has reached out to me. One of the items that I will be discussing with him when we have said meeting will be concerns that I've heard from Whangarei, Kerikeri, Nelson, and Rotorua.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was what statements or actions had he specifically taken. I don't think he addressed that.
SPEAKER: Well, I think I heard that the Minister had agreed to meet with Mr Foran.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he support the proposed closure of the regional maintenance facility in Nelson that will cost regional New Zealand over 100 jobs?
Hon SHANE JONES: The Crown has allocated—by way, I think, of convertible note—nigh on a billion dollars to our national carrier. The final shape and form of the Crown's interest in that national carrier is a matter for the future. However, we have inherited an operational model that, despite my zest for better outcomes, prohibits Ministers from running the operations of Air New Zealand. But my thoughts are most certainly with the employees as they go through this harrowing experience all throughout our provinces.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Has he made any representations to the Minister of Transport or Finance to tag the $900 million of Government support for Air New Zealand to jobs or services to the regions?
Hon SHANE JONES: The member would be aware there are a host of fiscal injections. One has already been made into the operations of Air New Zealand, and another still exists, where airlines that, arguably, are competitors with Air New Zealand—certainly, in those areas where Air New Zealand long since neglected. It seems to me that once we know what exactly the petition says, then we'll be in a position to ascertain what, if anything, Ministers can do, given the vast gulf between the operations of that company and the money that was required by them to keep their operations in a robust form.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why has he made no public statement in support of the regional maintenance facility and the 100 affected skilled engineering jobs, when he has on 17 previous occasions made public statements on Air New Zealand's operational matters?
Hon SHANE JONES: Yes, I have practised my verbal skills in relation to the model which Christopher Luxon ran, and now he's on his way as the putative leader on the other side of the House. COVID requires a very judicious approach to the affairs of companies as important as Air New Zealand, and, as I have said—as I have explained—once the opportunity arises I will meet with the CEO and relevant executive. I would say that the Nelson economy has many other arrows to its fiscal quiver. One of those is the actual Waimea Dam. I am actively pursuing in what way, as the provincial champion, I can futureproof said dam.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with the lead petitioner of the petition tabled today of over 16,000 people, Mr Willie Snowden, that his lack of support for the retention of these 100 high-rate jobs in regional New Zealand makes a mockery of his self-proclaimed title as the champion of the regions?
Hon SHANE JONES: It will require more than one random, indiscriminate, hurtful remark for that crown to be removed from my head. The person, Mr Snowden—I do not know the individual, and I do not wish to speak against such an individual coming and using his rights as a citizen to petition Parliament. But any suggestion that Air New Zealand can be directed by a single Minister as to how they deploy the $960 million—unfortunately, I'm blocked constitutionally by doing so. That's as a consequence of the last regime that that former Minister was a part of.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Both this Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have claimed that legislative changes made by National prevented the Minister—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! I know the member doesn't like me interrupting—he will resume his seat—but right from the first phrase it becomes clear that he is indicating his unhappiness with the answer, and possibly with the accuracy of the answer. If that's what he's intending to do, he should stop now. If he has a point of order he will point out the Standing Order and then move on to it.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave of the House to table the response from the Parliamentary Library with regard to the specific actions that were taken with respect to Air New Zealand that disprove the claims made by the Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister.
SPEAKER: Well, what I'm going to do is take the first phrase that the member used, rather than the rest of it, and seek the leave of the House for that document to be tabled. Is there any objection? There is none.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.




Question No. 10—Health
10. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all the Government's statements and actions on coronavirus management at Waitakere Hospital?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Yes, in their full context, which includes the information available at the time.
Dr Shane Reti: How many people associated with Waitakere Hospital have developed coronavirus infection, apart from those admitted from St Margaret's?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I don't have the exact figures in that respect in front of me. Obviously, that's a matter that the clinicians have judged and will count in the particular cluster. I'm happy to supply the member with a written answer if he wants to put down a written specific question of that nature.
Dr Shane Reti: Further to that reply, does he accept Waitakere Hospital is a cluster; and, if so, why is it not listed on the Ministry of Health website as such?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I'm happy to come back to the member with a specific answer on that. I'm sure it has to do with the way in which clusters are categorised. My understanding, though—and I stand to be corrected on this—is that it's regarded as the St Margaret's Rest Home cluster because, indeed, that's where the residents were that were being cared for in the Waitakere Hospital, and that only a limited number of people beyond that have been infected. And I would expect that that's probably why it doesn't meet the definition of a cluster in the terms that the member is suggesting.
Dr Shane Reti: How is it a "textbook management of coronavirus", that he has previously stated, when Waitakere Hospital nursing staff were required to move between coronavirus patients one day—
SPEAKER: Order! The member will start again, and I'll ask the members on my left to stop interrupting their colleague. Yes, I did work out who it was, Mr Bridges. Start again.
Dr Shane Reti: How is it a "textbook management of coronavirus", that he has previously stated, when Waitakere Hospital nursing staff were required to move between coronavirus patients one day and virus-free wards the next day?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Whilst I don't quite agree with the way that the member's running sentences together there, what I do know is that infection control is a clinical matter best left to clinical experts.
Hon Alfred Ngaro: What does he say to the son who writes this morning, "My mother went into Waitakere Hospital six weeks ago for a bladder infection, but now it seems they have infected my old mother. I'm very angry. The chances of her surviving will be remote."?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I am not familiar with the specifics of that person's case and would not expect to be. Those are individual clinical matters, obviously of a personal nature. But, obviously, anybody who is suffering at this time has my sympathy.




Question No. 11—Health
11. GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made about support for frontline health workers dealing with COVID-19?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Yesterday was International Nurses Day. Moreover, this year is also the International Year of the Nurse and Midwife. I took the opportunity to thank 60,000 nurses for the excellent work that they do every day. Their work is particularly visible to the public this year in that the work they're doing to test, contact trace, and care for COVID-19 patients is reported on daily. I also took this opportunity to announce three new initiatives to support our front-line health and disability workers, like our nurses. These are, firstly, temporary accommodation; secondly, counselling support; and, thirdly, a new clinical advice phone number.
Greg O'Connor: Who can use these services?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The $10 million ring-fenced accommodation fund will help protect vulnerable loved ones and help staff to continue delivering essential health and disability services during the COVID period. People who work in close contact with patients qualify if they have been redeployed to another region because of COVID-19, or if they live with a vulnerable person who is at a higher risk of severe illness should they contract COVID-19. This includes people who are aged 70 and over and/or have certain health conditions. The full list of conditions and criteria are listed on the Ministry of Health's website. We do want to keep all families safe and free from COVID-19, and this accommodation will help us to do that. Additionally, the clinical support phone line can be accessed by medical professionals working in the community, and the counselling support phone line is available for anyone who works in a health setting who needs to talk.
Greg O'Connor: What other support is available to front-line workers needing further mental health support?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: We are a Government who take mental health seriously. Throughout the COVID-19 lockdown, we made sure that mental health services continued as an essential service. We also put an additional $15 million aside for mental health supports that could be accessed by the New Zealand public from home, as well as the tailored support for our front-line workers which I announced yesterday.




Question No. 12—Health
12. SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by the restrictions for alert level 2?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Yes. In particular, I stand by the precautionary approach we are taking. Nobody wants to see us return to alert level 3 or 4.
Simon O'Connor: Which part of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act relating to the freedom of religion did he consider when agreeing to the restrictions on all religious practice—in particular the very small quote, "Every person has the right to manifest that person's religion … in community with others,"?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: My understanding is that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet was mindful of those particular issues and worked through them.
Simon O'Connor: Would the Minister like to reconsider his answer, considering that the legal advice given to the Minister and in regards to the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill explicitly did not mention the right to religious freedom at all?
SPEAKER: I don't think you can explicitly not mention something, but anyway.
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I apologise if I misspoke. It's certainly something that I'm aware of, and it is certainly something that has been discussed.
Simon O'Connor: Will he be having conversations with the Minister of Justice or the Attorney-General or officials to complain and point out the glaring lack of any mention of the right to religious freedom in the advice given to Government?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Certainly at different times, when I have received or seen advice around these issues, what has been made clear is that what is being considered here is a proportionate approach, whereby people can still meet—obviously, in groups of up to 10—to practise their religion in a normal way. They can also, of course, use online tools, as are being used by many churches and mosques and other religious faiths. And, of course, if they are appropriately social distancing, people can use freedom of expression in public places too.
Simon O'Connor: In light of proportionality, is the Minister aware that strip clubs are allowed to open during alert level 2 but churches are not, and, if so, why is one deemed so much safer than the other?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I think the member will understand—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Please, I don't want to show any personal interest in the answer to this, but I would like to hear it.
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I think the member will understand—both he and I are people that have interacted with churches; that I know—that people often attend services of worship for fellowship reasons. They are there to worship; they are also there to mix and mingle with others.
Hon Simon Bridges: What are they at the strip club for?
SPEAKER: Order! Order! I don't expect that to be answered.
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The purpose of having rules around gatherings—places people gather to intermingle—is precisely to ensure that we are keeping the space for people, the appropriate social distance, and keeping the virus out. In commercial premises, there will be requirements on people, of course, to make sure that different groups are not mingling together. That is a different purpose that people go to restaurants and clubs and pubs for, and that is the issue at hand here. I think the member will understand that I have no desire to keep people from engaging in their religious freedoms any longer than is necessary, but I also know that all New Zealanders do not want to see us go back to a previous level. All New Zealanders want to bank the hard work and sacrifices they have made, and that is why we want to keep moving forward, and slowly but surely, in a safe way, make sure that we are opening our economy and doing so in a safe way.
Simon O'Connor: Can the Minister advise the House whether receiving bread and wine as communion at church will mean that it could be classified as a restaurant and therefore allow 100 attendees, or should it remain a church and be restricted to 10.
SPEAKER: No. Order! Order! I consider that ironic, and some people would find it offensive.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Can the Minister confirm that faith-based organisations are persons conducting a business or undertaking under the Health and Safety at Work Act, and why does he not believe they can discharge their responsibilities under that legislation safely?
SPEAKER: Order! That is not an issue for this Minister. The supplementaries have now all been used.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just in respect of that question, it was the Minister himself that pointed out that the obligations on strip clubs were different from churches, and I was simply—perhaps I should not have inferred from that answer that he was referring to their obligations to provide a safe premise.
SPEAKER: I think he was probably referring to the obligations under the various pieces of legislation that we are passing—or are before the House at the moment. He certainly, as the member is aware, is not responsible for workplace safety matters.
 





GENERAL DEBATE
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. 
Today, we've had the devastating assessment from the Reserve Bank, just at 2 o'clock, predicting that 150,000 jobs will be lost across this country over the next three months to September. That's 150,000 families that will be affected hugely by the crisis that has been started by the COVID-19. We'll be paying a very heavy price for that virus and our response to it. Lives will be capsized, a huge number of small businesses will fall over, and it won't be because the owners of those businesses weren't up to it, or that they shouldn't have been in business; it will be because they've been told that they can't trade—for 49 days now, seven weeks. They haven't been able to open up and make a living—they've wanted to and they haven't been able to—and there will be many, many families and businesses across this country under enormous stress, and that'll be having an impact on their wellbeing. So we're going a day before the Budget, at a time of real economic challenges for this country, and so there are two relevant questions that we should be considering. One is: are we making the situation worse than we need to be? And, secondly: how do we get out of it? Those are the critical questions that New Zealanders will be asking.
And so, on the first—look, we've supported many of the things that this Government has done in response to this crisis. The move to level 4 at the start was something that many New Zealanders supported, and the wage subsidy got cash into the hands of many businesses quickly and sustained many jobs at the start. But it quickly became very obvious, as we looked over each passing week and looked across the Tasman, where they didn't stop many of their people working in construction, for example—a huge part of the economy carried on as normal—and it was quickly apparent that the outcomes in health terms were manageable; in fact, very similar. So there is a question to be raised about the speed and agility with which the Government responded. I was shocked—
Hon Andrew Little: He's got to dig his head out of the sand.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The Minister may grumble and complain, but I was shocked when I saw the papers from Cabinet on 14 April talking about whether to move out of level 4. There was absolutely no reference to what was happening across the Tasman. And that, I think, was a bit slow to react.
Secondly, it's a question of effective support for small businesses. Like I say, there's been very great success with the wage subsidy. Of course, most of that money has gone to workers rather than to the businesses, and businesses, when they're being forced to shut down, have had to continue paying their rents—
Hon Andrew Little: Who paid the workers? Oh, the business did!
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yeah, and they need to continue to pay their rents, and they need to continue to be able to pay all the many other costs that businesses have to face. [Interruption] And we've had a slight implication from this side of the House that it's somehow the businesses' fault that they can't trade, but they have been told that they can't, and that is why getting cash into the hands of those businesses has been essential. There's been a number of rinky-dink schemes put together, with low interest rate loans—the Government sharing 80 percent of the loans through the banks—which have been a complete flop and haven't worked. There have been others that have been slow to come about, and so we are hoping that tomorrow in the Budget there will be some more effective relief for those businesses.
The second question is about how we make it productive in this one-metre world, or the two-metre world, that we're operating in, and if we get that overly rigid, it will be difficult. Even at level 2, which we're going into tomorrow—and level 1, hopefully, which we'll get to in a few weeks' time—there are still many Kiwis who won't be able to work, and they won't be able to work productively. That will cost more jobs and make it more difficult for New Zealand families. So we need to respond quickly and effectively. Then, as we come out of this, we need a clear growth plan, and it can't just be a Budget tomorrow to which the answer and the plan is simply spend, spend, spend, because that will help in some instances but the quality of the spending is critical and the delivery of projects that are announced is also critical. This Government does have a record of being very good at making a lot of announcements, particularly around shovel-ready infrastructure. And we've had Mr Jones wielding the shovel all around the country for a very long time and announcing things three or four times, maybe five times, and I, no doubt, anticipate on Monday he'll be wheeling himself out into the regions and announcing a whole lot of projects again. But New Zealanders have to be aware that the delivery of this Government hasn't matched the announcements, and that's the critical thing.
So we want to see announcements about support for businesses in order to continue to save jobs, and we want to see projects that are actually delivered. And, most importantly, we need a Government that trusts New Zealanders—that trusts New Zealanders to make the judgment about how they and their family and their businesses can get themselves back up on their feet quickly. We don't assume that the Government has all the answers, but the Government does its job in creating an environment where people feel confident to invest in their businesses—they know that they're not going to be overtaxed; they're not going to be over-regulated; that the rules won't change all the time; that they can invest with confidence; and that they will be supported by a Government that invests in good quality infrastructure, such as the ultra-fast broadband that we invested in over the years. It'll be interesting to see who comes up next from the Government. If they repeat the fake news that we heard from the Prime Minister today, that somehow people are suggesting swingeing cuts and austerity to essential services—there is not a soul on this side of the House that is talking about cuts to essential services.
SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired.





Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): What New Zealanders have achieved over the last seven weeks is as humbling as it is impressive. We moved hard and fast as the COVID outbreak started to arrive in New Zealand. We moved into lockdown far sooner than other countries did, and, as a result of that, we didn't just flatten the curve, we squashed it. All New Zealanders—all 5 million New Zealanders—who have made significant sacrifices over the last seven weeks can reflect on that period with a significant degree of pride. It was an enormous act of compassion towards one another, where healthy people stayed home—healthy people, in fact, offered up their freedoms and liberties, the things that they would normally take for granted, because they recognised that some who were less fortunate, some who were more at risk, needed their protection and that the way that they could protect them was to stay home and save lives. And New Zealanders did it, and they did it willingly, and the fact that we are in such a good position as we move into level 2 tomorrow is a reflection of the hard work and the contribution that all New Zealanders have made.
Level 4 and then, latterly, level 3 have been really challenging times for New Zealanders. I want to particularly acknowledge all of those who have had difficult domestic arrangements during the lockdown period. For people who have been in large families in small households, it will have had its challenges. For those who have young children at home—I can speak from personal experience that has its challenges. Families haven't been able to rely on the things they normally would rely on. They can't take their kids to the playground. They can't even take a drive down to the supermarket with their kids in order to fill in a little bit of time. The sorts of things that families would normally do haven't been on offer during the lockdown period, and that's come at a significant cost to New Zealanders. I think the fact that we have survived through that, that we have marched through that with the spirit that New Zealanders have, with everything from the bear hunts—remember the bear hunts in the first few weeks of the lockdown?—to the Easter egg hunts, to standing at dawn at the end of our driveways on Anzac Day, shows, I think, that New Zealanders have embraced the spirit of the COVID-19 lockdown in a way that we can all be incredibly proud of.
But COVID-19 is not gone yet, and the risk of a further spike in cases of COVID-19 in New Zealand continues to be with us, and we have to remain vigilant, and we have to continue to do our bit. There will be some New Zealanders who think "Mission accomplished, job done." My message to them is: don't speak too soon. We've still got a way to go. And so, for some of those New Zealanders who were a bit gung-ho going into the lockdown in the first place and who are very gung-ho coming out of it on the other side, my message to them is: think about your fellow New Zealanders. You might not feel a great sense of risk to you, but, actually, there'll be people around you who are still at risk, and we all need to take action to keep them safe.
Our restrictions at level 2 are significantly less than they were at level 4 and then at level 3. The move from level 4 to level 3 was a relatively minor one compared to the move that we will make tonight when we move from level 3 to level 2. We will get much, much more freedom now than we have had over the last seven weeks, and we all need to be responsible in how we use that. I do trust New Zealanders—that they are going to do the right thing. 
In fact, to some extent, as the Minister of Education, I've got a little bit of a concern that New Zealanders are going to be a bit too slow in moving to level 2, and that there'll still be quite a lot of kids kept at home for no good reason, because their parents are a little bit nervous. I can understand that, and I do think we're going to need to take a little bit of a tolerant approach to that at the moment. It is safe for parents at level 2 to send their kids back into school and into early childhood education environments. The Government would not have made this decision if it wasn't safe for them to do so, and we do need them to send their kids back, because it's good for their learning and we need them to go back to work, because it's good for the overall health of New Zealand's economy and society. But I can understand their nervousness, and I think that we'll need to show some tolerance towards one another as all New Zealanders adjust to the new realities under alert level 2.
I think that New Zealanders have shown over the last seven weeks that we do appreciate how significant the challenge of COVID-19 is. We've seen the headlines from around the world, and we have collectively, as a team of 5 million said, "That will not be us." We need to keep that spirit alive in the coming weeks as we continue to make sure that we don't see a big outbreak of COVID-19 here in Aotearoa New Zealand.





Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): I want to take a moment at the outset of this speech to acknowledge all of our doctors, our grocery workers, our teachers, and our nurses, who have been at the front line of COVID-19. I also want to take a moment to acknowledge our public servants. We are on the back of one of the most challenging events in our history, and, on this side of the House, we absolutely supported the Government to flatten the curve. We have done very well as a nation in flattening the curve and reducing the virus in society, but the huge debate—and that we are on the eve of seeing the true cost of this to our country—has been whether you go after the needle in the haystack, whether you eliminate or try to eliminate the virus to the nth degree, and then the cost to the country of that. On this side of the House, we do believe that there have been major issues in the Government's response. We acknowledge that they have been dealing with a fast-evolving, difficult situation, but we have to continue to expect more of our parliamentarians and our Government than ever before at this time in our history.
So the first thing that we raise is that process matters. It matters if a lockdown is legal. We deserve, as a country, to know the answer to that, and there are many questions that are being asked about that. We also deserve more than 24 hours' notice on a piece of legislation that is going to impact the freedom of New Zealanders, whether that is religious freedom, whether that is freedom of association. On this side of the House, we have said that, with a reduced media, with significant police powers, with a reduced Parliament, it is entirely appropriate to expect a larger lead-in time than that on a piece of legislation as important as this legislation. So process does matter, and we would say never more than in a national emergency is it important to get to the table with the Opposition and work that through. And what played out today—and we've seen a bit of a backdown from the Government—is that people in New Zealand said, "Hang on a second. We believe in reducing the public health impacts of COVID-19, but we expect you as leaders to be able to explain your public health rationale for restaurants versus schools versus funerals and tangi." That is entirely reasonable. On this side of the House, we will continue to ask for maximum transparency around the decisions at a public health level, and that is what New Zealanders would expect from us.
So, tomorrow, we will see the extent and scale of the damage. We have reports coming out at the moment that indicate that we could have around 150,000 jobs as a result of this event. People are, naturally, looking at the OECD information and saying, "Why is it that Australia could have similar outcomes as New Zealand and could have such a larger-scale impact in terms of economic activity?" And that is a reasonable question. So, when the Budget is read tomorrow, New Zealanders will be asked to reflect on what would have been the normal course of damage as a result of a global pandemic versus what could have been the damage as a result of the Prime Minister's decision to pursue elimination. Because of the impact on generations of New Zealanders, in terms of debt, it is entirely appropriate to ask the question whether my niece and nephew, whether those students at university, are going to be dealing with a $50,000 bill as a result of COVID or a $40,000 bill because of the time that it will take for generations, for us, to pay that back.
We also believe, on this side of the House, that debt is an important argument to be had but that we do need to spend to ensure that we deal with—and the Prime Minister said—and address the significant blow for many families as a result of COVID-19. We believe that at the heart of that rebuild and recovery is our education system. What we expect to see tomorrow in the Budget is the Government addressing a range of things: dealing with the financial viability of schools, dealing with the financial viability of our international education sector, and ensuring that there is a reasonable plan to bring international students back to New Zealand. We do expect to see funding in the Budget to address, as I have said, the drop in international students and the real issues around fund-raising for our schools. We expect to see a large-scale skills plan for New Zealand, because we understand that the scale of job loss and displacement means that we need to have a very clear and comprehensive plan to upskill New Zealanders to deal with this significant issue.
Thank you to all of the New Zealanders who have been involved in the first response. On this side of the House, we will continue to put up positive plans to rebuild New Zealand.





Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I acknowledge the member who's just resumed her seat, Nikki Kaye—her remarks—and she is correct: this has been a huge challenge to the country and particularly to this House and the members in it, on this side of the House and on the other side of the House as well—a challenge for Government to come to grips with a crisis that has afflicted the world and afflicted us too, as we try to predict and respond in a way that keeps ahead of the challenge that we're seeing.
I don't think it helps, actually, terribly to make a whole lot of comparisons to different countries around the world. This crisis—this virus—has hit countries at different times. It hit us at a different time. If you want to make comparisons, let's acknowledge that, although New Zealand and Australia are reasonably comparable in the way the virus has affected us, actually, it's not quite the same. Australia has had a higher per capita infection rate. It has had a higher fatality rate. Their pubs and bars are going to be closed for a lot longer than ours. They've got another month or six weeks to wait yet, and their Parliament is closed, would you believe, until August. Here in New Zealand, we've striven to keep a level of parliamentary accountability going with the establishment of the Epidemic Response Committee, chaired by the Leader of the Opposition, as well as a bunch of other measures.
The Government has been grappling with the need to put in place an effective public health response that protects people and saves people, as well as dealing with the obvious economic impact. There is going to be one question that, I think, New Zealanders will be asking at election time, and that is: "Did you keep us safe?"—did you keep us safe? And I think this Government and, indeed, this Parliament can say—because, as the Hon Nikki Kaye said, the Opposition did support the initial measures that the Government took—New Zealanders were kept safe by the response that this Government championed in the face of COVID-19; lives have been saved as a result. When you compare what's happened to other countries, and you look at death rates, you look at infection rates, New Zealand has done remarkably well. And, as my colleague the Hon Chris Hipkins acknowledged, we didn't just flatten the curve, we squashed it.
But we're not out of the woods yet. This is the reality of this insidious bug—or, at least, this virus—that we are having to deal with: we don't know fully what the characteristics are. We don't know what might happen. Even with the 66-odd current cases that we have in New Zealand—even though we have another day where we report zero cases—we don't know what is going to happen, because people can be asymptomatic and still be a carrier of the virus. People can return successive negative tests and then return a positive one—not just 14 days after potential contact but for a lot longer after that. So we just don't know, and we have to be prepared, and we have to have a regime that allows us to adapt and adjust and be nimble and agile as we now face the next few months ahead of us. And that is what the legislation that is currently before the House allows us to do, because the blunt instrument that is the old 1956 Health Act doesn't allow us to do that. It is too blunt and too unsubtle, and we will have the powers to do that.
As well as dealing with the public health measures to keep people safe, we've also worked on keeping people's jobs in tact as much as possible and supporting business. So we've had the wage subsidy scheme—nearly $12 billion expended on that in the period since the end of March. We've had a $6.25 billion business finance guarantee scheme. We have an amazing tax refund scheme in operation right now, and the results of that have been phenomenal. And, indeed, with the Small Business Cashflow (Loan) Scheme, in just the first couple of hours that that scheme was available, 6,000 applications, and more than $100 million has been provided to businesses under that scheme. And, of course, we know that there is more to come. There is the immediate stuff and there is the long-term stuff, and that is why there is a specialist ministerial infrastructure group looking at the projects ready to go that will be the subject of good quality public investment.
We know that now we have a major job—this Government and this Parliament—to make sure that New Zealand pulls out of the impact of COVID-19 in better shape in the long term than when we went in it. This has been a challenge for everyone—everyone in New Zealand and many, many countries around the world—but New Zealand is clearly leading the way. New Zealand is looked upon by many, many countries as the country that has done it right and done it well and is going very successfully, and we should celebrate that, not pat ourselves on the back gratuitously but be thankful for what we have achieved.
SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired.





Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Mr Speaker. We've heard, I don't know how many times over the last few weeks, the importance of flattening the curve, and I don't think anyone would disagree. What we don't need to do, though, is flatten the economy or flatten the country or, what we've seen in the last 48 hours, flatten Kiwi spirits. I think about the piece of legislation that is working its way through Parliament today; it is not the piece of legislation that any of our forebears would have considered when they made New Zealand their home. What they did think about were the things that are essential to a healthy democracy and to a strong civil society: the freedom of speech, the freedom of association, the freedom of assembly, of religion, and of movement. New Zealanders have been trusted to give up some of those freedoms to flatten the curve, and I think New Zealanders have done an incredible job. And, as any electorate MP would hear, the incredible hardship that individuals and families and businesses have gone through to flatten the curve. So I ask the House: why is it now that Labour doesn't trust New Zealanders as we move into level 2? Why is it that Labour doesn't trust New Zealanders to protect themselves and to protect others from this risk?
I think, in terms of Kiwi spirit, the thing that has flattened them the most in the last few days is this absolute horror that they can't go to their chosen place of worship. A week ago, Thursday, the Prime Minister said gatherings of up to 100 people. There would've been a lot of people who then thought, "Fantastic, I can finally go back to my church, to my mosque, to my temple"—to wherever it is that they fed their soul, basically, and fed their spirit, but no. What's worse than that: this is a Government who said, for funerals, you are restricted to 10 people. And to hear the stories from individuals—I spoke to a dad this morning who still cannot understand why you can have 16 sweaty blokes in a rugby scrum but he's not allowed to have the people that fund-raised $40,000 for his wife's cancer treatment. So I ask the Government and I ask Labour members: why do you not trust New Zealanders now? Yes, absolutely, New Zealanders have played their part in flattening the curve. Why is it that they are now not trusted, that the police now have the ability to enter someone's home, business, or a marae? And that in itself—
SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat. I've let the member run for quite a long time speaking about a bill which is going to be up quite soon. She is clearly anticipating a debate, and she may not do that. This is probably the worst case of anticipating a debate I've heard.
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is also a general debate, and I have dealt with hundreds and hundreds of emails today from constituents, who I work hard to represent, who think it is an outrage that the Prime Minister announced on Monday that there is only a maximum of 10 people allowed at a funeral. This is a place of any place in this land where, as a member of Parliament, I have the right to speak freely. This is a general debate.
SPEAKER: Order! I was letting the member run, thinking that she had resumed her speech. Was that not the case? Was that a point of order?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: No.
SPEAKER: Well, the member just reflected very badly on me, and I'm going to invite her now to get on with her speech.
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I do so proudly as the member of Parliament for Taupō, because it's my job to bring their voices to this Parliament. And I thought I'd share a couple: "I think there'll be civil disobedience on the inconsistencies and emotional cruelty of the Draconian work and announcements the Parliament has"—
SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired.





Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and this is the first opportunity I've had to speak in the House post-COVID, and as I came into Parliament yesterday—
Hon Louise Upston: Unbelievable! I hope you're allowed to speak freely. Or the Speaker might shut you down.
SPEAKER: Order! The member's had her five minutes. Mr O'Connor, please start again.
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: This is the first opportunity I've had to say a few words in this House. I came back to Parliament yesterday; on my desk was "23 March", the diary for the last day that I was here. And, like many New Zealanders, we went away at that time into a period of unknown, not quite certain of what the next weeks would bring to us.
I think, like most New Zealanders, we are proud to be Kiwis. I would like to say that the efforts of each and every New Zealander—or the vast majority, with very few exceptions—over the past six weeks have been outstanding. What we have done to not eliminate but to get ahead of a virus which is ravaging the world has been outstanding—5 million Kiwis in isolation, which has given us an advantage, taking on a discipline and, I guess, adopting some practices: staying at home, like many Kiwis; long hair, a bit scruff; not too certain, many of them, of course, about their future in their jobs or their business; tough times for the vast majority of Kiwis, whatever way you look at it. Yet we've come through this to a point now where, if we maintain the discipline and the focus, if we can lock in the advantages and the progress that we've made, we will be acknowledged internationally, perhaps, as the first country to really get ahead of this virus.
I want to thank, firstly, my Prime Minister and her leadership. I want to thank my senior parliamentary and Cabinet colleagues for what they have done, in a team around here in Wellington, in making the tough calls—yes, as part of a team, but getting on and putting in a huge amount of effort—to move New Zealand into a position that, hopefully, will enable us to get back to some form of normality as quickly as possible. I'd like to acknowledge the essential workers across health, across healthcare, across the police, but also in the area of primary industries, where, early on, it was acknowledged that the production of food and the biological and seasonal cycles of agriculture and horticulture—we needed to get on and pick the grapes, pick the fruit, milk the cows, and continue to maintain the base of our economy and the biological systems that support that. That came at a huge risk. The people involved took on that challenge, maintained a discipline, made the changes, and have so far proven to deliver no major outbreak of COVID. Yes, there has been the odd case, but not in any way to contribute to a cluster. So thank you for producing the food, thank you for keeping law and order, thank you for looking after the people who need healthcare.
I've heard in the last couple of days in the House here, of course, reference to freeing things up, opening things up, moving on, as though we have beaten this—well, we have not. I guess, in the one area of freedom of religious expression—I'm a Catholic, probably not practising as much as my mother would like—but, like so many, I guess, having the privilege of understanding that there is a greater being out there, and I guess we don't all go to a church or to a location every week, or maybe every month or every year, to acknowledge our religion and our religious beliefs. I think the people who have gone online or, through their own personal ways, shown their commitment to religion can continue to do that for another week or two to ensure that we stay ahead of this. This is not some restriction on the rights of New Zealanders. We trust New Zealanders as much as we trust them across all parts of our community and our economy.
In the end, we need laws for the few people who would not choose to adhere to what we would call the conventions of our lives. That's what making the law is about—protecting us from them, them from themselves—and the few people who might not want to adhere to the social distancing, to the preventative measures that we have in place now, may be the ones that contribute to another cluster or outbreak of COVID-19, and we don't want to return to a level 4 situation. So maintaining the progress, locking that in, and moving forward, while not restricting unnecessarily the rights of New Zealanders, is the objective of this Government, and we'll continue to work collaboratively and collectively to achieve that goal.





Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I'd like to begin by sending fond greetings to the great people of New Zealand's most desirable city, Hamilton. I'm very fond of them; some of them have been remarkably tolerant of me over the years. In particular, I'd like to acknowledge the constituents of Hamilton West, and I say that with some seriousness, because over the last 12 years I've been used to seeing thousands of them at regular intervals—at community events, at festivals, at different ethnic functions, in my constituent appointments, and so forth—and this has been an extraordinary time, when we have been separated. I've got to know my own neighbours remarkably well, and what a delightful group of people they are. We live on the edge of a park, and so I've seen many of them as they've walked past with their dogs. In fact, I've seen some exhausted dogs and some very fit ones, who, I think, have had more exercise in the last two months than they had in the previous two years. But always I've been impressed by how positive people have been, by the team spirit that has been evident, and I am very grateful. That has served us well, and all New Zealanders deserve our acknowledgment and our thanks for what they have sacrificed, in many cases in very difficult circumstances, for a collective effort in getting on top of COVID. We're not entirely there yet, but we've done well, and we should acknowledge that progress.
I want to join other MPs in thanking the essential services, whether they work in the healthcare or the emergency services area, the cleaners, the drivers, the farmers—you name it. All of the people who have continued to work so hard deserve our acknowledgment, but so too do those who've worked at home and who have managed to keep small businesses going, doing whatever they can. It's been difficult and, in many cases, it's put businesses under unbearable pressure, and we understand that; that's why I hope tomorrow's Budget will recognise that, in particular the small-business owners who desperately need more wage subsidy assistance. But we do have much that we can build on. The important thing is that we get back to work; so I'm so glad that we are finally moving into level 2 tonight.
I was very glad to be able to run an art competition within the Waikato region for primary and intermediate schoolchildren to be able to thank the essential workers, and some of the schools in the area really got into it. I would love to mention all of the results. The first three year-group winners were published in the Waikato Times, or their pictures were in the Waikato Times, on Monday of this week, and year 4 should be published any day now. I will say that Kawena Daniels was highly commended in year 4 for her picture of the Prime Minister and Dr Ashley Bloomfield at their press conference, and it is an absolute delight. I do hope it'll be published. I sent it to the Prime Minister and to Dr Bloomfield, and boy, I was impressed that Dr Bloomfield wrote back to Kawena and thanked her and told her how thrilled he was with that picture. Considering how busy he was, I thought that was pretty classy—so well done.
I want to thank the public servants who've worked so hard. I mentioned them in a debate last night; now it's more appropriate for me to do that. Whether they've been in the Ministry of Social Development, where they were really swamped, particularly with wage subsidy issues but also a large number of issues to do with extra numbers going on to benefits—boy, they stepped up, and it was difficult, but they deserve our acknowledgment. So too do the officials in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. I had to contact them on several occasions, because, like all constituent MPs, I had constituents who were trapped abroad, sometimes in extraordinary places—islands off the coast of Ecuador, and that sort of thing. It's not easy to get people home from those places in the circumstances that we've faced. But I have been so impressed by all of those public servants. I want to give a big shout-out to the unflappable Alma and Sam, who've been at the other end of the elected officials email and phone line for MPs. I'm so glad we had that, because there were so many issues that we had to deal with that; without their help, we'd have really been in trouble. So they and all of the people who helped them deserve our collective thanks.
Constituents kept us incredibly busy. I have to say that, in 12 years as the MP for Hamilton West, at the local electorate level, I have never been busier. I'm actually quite glad that Parliament was adjourned, because we couldn't have coped with the parliamentary demands given the bewildering array of issues that we were having to deal with, many of which were deeply distressing, such as relatives who were unable to be with dying members of their family; those who were unable, unfortunately, to leave to be at funerals for those who had died; those I've already mentioned who were needing to access the wage subsidies; and there were thousands of businesses, including in my own area, many of whom came to us for help; those who were helping to feed the homeless—and my heart goes out to those people at any time, but I am so grateful that there were wonderful people helping to feed the homeless.
So there were great demands, but it's always a great privilege to be an MP, particularly an electorate MP, never more so than in the last few weeks. I want to thank in particular also my executive assistant, Claire Barlow, my electorate agents, all of whom have worked incredibly hard.





CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. A pleasure to rise and speak after Tim Macindoe—the Hon Tim Macindoe?—after his contributions with regard to his constituency. There have been a number of MPs and Ministers across this House who have shouted out to their constituencies. I, as one of the younger members in this Chamber, am actually amongst a constituency that a number of members of all age demographics are engaged in, and that is one of students.
There are a number of members of Parliament across this House that are actually currently engaged in a post-graduate course at Victoria University of Wellington. I see my colleague Kiritapu Allan over there, looking incredibly stoked about our class later tonight. But, to get to the core point that I'm really hoping to put across in this very brief speech today: fundamentally, I think that all of us in here can agree that education is a passport. It is an opportunity or a pathway to social mobility, to travel, to future opportunities, and to contribution. The Greens strongly believe that it is the right of all of us to be able to access that education in this country entirely unencumbered and barrier free. Everybody should have the opportunity to unlock that passion, that potential, that talent that exists inside of all of us regardless of the backgrounds that we come from, and to walk into the future with that education, unencumbered by the anchor of debt around their neck.
This is an entirely possible reality, because, in fact, student debt was only introduced in 1992. It was a choice to do that. Since then, student debt in this country has ballooned to $16 billion. The New Zealand university students' association actually held a "sweet 16", kind of lamenting exactly that fact earlier this year. The average balance for all of those who have student loans around this country is, on average, more than $22,000 per person. That is an immense amount of money for younger people in particular but also those who have lost their livelihoods and who are seeking to retrain to carry into the future as they seek to contribute. And nowhere has this commodification of the education system—the higher education system, the tertiary education system; heck, even in apprentices and in polytechs—been more obvious than in the commodification of student accommodation. It is an issue that has been brought to light, particularly in the mainstream media, over the past few weeks.
I have to say, as one of the members across this House—and I'd like to acknowledge, actually, my colleague the honourable Dr Shane Reti, who as well has decided to throw his weight behind supporting students who are seeking to not have to pay for accommodation they are not using—that the more that I have dug into this situation, as a member of Parliament, with, supposedly, all of the resources that are open to us, all of the doors that are supposed to be open to us, I have found how un-transparent, how unaccountable, and how precarious a house of cards the current situation is with student accommodation in this country. I have found out that there is an absolute patchwork of approaches not only in the eight university institutions across this country but also in the polytechs. We've discovered, for example, that the two provided private institutions by way of the Auckland University of Technology—otherwise known as AUT—actually is sold on to investors, which are able to use that accommodation in a kind of time-share type of way. They are, essentially, being guaranteed yield by those who are selling it on as investment, with students, again, being those who end up holding the bill in situations of turmoil.
Students who are in the student accommodation also are unable to access regular consumer protection. They don't have recourse to the Tenancy Tribunal. In fact, the only avenue that is available to them as a form of protection is the recently passed interim domestic pastoral care legislation, which came into effect on 1 January this year, and even that has proved ineffective. Fundamentally, that is the tip of the iceberg, but it proves that we need massive reform in this sector. We need to do massive changes in terms of increasing investment in our future.





Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): Tēnā koutou katoa. I join with the other members of the House in acknowledging the sterling efforts of our neighbours, our communities, our children, and our families in showing the resilience to go through the different phases of the COVID lockdown. We went with great rapidity into this lockdown phase and we are moving with the best of health advice and pragmatic political judgment in withdrawing from it. But I must say, in this general debate, it's very disheartening to watch the member from Taupō bring sad cases and try and improve the delivery of her speech by using them, I would say, for political purposes. I think it lowers the tone of the debate. I think it lowers the tone of the House.
And there's an awful habit that seems to have been developed by the Leader of the Opposition, who, quite frankly, is the political version of the Lonely Hearts Club, desperately seeking for companionship, looking for affirmation. Just look in the mirror. Kiwis are not wanting to see petty point-scoring; Kiwis are wanting to see the politicians bind together and work to create momentum so we come out of the COVID economic coma into a rapid ascent to better economic outcomes. So I'm very disappointed that we're actually seeing members on the other side of the House trotting out these stories. I've no doubt that there are a host of Kiwi families who have had some very sad experiences, and I happen to know a few of them, but it would never occur to me to use those stories in an attempt to hold the Minister of Health or the Leader of the House or the Minister of Justice personally responsible for that outcome. It is wrong and it will not work on 19 September.
The model that we had taken for granted in relation to economics has been inverted. There will be no more international education in the form that was developed by the last regime. International education is, obviously, very important for our secondary schools. I think it enriches the lives of the school community. It certainly opens up the eyes of fair dinkum Kiwi kids as to how their peers think, live, and relate to each other around the world and when they see it in action in their school. I took advice from Derek McCormick—the second time I've used that man's name in the House. He gave some very solid advice as to what ought to be the blend to enable universities to continue to offer a competitive menu to attract university students here.
But I give fair notice: this notion that we are going to uncritically breathe life back into the private training education sector, where young students were abused, young students were ill informed, their parents overseas went into inordinate levels of debt, and they came here desperate to achieve citizenship through courses that, quite frankly, wouldn't have matched up to third-form woodwork at St. Stephen's School in 1973—not that I excelled in woodwork; I was more interested in debate and oratory and other such matters. Although I must say, I have become something of an expert in woodwork over the break. I turned my attention to building a gardening box for my mother-in-law and my wāhine. I did avoid doing one particular thing: asking the shadow Leader of the House, Mr Brownlee, to judge said gardening box, not only because he is a genuine expert—and I don't mean that in any petty way—with building but I didn't want to ever give him the opportunity of saying, "Your tongue might be active, but your eye cannot cut a straight line."
The line that we will cut will be revealed tomorrow in the Budget. The Prime Minister has identified that jobs are central to ensuring resilience and stronger outcomes for all of our communities. And we will wait for our senior colleague Grant Robertson, who has clearly said there was the 1935-38 applied Christianity approach of the Savage Government; then, nigh on 50 years later, came the form of Roger Douglas and a host of other reformers; and now, 35 years later, Grant Robertson will have the chance tomorrow to show there is a new blend, new hope, and new momentum.





KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): It's an interesting time that we've all just lived through, isn't it? Every single day I, like every other member in this House, undoubtedly, am inundated with reflections of members of our community about how these last seven weeks, in particular, have impacted upon them. As we look to this evening, when we transition from level 3 to alert level 2, I want to acknowledge all of those parents who have had to manage juggling children and work calls and Zooms. I want to acknowledge all of those essential workers that have every single day donned their gloves, their aprons, their masks, their PPE gear to ensure that each of us could, in the best way possible, survive—or get through in the safest way possible, I might say—these extraordinary circumstances that we have all collectively walked together.
Now, I in particular want to make a couple of acknowledgments in respect of correspondence I and, undoubtedly, many members in this House have received over the last 36 hours, particularly. As we transition and as we move from a state of response to COVID-19 and we transition into the much-needed kick-starting of our economy, we have had to ensure that we have the right regulation and legal framework in place to ensure that all of us are very clear on what the rules require, that we don't have to sit in a state of emergency, and that we can, indeed, start to conduct ourselves in a life a little more closer to normal tomorrow. And with that has come the introduction of legislation in this House, which has—and rightly so—attracted a lot of commentary from all walks of life, whether that be parishioners of churches or mosques, whether that be folks concerned about civil rights and the rule of law and ensuring that law is made in the right way, or whether that be many of my friends who are actively engaged in protecting the mana motuhake and rangatiratanga of their marae, their whānau, their hapū, and iwi.
I want to acknowledge that, over the last 36 hours—and I want to say this directly to those that have, in particular, been very concerned about the role that the State has historically played in its interaction and its abuse of its powers against Māori, in particular. Today, I have heard from many, many commentators and folks who are concerned at the legislation that is passing through this House, that enables law enforcement officers to, essentially, do what they can do right now, but expressly imbues those powers into legislation—that there is significant concern. We all stood here in this House when we had to extend our apologies to those who were impacted by the wrongful and misuse of power by the State against those from Parihaka, or against those in Maungapōhatu, Ruatāhuna, with the persecution of our prophet Rua Kēnana. And it is not a light duty that sits on any members of this House's shoulders when we look at the legislation that is going through this House. It isn't without due consideration.
I want to acknowledge, in particular, my Māori electorate MP colleagues, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, Kelvin Davis, Peeni Henare, Willie Jackson, Meka Whaitiri, Tamati Coffey, who I know, over the last 36 hours, have worked tirelessly to ensure that there are adequate protections in the legislation that is being passed through this House that uphold the mana of our whānau. In particular, right now, in another room in this House, is an announcement being made that addresses the provisions around tangihanga and funerals. I want to acknowledge that that is at the behest of many voices that have expressed their deep felt concern about the practice to mourn and mourn our loved ones. So it is not lost, and these ears are not deaf to the cries of our people. There was a reference to marae being included in legislation. That was removed this morning by Supplementary Order Paper 497 under the name of the Attorney-General, the Hon David Parker, at the behest of my good colleagues the Hon Peeni Henare and senior Māori members on this side of the House—
SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired.





TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have just recently been texted by my son, who said, "Please make sure when you speak that you talk about how excited the Muller family are that level 2 kicks off tomorrow." And I will acknowledge that the Muller family are excited. The eldest is keen to go to the mall, my son is keen for basketball with his mates, and my youngest wants to have a sleepover, and my wife, quite different to Chris Hipkins' assessment, can't wait till Monday, when Aquinas College opens the doors. I do need to add to that that our family and, indeed, many families across this country do acknowledge the job well done of this Government, of the health department and its senior officials and health workers, and of an Opposition which asked the right questions through the process. It has been a collective achievement that we are all rightly proud of.
But tomorrow we walk into a new New Zealand: a country with no international tourists, a country with a massive challenge that sits in front of us. We are in a moment which historians will look back on as a crisis of this generation in terms of the scale of the economic costs that we now have to deal with as a country: 500,000 small businesses teetering on survival, a thousand people a day unemployed, and Treasury saying that that will continue for the next 150 days. Tomorrow we will see the Government's response to that crisis. It is their day; we will have numbers bandied around that are so eye-wateringly large that, perhaps, their impact will actually be lost for a moment. But there will be a sea of deficits sitting in front of us—debt incurred by this generation and the next and potentially the next.
The great test that will sit in front of this Government is: now that the country has broadly held the view that you have got us through, collectively, this health crisis, do you now have the capacity to get us through the largest economic crisis of a generation? They will fail the test. The reason they will fail the test is there simply is not enough capacity in this Government to create an economic and commercial coherence in terms of their response. You simply need to look at Cabinet. There are three or four heavy lifters and 15 empty seats, and that is what the country sees. That has been the amplification of the last few weeks. They smile and laugh, but they know it's true, because there is a complete lack of commercial experience that sits behind this Government. And we will see it tomorrow when they look and present to us their prescription for New Zealand. There won't be, at the core of their focus, a deep understanding of what those 500,000 small businesses need. They see it through the lens of expanding the Government support in terms of more debt. There's no understanding that what they needed throughout the last few weeks was cash, and cash now, and support—and not only support but a vision and a capacity to articulate a future that gave them confidence.
When you have 50,000 tourist operators standing up and saying, "Where's the leadership? Where's the leadership? Where's the vision? Where's the ability to be able to partner with us as the small businesses of this country and help us to get up off the canvas?"—there is no capacity for this Government to do this. Look at their track record. The idea that you would hand to Phil Twyford, a man who is synonymous with the failure of housing, the failure of transport—that he now is the face of economic development in this country when we are in the greatest crisis of a generation is absurd. The fact that Willie Jackson, whose contributions to this House are often rambling and personal, has the ability to grip the fact that, from an employment Minister, we have a huge challenge in front of us in terms of lifting people's assurance and confidence and skills and resilience—it is a whole-of-Government, a systemic approach that is required. And on every test apart from empathy, on every test apart from kindness, on every test around competence and coherence and commercial progress, this Government has failed, and we'll see it again tomorrow.





Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Civil Defence): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. I te tīmatanga ka noho au ki Te Reo Māori, ka mutu ka huri atu au ki te reo Pākehā. Tuatahi māku, ka tangi mōteatea ki ngā mate huhua o te wā. Ki roto i ngā wiki me ngā marama kua pahure ake nei kua rangona e māua ko taringa i te tini kua riro atu ki te pō. Nō reira, kotahi tonu te kōrero ki a rātou, haere mai, haere. Ka whakahokia mai ngā rārangi kōrero ki a tātou me tō tātou Whare e tū nei. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.
[Greetings, Mr Speaker. I will begin in Māori and then deliver in English. Firstly, I mourn tears of sorrow to the many who have passed on. In the weeks and months that have passed, word has reached my ear about the many who have gone to the night. Therefore, I say only one thing to them, return in spirit but go in peace. I will now bring my speech back to us, to those in our House. Greetings one and all.]
As I often do in this House, I like to start my contributions in Te Reo Māori, and my contribution, given its being the first since the lockdown—so it's been a number of weeks, or a couple of months, since I've had the opportunity to speak in the House—I want to start fittingly by observing a farewell to those who have passed on during this time. I want to acknowledge just how hard it has been for whānau right across Aotearoa during these particularly unknown times in our country. I myself: my father's sister passed away during this time, and we stuck to the guidelines. She passed, sadly, on a Monday morning unexpectedly, and she was buried Monday afternoon, robbing my family and I of the opportunity to express our love, our gratitude, and farewell her appropriately while also supporting my cousins and our whānau during that dark time. So I want to acknowledge the whānau across the country who are enduring times like this, and I want to say to them all: we've heard them.
In the past half hour, we've made the announcement that we have reviewed the tangihanga and the funeral guidelines. We have heard the voices of the many people across Aotearoa New Zealand who have expressed how hard it has been for them. We have spoken to funeral directors in the past 24 hours. We have spoken to iwi leaders in the past 24 hours. We have spoken to many whānau as individual MPs in this House, and I think we've made the right decision that, with strict guidelines and strict health rules around the ability to mourn for a loved one, we can continue to proceed to have 50 people attend a funeral. We've worked closely with funeral directors to make sure that those guidelines are very clear to our whānau so that they are able to mourn for their loved one who has gone on to the night. This, of course, proves rather difficult in some instances—for marae, who I want to congratulate for doing a fantastic job at responding during COVID-19 to the needs of our people while keeping them safe. But, for somebody like myself in the electorate of Tāmaki Makaurau, many of those whānau will take their loved one home. So I want to make sure, to those whānau, that the guidelines are very clear, and myself and my colleagues on this side of the House—and indeed, no doubt, across the House—on such an important issue will continue to communicate those guidelines to our constituents and our people right across the country.
On this side of the House, I am proud. I'm proud of the work that this Government has done with our coalition partners, New Zealand First; our supply and confidence partners, the Greens; and the stewardship that we've been able to lead our country on. We have navigated dark times for our country. We have now come to a point where, in the words of my grandfather, we have come too far not to go further and done too much not to do more. It's important that we remain vigilant, and I believe that the work that we're doing on this side of the House not only continues the good work that we're doing but also has an optimistic outlook for the future of our country. The other side of the House will continue to say that this is doom and gloom; on this side of the House, we say: we have a plan. I'm proud to be working alongside my colleagues of all three parties on this side of the House. I'm proud to work alongside the Māori caucus, the Māori Ministers, and their members who, in their regions, have worked hard to make sure the voices of their people have come to the fore in decision making and in the pathway that we carve ahead for ourselves.
I do want to acknowledge our whānau at home. I, myself, have received some criticism that I haven't been here to voice the concerns of my electorate of Tāmaki Makaurau. In order with your guidance, Mr Speaker, you made it very clear that the rules in this House require only a certain number of MPs and Ministers—I'm happy now to say that I'm here. Their voices, while even in my absence continued to be heard during the decision-making process, will now be heard even louder in the corridors of Parliament.
In conclusion, once again I remember those who have passed on and, in my final words, say: let's do this Aotearoa; we've come too far not to go further and we've done too much not to do more.
The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.





COVID-19 PUBLIC HEALTH RESPONSE BILL
Third Reading
Debate resumed from 12 May.
SPEAKER: When we were last debating this bill, Marama Davidson had the call, and she has three minutes and 50 seconds left if she wishes to use it. I'm not quite sure about the technical way of how we're going to get it up there.
MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Yes, I do. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will start by acknowledging where my colleague the Hon Peeni Henare just left off, which is that we have an understanding that the broad powers that have got us through alert levels 4 and 3, and now as we move into level 2, have been there because of the public health and wellbeing approach that we have put first in our Government response to COVID-19. Yes, this has absolutely restricted our movements and our freedoms, and that is because of the collective decision we have made to ensure that all people's lives are cared for as much as we possibly could, and that we wanted to make sure that we had clear restrictions and guidelines on those broad powers as we move into level 2, so that we could understand how those powers are going to be applied, when and where, and how long they will last for.
What I want to acknowledge in my closing time is that—and my colleague Mr Henare also raised it—we understand that Te Tiriti is also at the forefront of the debates that are being had in our communities at the moment regarding this COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill. That is because there is a clear understanding that, for example, warrantless entry powers on to marae, while that sits alongside warrantless entry powers on to other venues and other places and private dwellings, this sits in a context of unfair targeting long and historical and well established to Māori communities, Māori homes, and marae. That is why we are listening and being sure that it is not enough that this law might actually treat marae in the same way as those other private dwellings. That is what we are hearing and that is what I am listening to, and that people acknowledge that this bill is simply saying that rather than signalling out marae for extra treatment, we are including marae in the same treatment.
I want, as I did before the break, to assure people that, yes, we in this House do need to be accountable to monitor and review whose homes and communities and dwellings are entered into with warrantless entry; that we are keeping the data and record and reporting on those entries; that we review that reporting and that data at the newly agreed shorter review times, which I absolutely think are fantastic; and that we make it clear to the public that if the public health agenda of these broad powers are not being adhered to, there is power in this House to renege on those high orders that are being sought in this House; and that we absolutely must keep a check that the powers are being used for what they are set up to be used for, otherwise we will execute and exploit that power in this House to renege on that order that can be made. That is an extra step of accountability that was put into this bill as an example of trying to give better clarity and framework around applying these bills.
So I'm very pleased that we have been able to tighten up some of that stuff. It does not address all the valid fears and concerns. Yes, we are listening and we do need to take those on board and consider that in our ongoing monitoring and review and application of this legislation. Thank you, Madam Speaker.





Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'd like to begin my speech on the third reading of this bill in the House as I began last night. It's not the "what" that we debate; it's the "how". We know that what we need to do is to get our country back into a state where people can live normal lives, children can go to school, mums and dads can go to work, they can have time socialising, gathering around our country, whether it be in maraes or churches. That is what we all want and what we all desire. So the "what" is not in question in all our debates here in this House in regard to this bill; it's the "how". It is how this bill will give extraordinary powers in ways and in places that, for us, we object to, and we've heard the cries of the community at large, who have spoken to us about this.
Earlier on today, in the morning session of the House, in the debate around this bill, the Hon Chris Hipkins talked about the role of an Opposition, and as he recounted his time when he was here on the opposite side, as the Opposition, during the Christchurch earthquake, he saw that his responsibility as an Opposition member was to debate and to scrutinise the bills that were before the House. That's absolutely correct, and that's our role and responsibility. The issue, though, is this: the comments that he made, was it about this disease and about the rampant nature of it? The viciousness, the carelessness—that had no care and concern, whether it be by ethnicity, whether it be by social demographic. Irrespective of that, this disease would harm and hurt all peoples in its way. We understand that. But can I say to the member, to the Minister, and to the public at large: let's not let the disease determine our sense of destiny. Let's not let this disease and the fear of this disease determine the way in which we conduct ourselves both in this House and also in the public place.
Fear raises an awareness and a concern but should never be our motivation. Our motivation should always be that we lead both the country and its people and our communities with an aspiration that identifies who we are as a people. You don't step out in fear. You need to step out in faith, to believe in the vision of this country and of its people. That's how we step forward, and yet, inside this bill, it's based on a motivation of fear. As the Minister talked about, we fear the fact of what this will do to us, and yet it's a proven fact that, over the different levels of level 4 and level 3, the country has rallied together. The goodwill has been seen and shown in so many different ways that we are proud of as a country. That is the character and that's the nature.
I want to acknowledge Kiritapu Allan and what she spoke about. She's absolutely right. She talked about the history and the past. And I want to talk about, and when I spoke in my first speech, why was not the trust and confidence for Māori at the forefront of the decisions before the drafting of this bill? And this morning as I was around the place and saying karakias, I went out into the lobby—and not many of us grab a hold of the Hansard that is there. My attention was drawn to the fact of the Hansard of 1881. We remember that Act because on 5 November 1881 was the blot and the shame in our nation's history of Parihaka, where the confiscation of land and of people's rights were taken away. And that's the fear at times that people have: will we revisit the past? At different times we have. I couldn't find it there because the determination and the proclamation was actually made in October, and the Hansard finished in September, because that's when the House rose. But what I did find—and I know the Hon Shane Jones will know this—was a petition by Nu Hare, which is for Ngati Here and the Ngati Tupako hapū, which are in the Hokianga. It was the Tapawai Block, which was again confiscated and taken from them.
When I read the Hansard, the way in which our Māori people were treated, was one in which we would hang our heads in shame. And I want to say this, and the reason I mention that is that the truth is we've all got blood on our hands. We've all got guilt in our heart for the way that we have treated Māori in this land and in this country. But how this relates to Part 3 of the bill is this: Māori were given an exposure draft of the bill. Prominent members of Te Rōpū Whakakaupapa Urutā, the National Māori Pandemic Group, gave their response—a considered, a measured response. The first comment they made: "There is neither any general Treaty clause nor any obligation to have regard to the Treaty or its principles at any point of decision making or performance of functions under the Act." You see, that's the point for all of us here, not just for those that are in the governing power. What we've forgotten is this: we've not treated this relationship, this covenant relationship, with the due respect that it deserves. And if we don't do it now—and for those of you that are in this position, because there will come a day when it will change, and the same question should be asked: what are you doing to honour that relationship?
The words that we use are not "partnership"; the word is called "kawenata", which is a covenant, a sacred, moral obligation that's irrevocable. And yet we find again consistently—I asked the Minister, the Attorney-General, when did he receive that advice? I do know that advice came prior to the bill being drafted and being submitted into the House. So why, again, was it not included? None of the provisions or the submissions that were made were included in anywhere near the draft. I can read from the comments that we hear, and I want to state this. They said, "To ensure that there is no further erosion of goodwill, it is critical that the actions are proportionate and enacted in a high-trust environment. In particular, there must be recognition of the significance of marae and their expression of mana motuhake." That was prior to the drafting of the bill, and that's the point. It's not the fact that you've changed it. And I want to acknowledge the fact of the advocacy. I do. Kiritapu Allan and others that are here; the Hon Peeni Henare, the Hon Shane Jones. I know that you advocate, but, you see, there's a failure in our system—I'm going to own this; our system—where we've not taken on board what should have been included right from the start, a piece of legislation that impacts all of our people. And here's the point: if we can't get that covenant relationship right, how will we conduct ourselves for the rest of New Zealand?
This is how we conduct ourselves. When it came to the funeral directors and others, and clergy, those who conduct places of worship, we didn't trust them to be able to accommodate and put in place—when it comes to tangihanga, we weren't trusting them. And now we have; we've come half way. They said a hundred; now it's 50. When it came to places of worship, you can go to a gym where there's a hundred people, you can even go to the movie theatre, but you can't go to your place of worship, where it could be 2,000 square metres of space and yet you can't even have a hundred people in there. Why? The question is that you're not trusting the people. If we haven't had the ability to trust a covenant relationship for tangata whenua, that will impact all of us, and I say all of us. If we don't change this part of the system, we'll not learn the lessons of the past—and what I hold here is part of Hansard of 1881. I can tell you this now; we'll keep repeating it into the present and then into the future. That's the point of the debate that I put forward.
I want to finish off with my final remarks that come as this—and this comes, again, from the words that have been spoken here by the advisers, by Māori that were given an exposure draft that came prior to the bill being introduced into the House. The bill states that the Minister must have regard to advice but there is no legal compulsion to seek or take that advice. There, again, seems to be no regard to culturally informed, evidence-based decision-making. It is of great concern that the interests of Māori are not referred to at all in this section, given that all manner of enforcement powers and associated sanctions have historically and contemporaneously been used disproportionately against Māori. This absence raises alarm—this absence raises alarm. And if we can't in this nation get right, after 160 years of Westminster governance, the roles and responsibility between a covenant relationship, what we are doing today in this House by passing this bill is a breach of every other relationship, of every civil liberty, of every other citizen in this nation. If you get this one right, you get the others right. We haven't today in this House, and I own this as a "we". But, for you in power and with influence, you have the ability to decide this.
So, today, you will now own the responsibility of this bill, the consequences of it: the removal of the ability of trust and confidence in our nation, at the heart and core of the people that are critically important today. We oppose this bill on the grounds of the fact that it does not give trust and confidence. Fear is a powerful stimulant. Used in the wrong hands, it is a coercion, but used rightly it will bring protection and power to the people of this land. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call Kiritapu Allan.





KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): I want to acknowledge the remarks that have just been shared in this House by my colleague across the aisle, the Hon Alfred Ngaro, and in particular the significance of that sacred covenant which is the Treaty partnership, and I want to acknowledge those in particular, a number of incidents which give rise to some very poignant considerations for this House this afternoon. My colleague raised the 1881 invasion of Parihaka. We've heard today and we've not long ago had those descendants of Rua Kēnana, who endured the invasion in 1916 up in Maungapōhatu, and more recently in our modern history, in 2008, with Rūātoki. There are significant and real concerns that have been expressed about the use of coercive force by the State against our people, and I want to thank the honourable member for raising those considerations in this House.
I too, though, want to put things in context for right now. There have been two significant issues that have been raised by Māori over the last 36 hours in particular, as the passage of this bill has been considered in this House. One has been the inclusion of marae in particular to clause 20—which was the original—subclause (3), and I want to acknowledge the Attorney-General in particular for his considerations about where marae rightly sat. I want to acknowledge that, in particular, when that was included into this bill, the intention was to do the least harm possible and ensure the most protections that could be afforded under this piece of legislation, which, as the section 7, New Zealand Bill of Rights Act advice rightly acknowledged, is the most significant Act that passes powers to the State. So I want to acknowledge the intentions and the work done by my good friend the Attorney-General.
I also want to acknowledge that, in turn, this side of the House heard the concerns expressed loudly and up and down the country by Māori that there was a real fear about the inclusion of marae, our sacred places, into this legislation. Accordingly, after the original Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) was tabled in this House by the Attorney-General last night, he introduced an additional SOP to address that specific point this morning and extracted that term "marae" from clause 20(3), and that has been left to the side and reverted back to the original state of play, the status quo of where marae currently sit right now.
I also want to acknowledge the particular grief that has been shared in this House by our whānau up and down the country, who have expressed the desire to mourn for our people in the way that our tikanga would permit or suggest we need to convene to mourn the loss of loved ones. There have been concerns raised with me that there is a targeted provision that excludes or precludes Māori from being able to exercise our tikanga. That is not what I read in this bill, and that is not what I understand the intention to be, but I do acknowledge that there have been significant amendments, just announced today, to enable the balance of striking the correct public health considerations with people's ability to grieve—that that has been amended today. Whilst that isn't specifically needed to be addressed in this bill, I think it's important to note here, because these issues have been condensed together.
Over the last seven or so weeks, I know that our executive, on this side of the House, have worked tirelessly to ensure that at every single juncture, the decisions that they are exercising as an executive are done with the best intentions of our people at the forefront, that the public health considerations have been at the forefront, and that as we transition to level 2 this evening at 11.59, the bespoke legal framework that will be put in place at the conclusion of this debate will be ready to go by tomorrow.
I want to particularly acknowledge a raft of amendments, significantly the reduction in time from two years to three months that this bill now applies, and acknowledge the Attorney-General and all of his team, who have been working tirelessly to make sure that the settings for this bespoke piece of legislation are in place. And, without further ado, I commend this legislation to the House.





ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Speaker. All New Zealanders played their part in flattening the COVID curve. We all stayed home. We took care of our neighbours: we shopped for them, we picked up groceries, we delivered prescriptions. We cared for our community, and it was hard, but this hard action was required, and, credit where credit's due, it was well led by our Prime Minister. But that hard action was necessary because we didn't go early. Despite the Prime Minister telling us at every possible opportunity, trying to rewrite history, that we went hard and early, the fact is that our borders remained far too porous for far too long, and anyone coming back in or seeing those tourists wandering around knows that very well.
We went hard despite some of the terrible consequences that we knew would happen: the massive loss of civil liberties, tens of thousands of jobs lost, businesses collapsing, livelihoods lost, our elective surgeries cancelled, cancer diagnoses not happening, people dying alone, horrific sexual and domestic abuse, suicides, and the inability to say goodbye to our loved ones. But thanks to our efforts, we're almost at level 2. We did what was asked of us despite some of those horrible consequences. We trusted our Prime Minister, and, credit where credit's due, as I said, she led us deftly through those times, but surely, as an acknowledgment of our combined effort, that she continually thanks us for day after day, she would now treat us with some respect and give us some of the same trust that we instilled in her to keep this virus at bay at level 2?
But this bill suggests this is not the case—quite the opposite, in fact. This is, quite frankly, a "Thanks very much, but we don't trust you one iota" bill. They've introduced a piece of quite Draconian legislation that curtails our freedoms at the whim of the Prime Minister and descends us into what has been described as a police State, all rushed through under urgency, without the public scrutiny that is usually afforded to bills like this. The Government are basking in the glow of what they believe is public adoration. They're acting in the mistaken belief that their powers are limitless, that they can do what they like without question, and in that belief they have made a misstep. This bill is a giant leap too far. This is a bill that allows our Prime Minister—not the Director-General of Health, that we are so used to making decisions, but the Prime Minister waking up one day and deciding what we can and can't do, where we can and can't go, which roads we can and can't travel on, and so on.
But the real kicker is in the enforcement powers. Clause 20(3) allows a police officer to enter a private dwelling without a warrant if they have reasonable grounds to believe that people have gathered in contravention of the Prime Minister's order. I'll say that again: without a warrant. We've had fear instilled in us, and that has done something unusual. Don't get me wrong; we've done all that kind stuff I talked about earlier, but there's been a fair amount of behaviour of a different kind. Barry Soper pointed out that we've turned into a nation of "grumpy narks", sounding off at each other on Facebook, dobbing in our neighbours on the hotline, and I'm not surprised, because fear does that to people. So, when the police get a call from your terrified neighbour, believing that thousands of people will die and that everyone's to be treated as if they have the virus, telling them that you've got a gathering of potentially too many people, the police can enter your private dwelling and shut down your kid's birthday party because there may be 11 kids there.
But let's delve into that just a little bit further. We all know about drug houses. We all know about gang houses. Even in the East Coast Bays, we're not immune to these things.
David Seymour: Surely not!
ERICA STANFORD: Even in the East Coast Bays—peddling drugs and misery and targeting vulnerable people. All of these drug houses, gang pads, and dodgy premises continue to operate despite the police's best intentions and best efforts to close them down. They don't have the power to go in and enter those places without a warrant; yet here we are. Never mind that—never mind that. We're not even in level 4, we're not in level 3, but we're about to go into level 2, and here we are, setting aside the requirement of a police officer to gain a warrant before going into a private dwelling because your neighbour might think you've got too many kids at your kid's birthday party. The Government had the numbers to pass this law today to allow police to enter your home without a warrant—not because of legal firearms, not because of methamphetamine, but because the Prime Minister has decided that your kid's birthday party is too big and the cops can go in and close it down.
We did what was asked of us—99.9 percent of us followed the rules. We can be trusted. We can be treated like adults. We do not need to impose such Draconian measures and descend into some kind of police State for level 2, and for that reason, I cannot support this bill.
David Seymour: Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this a split call?
David Seymour: Doesn't have to be.
Hon Chris Hipkins: Yes.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is a split call? This is a split call.





DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to the third reading of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill. It's been quite a journey. I voted for the first two readings of this bill for a couple of reasons. It's better to have a law passed by Parliament that's been debated, even if urgently, that people can look to and know their rights. There was a chance, as this legislation progressed through the stages, that it could be made of sufficient quality that people really could rely on it to protect their rights. That was the hope. Unfortunately, as the debate on this bill has progressed, more and more dark downsides of the legislation have been revealed, and the Government has, by and large, failed to make the amendments that might have been helpful for protecting New Zealanders' rights and freedoms. That is a great shame.
Let us put on the record what some of those problems are. The range of restrictions that can be placed on New Zealanders—how they can move, where they can be, who they can see, and what sort of things can be moved in and out of a space or kept in a place—is almost limitless. The only restriction on that, as the Attorney-General has said, is, if you've got enough money, you can go to court for a judicial review. If anyone's wondering, the going rate on the street for a judicial review is about 60 grand. Not every New Zealander has a spare 60 grand to stand up for their legal rights.
Then we come to how this law is put in place—or how these orders are put in place. It's partly the director-general and partly the Minister of Health. As we debated earlier, the powers of the unelected director-general almost completely overlap the powers of the elected Minister of Health. Well, there should be accountability.
Then we come to the enforcement. The most extraordinary thing is that the bill as introduced allows the Director-General of Health to raise a rabble of enforcement officers. Originally, it was anybody can be appointed with the power to go around telling their fellow citizens what to do, issuing fines, and, potentially, landing you in jail if you disobey them. Then they said, "OK, that is outrageous. We'll just make it people that work for the Government." The ACT Party said, "Well, if you're going to do that, at the very least there should be an accountability mechanism for the people that are the victims of misconduct by these enforcement officers." The Attorney-General said, "Don't worry. All State employees are accountable." But there remains no complaint process and no accountability for the director-general who unleashes these people. And, by the way, it says "employees or those engaged by the State"; so who knows what that will mean in reality.
And then, in the case of enforcement officers and constables, they can come into any building or property, in the former case, and, in the case of constables, into a private house. I thought Erica Stanford, the MP for East Coast Bays, put it very well when she pointed out that, under this law, the protections against entry and search by the police will now be stronger for the Hell's Angels on their pad than they will be for a suspected birthday party of 11 kids. How crazy is that?
So I can't support this legislation, but I can say I've spoken on it more than any member of this House other than the member in charge. We've engaged properly. We've tried to make it better, and we can't get there.
Then we come to the politics. Where have the Green Party been? Nowhere. Nothing. Marama Davidson got up and said there have been improvements to the bill. What she forgot to say is they were proposed by the Opposition. What about New Zealand First? They've got to be one of the most politically lazy parties in this Parliament. They have done nothing. Stood by. Nada. They haven't intervened; haven't done a thing to stand up for civil liberties when it's really counted. I hope that New Zealanders reward them for that as they deserve on 19 September. Thank you, Madam Speaker.





GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I'm not one given to superlatives, but it really does give me pleasure to stand and speak on this bill, because, being a Wellington MP, I've been lucky enough to be able to come into the House as we've passed and debated various legislation. This is a very key piece of legislation that, when we look back in history—just look at the name of it: the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill. It sums it up. And every speaker and every commentator understands that this is a crucial time in our history. Whatever else happens, I don't think the country will ever be quite the same. Many of the things that happen in future—whether it's our children, who have had a new-found understanding of our Government systems, of our civil systems through daily watching at 1 o'clock our medical director of health and the Prime Minister working out; whether it's our children understanding what's happening around the world, comparing numbers in Germany, in Belarus, in Taiwan—it's a stage in history that we'll look back and say it was an excellent time; it was excellently handled.
I've heard the speakers in the Opposition today. I liken it: the Prime Minister has led this fantastic ship of State. There's a saying I'm fond of using is which is "No one ever learned to sail on a still lake." Well, we have had a storm come through on our lake, and we all, as a nation, have become better sailors. I liken the Opposition, and even the previous speaker, to those little fizz boats that come around—maybe the odd canoe—that is really having no effect on what's happening but, boy, they make a lot of noise. But what they do is highlight just how steady the ship of State has been—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: It would be preferable if we could get off the boat and on to the bill.
GREG O'CONNOR: This bill, the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill, is the very bill that could almost be the tiller of this boat, because this actually shows us right now what we need to do to keep New Zealanders safe, to keep New Zealanders in the future. And this extremely dangerous virus—you would listen to those speakers opposite and think we're talking about the common cold, we're talking about things that don't matter. Can they just be reminded, can they just watch what's happening around the world and just temper their accusations, temper their speeches accordingly? This is very serious.
I'd just like to go to the enforcement part of it. This looks terrible. We've had someone in East Coast Bays talking about, apparently, she has got a tinnie house or a drug house—no doubt full of cocaine in that part of the world—but somehow this is comparable with a children's birthday party. Just have a look at what the enforcement powers are. It just allows the police, where they believe people have gathered in contravention of an order—an existing order, an order which already exists—to ensure we remain safe for the purpose of giving people a direction to comply with the order; that's what it does. It's means that police officers—I mean, I've been a police officer for 40 years. This is a very pragmatic, workable piece. It is not going to be used to stomp on the civil rights of New Zealanders at all; it is pragmatic, because the opposite is that so called children's birthday party. For the police to have to go and get a search warrant to actually go in there to prevent this virus being moved around—just the share practicalities of that, because that's what the Opposition are asking for.
This is pragmatic. It means that where police—and I'll tell you what, every one of us here as electorate MPs will be getting calls over the weekend where there are such gatherings. And there'll be people who are obeying the law who will be very annoyed about what's happening three doors down, because they will know it will not be a group of school children there; it will be a group that probably, through intoxication, will be putting us all at risk. And it will be we as MPs who will be getting complaints that the cops didn't do anything or that the cops took five hours to go away and get a search warrant before they were actually able to enter the premises, and then next week we'll have the same people whinging and whining here because the cops didn't do anything about it on the weekend.
I have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House. It is a very pragmatic piece of legislation. It is one that will enable our ship of State—this Government—to ensure that we continue the business of looking after New Zealanders today and into future. This is a good bill.





SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I'd like to torpedo that boat. I want to bookend this speech with words from someone else who's far more eloquent than myself. He says, "when human societies lose their freedom, it's not necessarily because tyrants have taken it away. It's usually because people willingly surrender their freedom in return for protection against some external threat. And … That's what I fear we are seeing now." That's been said by Lord Sumption, the English supreme court justice and judge, discussing COVID-19 only a few days ago. I agree with Lord Sumption that this is the most anti-democratic piece of legislation being put before this Parliament. I repeat it again: it is anti-democratic. It is against the values of this democracy, this Parliament, our constitutional sovereignty. It is against the principles of law and ethics.
I am pleased to stand on this side of the House as a member of the only political party that has opposed this bill from the very start. I want the public to understand that very clearly: National alone has opposed this bill from the very beginning, and we are here now only because every other political party has supported it so far. Why do I oppose this bill so aggressively? Let me, as I phrased in a video earlier today, come to what I term the "terrible highlights". This is a bill which, effectively, gives one person enormous powers—one person. I don't actually particularly care who it is. In this case, it could be the Minister of Health or the Prime Minister; I suspect, primarily, the latter. I don't particularly care who it is. This is not a personal issue of who that person happens to be. But any constitutional democracy which puts enormous powers into the hands of one person is by definition not democratic at all.
These powers will impact on New Zealanders' daily lives in ways I suspect they can barely comprehend. Why? Because it's being rushed through Parliament; but I'll come back to that. These decisions outlined in section 11 give one person the power to say to ordinary New Zealanders where they can stay, who they can see, how they can physically distance, where they can travel, how they can carry out specialist activities. One person alone will be able to dictate to Kiwis how they'll be isolated and quarantined. They will have the power to dictate to you your place, premises, craft, vehicles, even your animals—how you, or we as Kiwis, can operate. These powers are enormous and they have been concentrated in one hand. That is wrong ethically, morally, and legally.
This bill enables the police to enter a home without a warrant. The police have never held that power at all. They have never held that power. And this bill enables police, just on reasonable cause, to enter into your home. I would suggest, even worse than that, that this bill creates a provision for enforcement officers. I prefer to think of them as State-sanctioned vigilantes. These are people who will be authorised through this bill—not police—to enforce the purposes of this Act. They are people who will be able to, effectively, be reporting on us as citizens or business owners or people who wish to go to, I don't know, church or to play sport. They will have the power not only to watch and report on what you do but to shut you down. Once again, this bill, this terrible highlight, is allowing State-sanctioned vigilantes. And I see it very similar to what was attempted to happen—well, it wasn't attempted; it was happening with those checkpoints, of which the Government seem to be completely confused about. Completely wrong, completely illegal.
Also, we are seeing, through this bill, what I have often spoken to as the Draconian and heartless rules that are being put in place around funerals and tangi, weddings, and other religious services. It is inconsistent, and one of the things that annoy myself as a student of philosophy and as a parliamentarian is inconsistency. Why it's important is that, any time the public can see inconsistency, they know something wrong is happening. As of today, we've had a slight change from the Government: that you can have up to 50 people now at a funeral. That is a good step forward—I do want to acknowledge that—but it also shows the incredible muddle which has been created here. Up to 50 people can attend a funeral. Fewer than 10 are allowed to attend any other religious ceremony—act of worship in their temple, their mosque, their church, wherever—but up to 100 people, as I pointed out in question time today, can attend the cinema. They can play rugby together—30 people can roll around in the mud. That's all perfectly legal, but less than 10 people—less than 10 people—are allowed to go and practise their faith safely. It is absolutely inconsistent, it's Draconian, and it's heartless.
As I said, I do want to acknowledge I think, particularly and exclusively around tangi, that the Government's announcement today that it's going to 50 people is a good one, and I want to say thank you to the thousands of New Zealanders who have replied to my petition in the last 24 hours. Thank you for the pressure that you've put on. New Zealanders, understand the voice you have, and we will continue to push against, as I say, these heartless, heartless rules, because as it stands now, with the changes, you literally have to be dying to go to church, to be allowed in.
I want to point out, too, that this law exists for two years—two years—and, even worse, and I'm not sure anyone's touched on this, this bill gives Cabinet the power to repeal; Cabinet, not the Parliament. That is unconstitutional. Absolutely appalling. And it's all being rushed through Parliament. No select committee. No select committee at all. They've had almost seven weeks to work on this. It's been rushed through. It is, as I have said, contemptuous, effectively, of the basics of a democracy, and particularly when we begin to think around the notions of grieving, celebration, and faith, I think it's been contemptible. Why do I say it's been contemptible? The legal advice that was put out around this bill, this bill which has the power to limit people's freedom of religion, is not mentioned at all. I would suggest that is deliberate. I think that reflects a left-wing Government's view of religion and people of faith. It is the only logical explanation I can find other than absolute bloody incompetence on behalf of officials to miss out freedom of religion from the list. They've got everything else, but not freedom of religion. Why is that? An absolute shocker. As I say, we've got a real problem.
My final thoughts, though, because we have heard from the other side that this is absolutely necessary—"We have to pass this. Thousands will die." That is blackmail. That is a bribe. That is using fear to control New Zealanders. No one in this House wants more people to die. What we're asking for—and, as I've written about recently, it's about proportionality. To come in with paternalistic moralising that somehow if we don't give over these enormous powers to one person in Government, everything's going to go wrong—that is not what we're suggesting. I want to repeat again: to use fear, effectively, which is what's being done, is a blackmail of a sort, a bribe. It's emotionalism over reason, and this continues to be demonstrated when there is engagement and questions in this House. Questions are asked of Government. They are rational. They are reasonable. They don't have to be agreed to. But all we get is emotional responses. That is not helpful.
And what are those responses? It's the tired, old emotive "This is hurting me more than it hurts you." And speeches throughout this day, as we've rushed it through Parliament—or, rather, the Government has—have been very much that moralising: "This bill, this enormous power we're giving—this hurts us. We don't really want it, but it hurts us to take it. But we know it's hurting you, too. But, you know, just accept that." That is wrong. New Zealanders need to be treated as adults. I want to put this warning out, because history is very clear about this: you treat adults in a democracy responsibly. You allow them proportionally to take back their lives. Because I put this warning there now: if we don't give it to them, they'll take it back.
I want to end as I began: "when human societies lose their freedom, it's not necessarily because tyrants have taken it away. It's usually because people willingly surrender their freedom in return for protection against some external threat. … That's what I fear we are seeing now." Wake up, New Zealand.





Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): I do want to put some important points down in my speech in a formal way, which is important at a third reading, in respect of the future interpretation of this legislation. But, before that, I do want to respond to Erica Stanford's suggestion that we could have closed the border earlier. As the Minister of Justice interjected at the time, until less than a week before we closed the border, there were about 5,000 New Zealanders—citizens and permanent residents—returning every day, and it was not possible to put them in quarantine, because you'd have quickly run out of hotel beds.
The COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill will create a bespoke and fit for purpose legal framework to support the Government's efforts to limit the spread of COVID-19 for a maximum of two years, less if COVID-19 is brought under control sooner. This bill includes the necessary powers to enforce the alert 2 measures, and I thank the House for working together to pass this bill under urgency. We have adopted further protections suggested by the Opposition. Passing this bill now is prudent as we move to level 2 on Thursday and into the next phase of our response to COVID-19. The Government's strategy for COVID-19 and the efforts of all New Zealanders have so far curbed the spread of the virus and the potential devastation it causes. It remains a precarious journey, but we have broken the chain of community transmission and reduced daily cases dramatically. There is as yet no vaccine and no cure for the virus, and our country must continue to act cautiously so that we maximise our prospect of avoiding or controlling its re-emergence to avoid the loss of life seen overseas, minimise economic damage, and prevent our health system being overwhelmed.
Unlike many other countries around the world, New Zealand is now in a position where it can restore many civil and economic freedoms—and we are. However, the current legal framework is not best suited for enforcing the necessary medium-term public health measures at level 2, where there is increased freedom of movement and more nuanced restrictions: for example, many more businesses can open, provided they take certain safety measures; and gatherings of people can be held, also provided certain precautions—limits on numbers and social distancing rules—are followed. On this side of the House, we also believe more parliamentary oversight of level 2 and future COVID-19 measures is appropriate, which this bill introduces. We consider it necessary to pass this bill under urgency to help New Zealand to alert level 2 on Thursday, as every additional day is costing New Zealanders greatly, with economic costs and current limits to liberties prolonged. Delay, in our view, also puts at risk the social consensus which underpins the voluntary compliance which epidemic prevention measures rely upon. Enforceable rules to require the minority who flout rules are still needed.
The bill is necessary to continue our response to the unprecedented challenges of COVID-19. It will allow the Minister of Health to issue orders to give effect to public health measures—for example, to require the maintenance of social distancing, prohibiting gatherings of a specified kind, and requiring people to be isolated or quarantined in specified ways. The bill creates a framework for COVID-19 orders, not the orders themselves. The Minister of Health must have regard to the advice of the Director-General of Health. The Minister of Health may have regard to decisions by Government on the level of public health measures appropriate, which may have taken into account social, economic, and other factors. The Minister of Health is required to consult with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice, who will both be concerned with the correct balance of any order, including civil liberties.
Clause 9(2) of the bill makes it clear that the Minister must be satisfied that a proposed section 11 order is appropriate to achieve the purposes of the Act. That links back to the purpose clause, clause 4, which provides the purposes of the Act: "The purpose of [the] Act is to support a public health response to COVID-19". Paragraph (c) says, amongst other things, that the response is to be proportionate. As David Seymour said in earlier stages of the debate, the structure of the decision-making is better and creates more accountability, not less. He is correct, as were the legal experts who also called for ministerial responsibility for these important decisions. The bill will give police and other authorised enforcement officials powers to enforce the orders and create a new enforcement regime for breaches of the orders. Those breaches don't always warrant criminal prosecution. The police will still exercise their discretion. They will rely mainly on education. But we will have a remedy short of prosecution, which has more serious consequences.
We've received feedback from other political parties and legal academics, who had the admittedly time-limited opportunity to review an exposure draft of the bill overnight. At the committee stage, important changes were made to the bill, some of which were in response to that feedback; so I thank them. The most significant change during the committee stage was for the automatic repeal of the bill every 90 days or another period agreed by the House. Essentially, it needs to be refreshed every 90 days, with the ability for that period to be longer—for instance, if it was just prior to the election. This is in addition to requiring every section 11 order, the equivalent of the former orders under section 70 of the Health Act, to be approved by parliamentary motion normally within 10 sitting days. The existing Health Act, which currently applies, has neither of these two protections.
Other important changes include clarifying that orders made allowing for premises to open only if specified measures are complied with, or orders prohibiting gatherings of a certain kind, don't apply to Parliament or the courts. We're clarifying that orders made under the Health Act will continue in force as if made under the bill and can be enforced as if an order was made under this bill. We're clarifying, in terms of the matters the Minister may have regard to, any decision of the Government on the level of public health measures appropriate to—those are new words—respond to those risks of COVID-19. We're clarifying that for the purposes of the bill, the range of people who can be enforcement officers will only include those employed or engaged by the Crown. We're removing any different treatment for marae in relation to powers of entry under the bill, noting, however, that we've added a requirement for the enforcement officer to report to the relevant marae committee if a power of entry was used. I note that marae were originally included to add greater protections, not take them away. However, we've listened to concerns from the Māori Council and others following our consultation with them and, accordingly, removed that reference to marae.
In terms of warrantless powers of entry under the bill, the last speaker was again wrong. I observe that broader warrantless powers already exist under section 71A of the Health Act. I don't have time to read the full suite of those powers, but they are listed at section 71A(1) and are broad. Section 71A(2) of the Health Act makes it clear a constable can enter a building—any building, which includes a private dwellinghouse—for any of those full suite of powers. Clause 20 of this bill is narrower. A warrantless power of entry into a private dwellinghouse under COVID-19 is now limited to situations where the constable has reasonable grounds to believe the limits to gatherings have been breached. This power is, in effect, limited to breaking up parties flouting the rules on gathering size. The enforcement power is intended to limit contagion risks and to enable effective track and tracing if there's an outbreak we need to get under control.
I note that the Human Rights Commissioner was mistaken in asserting there was no New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet. There was, and it was published. It concluded the power is proportionate. I normally have conduct of New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vets, but because I thought myself conflicted by my role here in having conduct of this bill, we requested the Governor-General to make the Minister of Justice the acting Attorney-General for this limited purpose of that New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet. I also repeat: the powers in this bill are narrower than under the existing Health Act, and that the orders which trigger those powers will now be subject to more oversight mechanisms by this House, as I have already covered. I commend this bill to the House.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill be now read a third time.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 57
New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Bill read a third time.





COVID-19 RESPONSE (FURTHER MANAGEMENT MEASURES) LEGISLATION BILL
In Committee
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I seek leave for the committee to debate all of the provisions of this bill as one debate. 
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 





Parts 1 and 2, Schedules 1 to 17, and clauses 1 and 2
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): This is going to be a very brief contribution to this debate. The bill, of course, has a wide range of amendments. It amends a significant numbers of Acts in response to COVID-19. 
I think that there are a couple of substantive issues around the Supplementary Order Papers that my ministerial colleague Kris Faafoi will speak to briefly just to place on record what those amendments actually do; they sit within his portfolio area.
I just want to echo the comments that I made in my second reading speech, which is to thank the COVID select committee and the Opposition and Michael Woodhouse, in particular, for helping to shepherd this bill through in a very, very tight time frame. They gave it some very thorough scrutiny given the time that they were allocated. They've come up with some very pragmatic and sensible amendments, which is the reason why we're in the committee stage, and I want to thank them again for that.





Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just a brief contribution to speak to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) number 503, which is two amendments to some of the insolvency matters within the piece of legislation. They are to Schedule 2 and Schedule 4.
This SOP makes amendments to the bill, as it was introduced, to make it clear that if any entity has already entered into an instalment arrangement in relation to any part of its tax debts with the IRD under the Tax Administration Act, section 177B, the debt under that instalment arrangement is excluded for the purposes of the business debt hibernation arrangement which is within the legislation. This means that the instalment arrangement stays in place and the Inland Revenue will not be a party to the business debt hibernation arrangement in respect of that debt. This will, we hope, incentivise businesses to start talking to the IRD now without needing to worry that any instalment arrangement that they enter into with the Inland Revenue could be changed by the business debt hibernation.
It also makes clear that where an entity enters into a business debt hibernation arrangement which does provide for the payment of sums to the Inland Revenue, for example, in respect of any debts that are not covered by a pre-existing instalment arrangement, the business debt hibernation arrangement is to be treated as a new instalment arrangement for the purposes of the Tax Administration Act. The reason for doing this is to ensure that existing procedural arrangements in the Administration Act for how the Inland Revenue deals with, effectively, rescheduled debts need to apply. This will also mean that businesses aren't penalised under tax legislation where they enter into a business debt hibernation arrangement in relation to the debts owed to the Inland Revenue. The changes to the regulation-making powers provide the flexibility to adjust how Inland Revenue deals with such arrangements in the context of the business debt hibernation regime.
Can I also back up the comments made by the Leader of the House in terms of the speed in which this legislation was turned around, and pass on my thanks to the Epidemic Response Committee and also to the officials who have worked very quickly to draft the legislation and make amendments which came out of the select committee, which was, I believe, just a one-day hearing. So can I pay thanks to the Parliamentary Counsel Office and to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) officials which have helped us grind through this work—to Susan Hall, Geoff Connor, Natan Karon, Richard Clough, and to Robert and Stephanie, the MBIE officials in my office, for the sterling work in the conditions. So, again, I think these are provisions which I think will come in extremely handy to businesses that are extremely worried about their short- and medium-term futures.





BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. I too will speak on Schedule 4 of the bill, which inserts new Schedule 13 into the Companies Act—the business debt hibernation (BDH). 
One of the elements that was discussed in committee was the need to provide an incentive for general security arrangement (GSA) holders to be prepared to accede to a BDH application. There was agreement, although not without some concern, that if those GSA holders were asked to enter into an arrangement which would prevent them taking any enforcement action with respect to the large securities they hold, none of them would ever be prepared to allow a BDH application to go through, presuming they had enough of the vote weight to prevent that. 
So it was agreed that such holders would not relinquish their rights to initiate enforcement actions vis-à-vis the security they hold or the debt that they are owed. On the face of it, we did agree with that but were concerned that that would mean that during the debt hibernation period, unsecured or less secured creditors are at a distinct disadvantage. 
So the question I have for the Minister and for officials is: given that we had to do that, what incentives are in there for other creditors to agree to sign up to a business debt hibernation arrangement? Is it not likely that on the premise that a bird in the hand is worth more than two in the bush, in actual fact, too many of them might say, "Well, I'm in a precarious position here—or I will be left so—so it's better for me to actually prevent this if I can and take what I can get now rather than to risk the GSA holder taking an enforcement action during the period and me potentially being left in a worse situation than I am on day zero."?
So we don't disagree with the bill, and we don't disagree with the position the committee reached, but it is, I think, a fair question to put, which is: we got to where we had to get to, but to what extent does that actually create disincentives for other creditors to permit entry into a scheme?





JAMI-LEE ROSS (Botany): Thank you, Mr Chair. I wish to speak to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 489 in my name. It's an SOP which, effectively, calls for a rates freeze, an issue I raised in the House last week. Can I first say, generally, I think the Government's approach in this bill is the right one. It tackles a range of issues which will assist New Zealanders in their day-to-day life as they deal with issues that they're faced with under COVID-19. But I have to say I was disappointed—not surprised, but disappointed—when the issue of a rates freeze and how local government can assist New Zealanders was quite dismissed by the Minister of Finance last week when I raised it in question time. 
So I put forward this SOP because I think, genuinely, New Zealanders should be able to enjoy some relief from their local council right now, in this time where huge numbers of people are losing jobs, when people are struggling to pay the bills, struggling to pay the mortgage to keep their home. We should be calling on local government to do what they can do as well to ensure that New Zealanders can get by and that they have some relief when it comes to what local authorities impose on people. Homeowners, mortgage payers, when they are looking at their daily bills, when they are looking at their cost of living, an annual increase—it always comes their way—that they never seem to get relief from is their rates bill. Councils are known for always just looking for increases rather than first looking at whether they can cut back some of their own costs and whether they can provide some relief to their ratepayers. So I've drafted this SOP, which would implement a rates freeze across the country, because I believe it's reasonable that New Zealanders should have that opportunity. 
It's not as if it's a controversial thing for a rates freeze to be proposed. It's actually what some councils themselves are looking at right now. But as we know, local government is a creature of statute. Local government makes decisions around rates and the costs that they impose on New Zealanders under statute that this Parliament passes, the Local Government (Rating) Act and the Local Government Act itself. I think, in this extraordinary time, we should be sending a message to local government and leading the way for them to say that they should be delivering lower costs to ratepayers than they were otherwise expected to do. This is not as if it's a controversial issue either, because the likes of Christchurch, the likes of Dunedin, the likes of the Waikato Regional Council—they're already talking about rates freezes. Other councils, though—and having been there as a city councillor, I know they're usually scared into putting the rates up by their officials, by their finance people, who scare them into saying that they can't go ahead with projects if they don't ramp the rates up every single year. 
The reality is, right now, the cost of borrowing for councils, just as it is for Government, is going to be at the lowest they've ever faced. The cost of borrowing is going to be low because if international lenders are looking for good horses to back right now, organisations backed up by taxpayers or ratepayers are good avenues for funding. So ratepayers should enjoy the benefits of that as well, and councils should be doing just like every other organisation out there is doing in this tough time: cutting back their costs. It's not good enough for a local authority simply to say "Well, we have to put up the rates because we have no other way." Well, there is another way. The other way is to look at their balance sheets, look at their budgets, and look at where they can make cost savings.
So as local government is a creature of statute, as this Parliament has passed laws saying how they should set rates, we should tell them now how they should implement some savings for their ratepayers as well. So I put forward this SOP. I think it's something that should be considered by the Parliament. I note that calling for a rates freeze is something National Party MPs have been calling for on their Facebook pages and social media, so I hope we can enjoy support from them on this issue as well.





DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. I would like to make a couple of comments. One is to endorse what we're hearing from Jami-Lee Ross. Now, I know in the normal course of events we're supposed to have local democracy, and people are supposed to elect councillors to decide things, such as their rates. And yet it's always important to remember that the ability of councillors to set rates is set by Parliament and all of the rules within which they set them are set by Parliament. One reason why Parliament might intervene on rate setting right now through an amendment such as that of Jami-Lee Ross is that I believe there is an imbalance of power between the bureaucrats, or the civil servants, or the management of councils, and the elected councillors. 
I'll just give you one example from Auckland Council. I was speaking to a local councillor on the weekend, and the bureaucracy told the councillors a zero rate increase is impossible, cannot be done—"We won't even do the modelling for you." Now, thankfully, a few of the councillors pushed back, and I understand they are going to get some modelling of what that would mean. But far too often, the option of saving money is left to the council bureaucracy, who are the main source of cost. And haven't we seen that with Auckland Council recently with the number of indescribable unfathomable job titles that nevertheless attract six figure salaries with numbers like three and four in front of them? There is no question that councils are impacting on ratepayers and particularly on business ratepayers at the moment in the most destructive way, that will cost jobs by slowing down the recovery of the economy. And yet the Government has failed to put in place any measures to allow councils to either breach their debt ceilings or give relief to ratepayers, particularly company ratepayers. So I wholeheartedly endorse Jami-Lee Ross's amendment, and I hope that it will have wide support, because the impact of rates and the intransigence of council bureaucracies in reducing them are a major problem for business, jobs, and employment at the moment.
I just want to quickly rehearse one of the arguments about these so-called safe harbours, these exemptions for the directors' liabilities. I think it's really important at this time when we are saying, "Haven't the officials done such a wonderful job and the Minister done such a wonderful job?" The officials told the Epidemic Response Committee that it was necessary to change the law to a more liberal version, because the law was already liberal but directors didn't understand that. And if that's difficult to follow, I don't blame anyone who doesn't follow that. It was difficult for us too. The problem with that is that if it's true that directors are just too dumb to follow the law—according to officials advising the committee—then surely the right thing to do is educate them on what the law is, not change the law to what the law is supposed to be so somehow they'll understand that the law is what it is, which is, effectively, the argument that we got from the officials on the committee. 
We then had professional directors come and speak to the committee, and I asked them if it was really as crazy as it sounded, and they said, "Yes, there is some uncertainty around the director's obligations in relation to trading while insolvent." Some of those have arisen out of the Mainzeal case—some of those caused the Mainzeal case, some might argue. The upshot is that if that's true, the last thing they want is for the Government in the middle of a crisis to change the law so that if they did have a problem understanding the previous law, now they're going to have to understand a new one. So the Government is just layering uncertainty on a problem, which is uncertainty. How crazy is that? Well, that's the law that the Government is trying to pass through this Parliament. That's one of the reasons I've opposed this bill throughout, and ACT will continue to do so. With that, I end my remarks.





JAMI-LEE ROSS (Botany): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I appreciate the support from David Seymour on this particular issue. He raised a point there that I just want to answer about local democracy and how, typically, we leave these things to councils, and we do leave it to the elected local members of a council to make their overall decisions. They do so within the constraints of the Local Government (Rating) Act and the Local Government Act. But in this case, I just want to say and make the point that this is still being left, in most parts, to the decisions that the local elected members will be able to make as to how to implement a rates freeze. So it's not as if complete local decision-making would be taken away. The way I've drafted the Supplementary Order Paper, it would, effectively, say an invoice that a local authority issues for the 2020-21 year must not be any greater than the previous financial year. There's an exception if there's a change of use with that particular rating unit, but how they achieve that will still be left to the local elected members.
The Local Government Act and the Local Government (Rating) Act have so many different constraints and considerations and requirements that are placed on local authorities. We do this on a regular basis. Every time there is a change to local government legislation, Parliament passes on and imposes more constraints and regulations on local government. This is just another one, but it recognises the extraordinary times we're in, and it recognises the fact that people out there are hurting. This Parliament and this Government, in the Budget tomorrow, is going to recognise the fact that people are hurting and that people need support. The local authorities around the country that haven't already stepped up and said they'll at least consult on a rates freeze or maybe even implement it—they should be doing the same thing and assisting people while they're hurting, while people are struggling to pay their mortgage. There will be mortgagee sales. There's unemployment across the country. Councils need to step up as well, and we should lead the way.
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 488, 491, 492, and 493 in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins be agreed to.
Amendments agreed to.





The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 489 in the name of Jami-Lee Ross be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 2
ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Noes 118
New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 503 in the name of the Hon Kris Faafoi be agreed to.
Amendments agreed to. 
Parts 1 and 2, Schedules 1 to 17, and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.
The committee divided the bill into the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill and the COVID-19 Response (Requirements for Entities—Modifications and Exemptions) Bill, as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 490 in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins.
House resumed.
The Chairperson reported the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill with amendment and divided into the following bills: COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill and COVID-19 Response (Requirements for Entities—Modifications and Exemptions) Bill.
Report adopted.





COVID-19 RESPONSE (FURTHER MANAGEMENT MEASURES) LEGISLATION BILL
COVID-19 RESPONSE (REQUIREMENTS FOR ENTITIES—MODIFICATIONS AND EXEMPTIONS) BILL
Third Readings
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill be now read a third time.
I'd like to acknowledge the contributions of members across the House and the cooperation of the Opposition in ensuring the smooth passage of this bill through its remaining stages. There's been an extraordinary amount of work that's been done by officials behind the scenes to put this bill together and to put together the amendments that the committee has just agreed to. It's involved a large number of agencies, coordinated by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and I thank them all. It's a significant achievement to get a bill of this size and detail together in such a short time frame to amend 45 different pieces of legislation, and, as I've said earlier, that illustrates the wide-ranging impact that COVID-19 has had.
I won't, at this third reading, reiterate all of the changes that the bill's made, as these have been heard by the House only just recently and they have been well canvassed. Some of the changes are aimed at making it easier for businesses to survive in the current crisis, including changes affecting insolvency, corporate law, and commercial property, and it will, in combination with other action taken by the Government, help to save businesses and save jobs. 
Some of the provisions recognise that COVID-19 has meant that some processes that would normally be routine haven't been able to take place, such as those that would require a person to be physically present and mean that there'll be no penalty or disadvantage from that situation. Some regulatory requirements have been delayed—others accelerated as appropriate. 
Some of the changes made in the bill are sensible and overdue, particularly those that incorporate the use of digital technology into Government business and processes. Many of these amendments may lead to a permanent change, even if the bill does not make them so, because they're sensible new ways of working. I think we've learnt across the House, actually, we've got some new ways of working that have actually been very useful, and I hope that when the Standing Orders are reviewed, some of those things may well be able to be adopted in the long term. It'll make a lot of difference to many processes and make people's lives a little easier and a little more straightforward at a very, very challenging time. I commend the bill to the House.





Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just a short intervention to endorse the comments of the Minister responsible for this bill, particularly his mention that, you know, this was an enormous task but it's one that we're up to. I'm pleased to be able to move from where I was yesterday, from commendation to condemnation but back to commendation for the Government, actually, but also for those officials that work so hard—
Hon Member: We live in interesting times.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —for us. We certainly do live in interesting times. I feel like I'm two people at the moment: one, the tub-thumping right-winger, and the other, the very reasonable centrist that I usually portray myself as.
I want to support Mr Faafoi's comments about, in particular, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment officials. They all work tremendously hard. But I think the most complicated part of this process was in the safe harbour and debt hibernation framework. I really hope it works—I really do—because we've got an enormous task to maintain and rebuild our economy over the next days, weeks, and months. The Government's done what it can, I think, to enable that to occur, but I would encourage it to be nimble, to continue to find ways to assist the recovery. I do believe that at least the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs and his business colleagues will have that in mind as they go forward.
The last thing that I want to say is, actually, there are a couple of officials that we haven't specifically mentioned, and that is from the Office of the Clerk. James and Jo did an amazing job actually bringing all of this together, and we see Zoom as a kind of a pretty easy thing that you click and play, but I can imagine there's a great deal more going on behind the scenes, particularly in the liaising with officials and witnesses and submitters. I think it should be noted that the Office of the Clerk through this period has done a tremendous job.
With that, I'm very pleased to support this bill.





Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Mr Speaker, just a very short speech to back up the two speeches that have already been made in this third reading. I think it's Grant Robertson who said an hour is a day, a day is a week, and a week is a year in the current times that we're in, and again I just want to thank all parts of the operation that allowed this piece of legislation to get to the point where we're at third reading today. As Mr Woodhouse said, it's by the power of Zoom that we're able to do this swift and effective work under current conditions, and if I think back to late March and early April in a very small office at my place and thinking that we'd have to change this legislation or get through the policy process very quickly and then get the legislation passed within a week, I was a little bit exercised about how we were going to do that. But, with the cooperation of the House, the Epidemic Response Committee, the Leader of the House, and officials, we've managed to get here. So can I thank Parliament for that, because I think it will give a great sense of peace of mind for a lot of directors of companies who are facing very difficult times over the next six months. So, with that, I thank the House for getting this third reading through.





BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I too rise in support of this bill and add my acknowledgment to all of the officials, including the officials of the Office of the Clerk. The way I would characterise those meetings in the way they're run is those officials were like ducks on a pond: they looked very calm and collected and able to give all the advice we needed, but clearly there was a whole lot of work going on in the background that we didn't see.
In my second reading speech I said—particularly, around the safe harbour provisions but they apply to all the Insolvency Act and Company Act pieces—that the maxim is: first do no harm. What I've realised is that actually there was an implicit addition in that it's actually: first do no further harm, because, without doubt, COVID-19 and the lockdown have caused damage to businesses, the loss of jobs, and the predictions are that far worse is still to come. So first do no further harm.
I remain convinced that the work that we've done on that has delivered that, but equally, as I said in my second reading speech, and the question I asked in the committee of the whole, there's been some necessary tension introduced, because there were certain things we realised we had to do which could undermine, to some extent, the successful scale of the adoption of safe harbour and business debt hibernation in particular, but, like colleagues across the House, I really do hope that businesses and directors that are able to take these measures up do. It will help to save businesses and save jobs, and I commend this bill to the House.





Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): E tū tautoko tēnei. I stand also to support the passage of the bill. I acknowledge the efforts across the House, and the various industrious officials. During an earlier speech, I made the point that this is an extraordinary situation where we are definitely changing the principles that ordinarily guide directorial behaviour. We've had strong entreaties that the governance bodies of many of our enterprises need some protection, but also they need to exercise a tremendous amount of judgment so we don't inherit a situation that they end up facing charges of recklessness. We want to see the economy recover. The economy has the basis, I think, to cure itself, with appropriate intervention and support from the political estate. This bill is reflective of us all being joined together to ensure that we can aid the cause, post-COVID, of people rejuvenating, strengthening, and getting our enterprises fit for the post-COVID environment. We support the bill.





Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): Kia ora koutou, Mr Speaker. The Green Party is, as has been previously indicated in earlier debates, pleased to support the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill, and I, like other speakers, will be very brief.
I think when the Parliament comes together, as it did after the Christchurch earthquakes, the Hurunui/Kaikōura earthquakes, and now in the COVID situation, to look at what are the sensible issues that have to be dealt with in a common-sense way, there is unity across the Parliament. I am grateful to the enormous effort that is being put in by public servants in all manner of departments, coming together in the all-of-Government response and then looking through the legislation, working out what are the obstacles when people are working remotely, what can be changed so that it makes normal practices able to continue, things like health practitioners enabling people to come back from retirement to be able to practise again to assist our health work force—all sorts of changes. I think it's 45 different pieces of legislation that are being amended here. The changes are relatively small in scale but they allow for things to work more effectively as we move now to focusing on the economic reset and recovery. So I commend the bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry, members, I understand we've got a potential issue with the motion that was put. We're just trying to sort that out.





Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): When I moved the beginning of the third reading for this bill, I, of course, moved the original bill but not the divided bill. So therefore, I seek leave to amend that motion to be I move, That the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill and the COVID-19 Response (Requirements for Entities—Modifications and Exemptions) Bill be now read a third time.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Bills read a third time.





BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Following discussions across the House, I seek leave for there to be no debate on the second reading of the Immigration (COVID-19 Response) Amendment Bill, and for the House to adjourn for the evening at the conclusion of the third reading of this bill, including if that extends the House's sitting slightly into the dinner break. This will allow for there to be a brief committee stage, so that amendments can be considered, and for there to be a full debate on the third reading for members who wish to make a contribution to do that, but then for the House to avoid potentially breaking at 6 o'clock and coming back for only a few minutes at 7.30.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.





IMMIGRATION (COVID-19 RESPONSE) AMENDMENT BILL
Second Reading
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister of Immigration: I move, That the Immigration (COVID-19 Response) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Bill read a second time.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): The bill is set down for committee stage immediately. And I'm going to wait for another presiding officer to come along, so bear with us—unless I can put myself into committee.





In Committee
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I seek leave for all of the provisions in the bill to be debated as one question.
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave has been sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 





Parts 1 and 2, Schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 to 3
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Chairman. Because of the nature of the select committee process, Supplementary Order Paper 504 was actually recommended by the select committee, so it naturally is an outstanding piece of work which bears no need for improvement. But what I want to do is set out in the committee of the whole House some concerns that I have and that the submitters had around the balance of powers that the Minister of Immigration has and articulate the reassurance that we had through the officials about how they would be used. 
Now, as I know probably more than most in this House, the Immigration Act provides some very strong powers of the use of discretion and also, when decisions are made, for the reasons for those decisions not to be disclosed. That's appropriate when well used, and the examples are almost always cases where an application is provided to the Minister, or his or her associate, for the grant of something that does not normally apply under the law or immigration instructions—and that's an appropriate thing—and the Minister is asked to do more than would otherwise be the case. It might be somebody unlawfully in the country who's having that process normalised by the grant of residence under section 61, or the grant of a visa under section 61, but if indeed the Minister does not want to extend that, then that is at his or her absolute discretion—no need to give any reasons.
Now, what we've done here is put in a third limb that I and my colleagues felt was, combined, very, very concerning, and that is the possibility that the Minister could provide a change—an amendment or revocation of visa rights—to a whole class of people and then not give reasons, and that could be done at the Minister's absolute discretion. Now, because that had the potential to negatively affect that class of people, we in the select committee were looking for some kind of backstop provision that said that that wouldn't be the case and there wouldn't be a negative impact on a class of people. Because we understand what the Government is trying to do, and we know that, by and large, it's actually going to be very good for the visa holders—unless they're offshore, but that's another issue. So we wanted some kind of backstop in. 
Now, we did get halfway there because of the words being used—I think it's "not materially negatively affected", and that was enough for me to still be uncomfortable but, certainly, to support it. The examples given by officials I think were interesting in the sense that they were talking about things like the requirement to undergo health issues under the Health Act. Well, I don't see that as a negative—it might be a condition, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a negative issue. So they couldn't really come up with an example of where a utilitarian approach where there would have nevertheless been a negative impact was, sort of, satisfactory.
I just want to lay out that thinking, because what we got was an assurance—or a commitment, at least—that this would be used for good. It was a very kind of comic book - type comment from the officials: "These are powers that will be used for good." That was literally what they said. And I believe that that's the intent, but I am concerned that the black letter law, with these three legs, could be negatively affected—absolute discretion and the Minister doesn't have to give a reason is a pretty risky combination. So we've received those assurances through the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment's immigration team, and I believe them. I know them well; they're good people. But I just want to put on record that that was a concern of the committee. 
The last thing I would say, and it's for the submitters particularly from the ADLS, the immigration and refugee protection division of the Auckland District Law Society, who were worried and suggested that there should be a purpose statement to the bill. While we were guided in a slightly different direction, I want to just acknowledge that as far as possible, we understand what the purpose of this bill is to do—obviously, administrative efficiency, while not negatively affecting classes of visa holders. While we didn't get that purpose statement, I think we have made the bill better thanks to their submissions, and I just want to thank them for that.
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 504 in the name of the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway be agreed to.
Amendments agreed to.
Parts 1 and 2, Schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 to 3 as amended agreed to.
House resumed.
The Chairperson reported the Immigration (COVID-19 Response) Amendment Bill with amendment.
Report adopted.





Third Reading
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister of Immigration: I move, That the Immigration (COVID-19 Response) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
At its core, this bill is about ensuring that we can respond flexibly and efficiently to the effects of COVID-19 on our immigration system and on migrants themselves. These are uncertain and stressful times for the migrant community, and I hope that these powers will ensure that the decisions can be made efficiently and quickly. 
The bill will do this by introducing eight time-limited powers. In order through the bill they are: the power to extend, vary, or cancel conditions for classes of resident-class visa holders; the power to impose, vary, or cancel conditions for classes of temporary entry-class visa holders; the power to waive any prescribed regulatory requirements for applying for a visa with respect to classes of people; the power to grant visas to individuals and classes of people in the absence of an application; the power to extend the expiry dates of temporary-class visas for classes of people; the power to waive in an individual case the requirement to obtain a transit visa; the power to revoke the entry permission of a person who has been deemed by regulations to have been granted entry permission; and 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.
At the committee of the whole House stage, the committee made amendments to the bill to increase the safeguards around the exercise of these powers, tighten the connection to COVID-19 required to exercise some of the powers, and limit the power to suspend applications. 
The first change placed an additional safeguard around the exercise of special directions so that they may only be used if the special direction does not materially disadvantage the class or classes of person to which it relates. The bill will preserve the ability for the Government to require visa holders to comply with health measures taken to contain COVID-19 in New Zealand—for example, requiring that they obey the instructions of a medical officer of health. This measure is something the Government introduced for new temporary visa applicants in March, sparked by concerns about tourists who indicated that they would not self-isolate and risked the health of New Zealanders as a result.
The second change to the bill ensures that any power used under the bill is in response to COVID-19. The original wording of the bill was that a power could be used if it was necessary or desirable to respond to COVID-19 or its effects. The committee heard from submitters that the wording "desirable" was too broad and could allow for powers to be used in situations where the connection to COVID-19 was tangential or tenuous. Therefore, the committee of the whole House has tightened up this wording so that the powers may only be used where reasonably necessary to respond to COVID-19 or its effects. 
The third change made to the bill is in relation to the power to suspend the ability to apply for a visa or to submit an expression of interest for a visa. The bill's been amended to make it clear that regulations made under the exercise of this power can only suspend offshore visa applications and expressions of interest. The amendment ensures that the policy intent is explicit. This power is simply intended to suspend applications for visas which could not be used because of border restrictions. It is not intended to prevent onshore applications or expressions of interest being made for visas.
As the Minister would have explained in the second reading debate had there been one, these safeguards form the three threshold hurdles that must be met before a Minister can exercise these powers. Firstly, the exercise of the power must be reasonably necessary. Secondly, the exercise of the power must be related to responding to the effects or the consequences of COVID-19 or measures taken to combat COVID-19, and the Minister may not make a special direction unless they can be satisfied that in doing so they do not materially disadvantage a class of persons who are affected by that power.
It is the position of the Government that the amendments to this bill ensure that there are strong safeguards around the exercise of these powers and that the bill is workable and is fit for purpose. These are broad powers and the Minister will not take the exercise of them lightly. I hope this bill and its powers will relieve some of the pressures on the immigration system and bring certainty to those in the migrant community. 
Lastly, I would once again like to thank all members of the House, members of the Opposition, and the Epidemic Response Committee for their work to ensure that this bill has progressed quickly, and, once again, I commend the bill to the House.
SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Stuart Smith: Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: Stuart Smith. Just before the member starts—I haven't been in the House during the committee stage, but I wonder whether it would be appropriate to seek leave—
Hon Member: It's already been done.
SPEAKER: Been done? All right. Thank you. Just out of touch again.





STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): That's all right, Mr Speaker—I know the position well. It is a great pleasure to speak on this bill, and I'd like to begin, as we didn't have a second reading, for a moment and refer to the select committee process. We do really have to acknowledge the submitters, who took the time, under quite tight time constraints, to get their submissions in. They were fulsome submissions, and those that appeared before the Epidemic Response Committee did so with aplomb and they raised some very serious concerns that they had with the bill. Due to those concerns, I believe the bill is in a much better position than it was when it went in to select committee. So it was all of the concerns that were outlined by my colleague Mr Woodhouse. I won't go over them again, but they were something that we spent quite a bit of time really grilling the officials over to make sure that we weren't making a serious error in the bill, and I'm comfortable we got to a very good position.
There were some things that were raised by the business sector, particularly Horticulture New Zealand and New Zealand Winegrowers, that, while they really did capture our imaginations as to the issues that are being faced by those industries, weren't included, and we didn't change anything in the bill because it was outside the scope of the bill. But it was acknowledged by the officials, and I'm sure that the Minister of Immigration will be very much aware that there are so many people here that are trapped in New Zealand, effectively, who have a visa and, with the current rules, are unable to change from one employer to another and a job description. They can change from one employer to another employer to do the same job, but they can't change from one employer to do a different type of job. 
Particularly in the wine industry and horticulture—I'll use the wine industry as an example, people that have come out from overseas to work in the vintage, those skilled winemakers and cellar hands. There is no longer a need for those jobs, as the harvest is over, but there is a shortage of people to prune the vineyards, and there are jobs going begging there at the moment. Those people are sitting in Marlborough unable to work and unable, in some cases, to support themselves. That was heard by the officials, it was heard by the select committee, but it's not to be part of the bill, and that is something that the Minister will have the power, under these special directions, to address in his role as Minister. I implore him to do so, because there are some serious issues there.
The migrant community is very concerned about their plight at the moment, and on a human level we can all understand that. We're all in this position not because of our choosing, and we have to react to it in the best way that we can. I for one think, if we were Ministers in the Government's position, we'd have probably done the same thing as to where we are today. It's about how we get to this—[Interruption] For this particular bill, I'm talking about. So in that case, we have shaped it, I think, into the best shape that we can, and it's with that I commend the bill to the House.





Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Just a very brief call, because I did want to acknowledge the officials that supported us. Before I do, though, I wanted to just make the point that the number of times the Minister moving the third reading, the Hon Chris Hipkins, used the words "power" or "powers" I think makes the point that I was making in the committee of the whole House. I do apologise if I have left people, having used that Marvel Comics "power for good" analogy, with this mental image of Iain Lees-Galloway jumping into a phone booth and coming out with a red cape and undies, because that's an image I won't get out of my head. 
The "power for good" actually came from one of the policy managers, Christine Hyndman, who I had the privilege of working with for five years as Minister of Immigration. I just want to thank her and her team and also Fraser Richards. I don't think there is anybody in the country who knows immigration law better than Fraser Richards. Many know bits of it, but he knows a lot. I just want to acknowledge them—the work that they did—and the whole team, and also, again, the clerks James and Jo, who did a fantastic job supporting the committee through that process. I commend it.
Bill read a third time.
SPEAKER: I understand there's an agreement that the House adjourn now.
The House adjourned at 6.01 p.m.