TUESDAY, 26 MAY 2020
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Prayers.
ORAL QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Finance
1. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy since Budget 2020?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Talofa lava. Malo le soifua. Congratulations to all those celebrating Samoan Language Week this week. The New Zealand economy is facing a one in 100-year global economic shock, which is why Budget 2020's primary focus was investing to protect and create jobs by supporting households and private businesses. Following the Budget, international credit ratings agencies Standard & Poor's and Moody's both highlighted the strength of the New Zealand economy and the Government's balance sheet. Standard & Poor's retained the positive outlook on its AA+ credit rating for New Zealand and they expect the economy to recover faster than the Budget forecast assumed, due to the earlier easing of lockdown restrictions, which the Prime Minister detailed some of, yesterday. Moody's also maintained its AAA credit rating on New Zealand, saying the investments in the Budget would help facilitate the economic recovery. I think all New Zealanders can be proud that their actions during the lockdown, to break the chain of transmission, now mean that our economy can reopen faster and more jobs can be created.
Dr Deborah Russell: What reports has he seen on the international context for the New Zealand economy since Budget 2020?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The global economy faces a period of significant disruption as countries around the world struggle to reopen up their economies. Shortly after Budget 2020 was announced, the IMF's managing director Kristalina Georgieva warned that the global economic impact from COVID-19 will be severe and that the IMF was set to revise down its forecasts for global growth next month. She said, "We strongly support the extraordinary fiscal actions many countries have already taken to boost [their] health systems and protect affected workers and firms." She added that "These bold efforts are not only in the interest of each country but of the global economy as a whole. Even more will be needed, especially on the fiscal front." In New Zealand, Budget 2020 got ahead of this by putting in place a plan of investments to protect workers and businesses while setting aside further money to rebuild the economy in the face of a one-in-100-year shock.
Dr Deborah Russell: What reports has he seen on the strength of the New Zealand economy relative to other countries since Budget 2020?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: New Zealand is in good shape to make the investments required to protect workers, grow jobs, and support businesses from the worst effects of COVID-19 compared to other countries around the world. We went into this with some of the lowest Government debt in the world, with net debt below 20 percent of GDP compared to the OECD average of around 80 percent. This means the Government is in a strong position to support the economy during this unprecedented shock. In its report on the Budget, Moody's said it expects New Zealand's robust fiscal position will remain stronger than most other AAA-rated countries and that New Zealand will have a more moderate debt burden and stronger debt affordability. There are tough times ahead for New Zealand and many New Zealanders, but we are well-placed to respond, recover, and rebuild from COVID-19.




Question No. 2—Prime Minister
2. TODD MULLER (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: What is the Treasury's most recent estimate of unemployment in the third quarter of this calendar year, and what is the Government's specific plan to arrest the sorts of job losses we've seen over the past two weeks?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Firstly, to acknowledge Samoan Language Week I say talofa lava to the House, and I also congratulate the member opposite on his new position as Leader of the Opposition. To answer the second part first of the member's question, we've gone hard and early on both our health and economic response. We are implementing our plan to respond, to recover, and to rebuild. Treasury has forecast up to 140,000 jobs saved as a result of that plan and employment growth of 370,000 jobs supported over the next four years, and that is because of a range of measures, including the wage subsidy, small business loan scheme, record investment in infrastructure, and so on. In relation to the first part of the question, forecasts contained in the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update, which is, obviously, publicly available, include a high point of unemployment for the period the member asks of 9.8 percent—that is for September 2020—before returning to 6.4 percent the year following.
Todd Muller: Does she accept that more direct cash support for small businesses will help prevent job losses?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I do accept that there is a role to play for Government; on that I agree. We have, of course, placed a huge amount of emphasis on the wage subsidy, not least because small business have told us what a difference that makes for them; the vast majority, of course, then going to those with 20 or less employees. And a survey, where we have just the interim results, that has gone out to those that have accessed the wage subsidy, says for the vast majority it's made a difference to them being able to retain their staff. Of course, alongside that we have had the loan scheme, which has been well accessed as well by small business. That is interest free for the first year, and I am hearing anecdotal evidence that some small businesses are taking on that extra buffer, not necessarily because they need it immediately but just to provide that extra certainty over the next 12 months. I add to that, of course, the work that we're doing investing in putting cash back through our tax system, through IRD, and, of course, within the Budget we also had a number of programmes around e-commerce, which I could happily go into.
Todd Muller: Why has the Government not delivered any direct cash support to small businesses other than the wage subsidy or more debt to reduce the number of job losses?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would dispute the premise of that member's question.
Todd Muller: Could she please inform the House: where, over the last three months, has she provided direct cash support to small-business owners?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The wage subsidy scheme has put out—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order! Both sides.
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —over five billion directly into small businesses, and it is the most significant part of that wage subsidy scheme. I would also add to that the work that has gone into tax loss carry-back, through IRD, that has improved cash flow as well. Many small businesses will be able to access that as well. That is just a small handful of the initiatives that we've put in place to help with cash flow for small businesses immediately.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Prime Minister saying that, unlike some, she and her Government see businesses as being not just the owner or the boss, but the staff being critical as well to any business enterprise?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: My strong takeaway from the period at which I both worked in small businesses, but also as a small business spokesperson, was that small businesses do see their staff—and I know the member will agree with this—as their family, and, in fact, the number of letters that I receive from small businesses saying the fact we prioritised the wage subsidy meant a huge amount to them because one of their biggest concerns was, of course, the ongoing cost of payroll, and hanging on to their workforce meant a huge amount to them.
Todd Muller: I'll ask the Prime Minister again. In addition to the wage subsidy, which goes directly to the workers, which is fine, what direct support has gone to the small-business owners?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would, again, re-emphasise that the wage bill for small businesses is one of the most significant costs outside, of course, things like rental costs. And keeping in mind that many businesses are now operating again, this support continues to make a huge difference for that fixed cost of their staff. Alongside that, we have, of course, through our tax system, billions of dollars enabling small businesses to access refunds now to help with cash flow.
SPEAKER: Before the member goes on, I just want to remind Louise Upston that while the Leader of the Opposition is asking his series of questions, his mike is open, and her voice is coming through it very, very strongly.
Todd Muller: What proportion of small to medium sized businesses over the last two months have experienced negative cash flow?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would be happy to answer, where we have the data available, such questions. Our survey work that we've put out may give us some insights, but what I can tell you from the interim results is that well over 80 percent have said that the wage subsidy has made a difference to them keeping their doors open.
Hon Stuart Nash: Is the Prime Minister aware of the $29 million of consultancy services through the regional business partner network that has been accessed by thousands of businesses up and down this country?
Hon Member: Consultancy services? That won't pay the bills.
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Absolutely, and members would not wish to be dismissive about something that we are getting incredible feedback from. Those services are providing business support and advice on the ground around payroll, around reducing fixed costs, around consultancy services to access the money that they are able to access through IRD without having to use accountants that they may not be able to afford.
Hon Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have noticed over the course of this question that you have reinstated your questions being taken off and added—that you hadn't been in the last couple of weeks and it might just be valuable for members on all sides of the House to know you've reinstated your scoring system.
SPEAKER: I want to thank the member to indicate to him that in the previous couple of weeks, members were generally better behaved than he's been today. 
David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister agree with Treasury's estimate that spending the full COVID-19 response and recovery fund would save about 30,000 jobs a year compared with Treasury's baseline forecast?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Well, the member is correct that the forecasts that were relied upon in the Budget did allow for around $20 billion worth of the fund to not be spent over the forecast period. Of course, their predictions are that if the full recovery fund is spent over the forecast period, we see growth returning by next year, we see unemployment back down to the rates it was pre-COVID within the next two years. So that demonstrates that that level of investment will make a difference. Where I caution the member is, of course, we don't want to prescribe the answer before we know what the biggest difference we can make will be with that fund. I've seen many commentators supporting the approach of the Government and what we've taken in that way.
David Seymour: Does she, then, agree that this represents nearly $260,000 of taxpayer funding for each job saved?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I think that's an overly simplistic analysis and, of course, taking into account that Treasury themselves have endorsed an approach of investing versus austerity, and of generating the kinds of jobs that the Budget package does, which is in the number of over 370,000.
Todd Muller: Does she accept that businesses with high levels of debt and who are yet to receive direct cash support—other than the wage subsidy—will be most likely to be letting workers go?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, the survey work suggests that, actually, the wage subsidy has made that difference. I can see that the member is advocating for straight grants. We made a deliberate decision that that wasn't where we were going. And let's be just open and honest about that. Instead, we have targeted through the wage subsidy, we have used interest-free loans, and we have worked very hard to support those businesses which may be vulnerable but are viable. We've also said this is a one-in-100-year global pandemic. We will not be able to support and save everyone. But thus far, looking at our job seeker numbers relative to other countries, yes, we are seeing a hit, but not nearly the scale in some other places.
Todd Muller: So the Prime Minister is saying to the House that what small to medium sized businesses need right now is not direct cash support—is that what she's saying to the House: no cash support is what small business are asking?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I have acknowledged that we did not implement a generic grant scheme, keeping in mind that we saw that on a small scale in Australia and they have seen a higher rate of individuals going on to their version of jobseeker than what we have. So they took a different path. They also took a month to pay out their equivalent of the wage subsidy. We got ours out the door within five days. So yes, we took a different approach, but we stand by it and it has never been about one answer. It's been about multiple support mechanisms for small businesses, and we believe that there will be more to do. But that is the path we have chosen.
Todd Muller: So what does the Prime Minister say to the businesses of Pāpāmoa and around the country who say in a single voice, "We need more cash now to survive or our people go."?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I'm speaking not only from the anecdotes that the member's speaking to as well; I have received emails, I've talked to small businesses, I've seen the survey results. The wage subsidy—the member should not discount the impact that it has had in keeping the doors open. The member obviously advocates general cash payments. We've decided to be more targeted. We stand by that decision and we will continue to look for other avenues to keep up that support for small business.
Hon David Parker: Can the Prime Minister confirm that sole traders receive that wage subsidy for themselves?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Absolutely. Again, 54 percent of those who have applied are made up of the self-employed; small businesses, 44 percent—so the total small business and self-employed in terms of numbers equates to 97 percent. That is vastly who has been supported. And again, as I say, interim results from those surveys but it suggests not only have they kept their door open but the vast majority have been able to prevent job loss as well, and that's what many were seeking.
Todd Muller: On behalf of the half a million small businesses in New Zealand, would the Government consider adopting National's proposal to give businesses direct cash support in the form of GST cash refunds of up to $100,000 to help them cover their ongoing fixed costs?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I notice other members of his party have been quite dismissive during this question time of using the tax system to get cash flow to small business, so perhaps not everyone is of one voice. But again, the tax loss carry-back scheme, $3.1 billion; tax loss continuity support, $60 million; tax deductions for assets, again a massive part of our first tax package through Minister Nash. We raised the provisional tax threshold. We allowed depreciation on buildings and we also have allowed loans for R & D - intensive businesses as well. That's before we head into the $10 million for e-commerce, the $30 million for the digital economy, and also the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise work. Again, we've used the tax system too.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Prime Minister received any reports that the so-called throw cash at the problem $100,000 was announced by the previous leader of the National Party, whereupon they threw him out?
SPEAKER: Order! Order! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters: What's wrong with that?
SPEAKER: Well, the member knows that there's no responsibility.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, we're here for politics, sir.
SPEAKER: You might be here for politics, but I think you also know that you have to get some prime ministerial responsibility and neither the announcement of the previous Leader of the Opposition or what happened to him are directly the Prime Minister's responsibility.




Question No. 3—Regional Economic Development
3. Hon TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: How has the Provincial Growth Fund been refocused to aid the post-COVID-19 recovery?
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): Three particular principles have been refined: one, jobs; two, pace and time lines; and, three, visibility. Unfortunately, a number of the projects were hampered and hobbled by statutory consent problems. Those will be dealt to by David Parker when he revamps the Resource Management Act and brings a proposal back to the House, and then we'll see about the attitude from the other side of the House. One hundred million dollars has been made available to work with regional councils and the farmers, who are looking towards the champion of the provinces to assist them with riparian planting and waterways; $60 million for rail investments and roads; and $70 million in direct response to the leaders of our local communities to address issues such as refurbishing town halls, war memorials, and, where appropriate, maraes—provided that they're free of iwi ideology.
Hon Tracey Martin: How will the projects announced following the refocusing support these goals?
Hon SHANE JONES: Obviously, waterway improvement is something that society, through the last election, called for loud and clear. There are sensitive waterways in areas such as the Kaipara Harbour. Regional councils have become hoarse over the previous nine years waiting for assistance, and it has now arrived through the Provincial Growth Fund. Further decisions and announcements pertaining to water quality that will augment what we're doing are, no doubt, going to be announced in due course. Local roading projects, which do not require the long-term process of the New Zealand Transport Agency to be observed, can start with alacrity, and rail projects, given that this Government is the saviour of KiwiRail, are ready to go and are likely to create hundreds of jobs.
Hon Tracey Martin: Why is this change in focus necessary for our provinces?
Hon SHANE JONES: These changes will be a welcome source of relief for the breadwinners in the breadbasket of New Zealand, otherwise known as the provinces. As those areas were dependent on tourism—and we've seen the loss of foreign exchange earnings into the many billions—we need now to work with provincial businesses and we need to work with those stakeholders to ensure that they are able to make tough decisions that grow productivity. The framework and the relationships that we've created through the Provincial Growth Fund will enhance their ability to perform, and they are waiting with great anticipation for the soon to be announced $3 billion infrastructure funds.




Question No. 4—Finance
SPEAKER: Question No. 4—the Hon Paul Goldsmith.
Hon Shane Jones: Ah, "Ngāti Epsom". 
SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Was it one or two members who interjected? Mr Jackson as well? Both blaming each other? Both will stand, withdraw, and apologise.
Hon Willie Jackson: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Shane Jones: I withdraw and apologise—"Ngāti Pāora". 
SPEAKER: No. Look, this is a matter that's had some publicity and it's an error made by a member of Parliament, and my view is that it should be left there. Frankly, I would have thought that the senior member from the North—or the relatively senior member from the North looking in front of him—should know better. He will apologise again.
Hon Shane Jones: I withdraw and apologise. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think it's of some moment to anyone in this country who's been here in their ancestry a thousand years who is Māori that people are actually identified to be either that or not. It's not a matter of racism or anything else, but I think it's a legitimate thing to raise in this House when someone has the, well, ignorance to say that someone is Māori and that person himself says he's not, I think sorting it out in this House is pretty important. It may be of some embarrassment, but that's no reason why we should avoid the silliness which I've seen in other countries where someone was named, as you'll recall, Pocahontas because of a claim to be Indian. Now, if it's still jumping around in the American political system, surely we can have our day of fun.
SPEAKER: And I'm sure that later in the afternoon, when we get to the debate, there will be an opportunity for something which is slightly wider. In the interim, I could recommend people that they read a very good paper from the Minister coordinating race relations in about 2005, which drew attention to the indigeneity of someone from Wainuiōmata. 
4. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he have confidence in the Treasury's Budget forecasts?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Kia ora, Pāora Kōuramete. Yes, I have confidence that the Treasury undertook the same rigorous, independent process to produce the Budget forecast as it did under the previous Government. And I note that Treasury this year undertook the unprecedented step of updating its economic impact forecast closer to the Budget. I would add that most economists, from Treasury to retail banks to the Reserve Bank, have said that forecasting during a one-in-100-year global economic shock is difficult, and, as I said in the Budget speech, more of an art than a science, which is why Treasury, of course, produced three alternative scenarios alongside its central Budget forecast.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: On what basis does he have confidence in the Treasury's forecast that the economy will generate 180,000 new jobs in the next two years?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I believe the member is quoting from the analysis by Infometrics economist Brad Olsen. He was actually comparing job creation and the unemployment rate together, which, as the member knows, is a tricky area to go into. What we do know is that the investments that the Government is making in job creation and in helping people stay in their jobs undoubtedly will add to job growth.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he agree with Professor Norman Gemmell's observation that Treasury estimates that $62.1 billion will save 140,000 jobs—that's nearly $450,000 per job saved?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It's really a repeat of the previous answer: forecasting in this environment is very difficult. Norman Gemmell has been a fairly regular critic of the work of this Government, so it doesn't entirely surprise me he's made those comments.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he agree with Professor Gemmell's conclusion that $450,000 per job saved sounds like an expensive trade-off?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I don't actually agree with the premise of Mr Gemmell's comments, let alone his conclusions.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does Treasury's forecast that tax revenue will return to pre-COVID levels by 2022 rely on the imposition of new taxes?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No it doesn't. The member will be aware that Treasury's forecasts rely upon their idea of where the economy will be at at any given moment. I would note for the member that, actually, Treasury's forecasts are more pessimistic in a number of ways than the average of the retail banks' forecasts; so that just highlights that at the moment we are in the middle of a one-in-100-year shock, but the Government's plans to grow jobs and keep people in jobs will stand us in good stead for growth in the future.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I follow up on the Hon Pāora Goldsmith's question and ask whether or not it's a fact—
Hon Members: Oh, come on.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: —well, that's his interpretation—that Treasury actually, if you know anything about Treasury, make their forecasts on existing tax law, not some futuristic, dreamt-up tax law?
SPEAKER: And leaving out the out of order bit.
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Pāora Kōuramete's comments I don't agree with. The Treasury does indeed—as the member suggests—make their forecasts based on existing policies.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Will he rule out tax increases in the next term of Government if he is fortunate enough to be the Minister of Finance?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I can say that this Government's record on taxation stands. We have made sure that over the last two months we have used the tax system to put in place measures that support the cash flow for small businesses in New Zealand and to support all New Zealand taxpayers. On that score, the Government stands by its tax policy. Future Governments will make tax policy as they see fit.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: So can he confirm that, if re-elected, he will send New Zealanders the invoice for the spending that is happening now?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No. What I can confirm is that the member's confidence in the re-election of this Government is well-placed.




Question No. 5—Social Development
5. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social Development: Does she believe all her recent announcements are fair and non-discriminatory?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Mr Speaker, talofa lava. I believe the decisions this Government has made will support New Zealanders to get back on their feet after the impacts of COVID. These announcements include the COVID-19 income relief payment, which will support families who have experienced a job loss due to COVID-19; the wage subsidy, which has supported 1.6 million New Zealanders; and the $150 million we are putting into expanding the Ministry of Social Development's employment services. Alongside this, our Government has committed to an overhaul of the welfare system to ensure it is fair and non-discriminatory. That's why, on 1 April, we indexed main benefits to increases in wages, increased benefits, lifted abatement threshold, and removed the discriminatory sanction that penalised sole parents. Max Rashbrooke, editor of Inequality: A New Zealand Crisis, summed up his piece by saying, "the COVID-19 payments, far from being an insult to the already unemployed, are not just a sensible way to cushion the blow of a colossal economic shock: they could be a step on the way towards a welfare system that genuinely, and generously, helps us collectively insure against the social risks that are far too large for any one individual to manage." 
Hon Louise Upston: Has she received specific legal advice around whether the COVID-19 income relief payment unfairly discriminates between individuals? 
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: To my knowledge, there is no discrimination. However, drawing distinctions in order to decide who can receive taxpayer-funded income support is an important and legitimate policy decision for any Government. We supported the job loss cover that was put in place following the Canterbury earthquakes under the previous Government. We also supported the ReStart package that was put in place following the global financial crisis. Unprecedented events call for unprecedented actions, and it's important that we act urgently to ensure that families are looked after during this time. 
Hon Louise Upston: Does someone who lost their job on 29 February have lower living costs than someone who lost their job on 1 March, and, if not, why will they receive less money? 
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: It's important to note that on 1 April, indexation of main benefits came into effect. That was probably one of the most significant moves that we've seen with respect to the welfare system. It will also mean that they will be better off. If we look at a sole parent, for instance, they would have received an additional $10.56 from indexation, an additional $25 on 1 April from the increase in benefits, and also, if they had had a sanction applied under section 192, an additional $34, on average. We are responding to the recommendation in the Welfare Expert Advisory Group's report to overhaul the welfare system. Alongside that, we are putting measures in place to respond to this unprecedented event. 
Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: Can the member confirm that the income support measures that were announced yesterday were modelled on the very changes that the last Government made in the wake of the devastating Christchurch earthquakes—a policy which it now seems that parts of the Opposition no longer support? 
SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member may answer the first part of the question. 
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Yes, I can. As I said, there has been a precedent of this in the past, when we have faced other situations which of course could be deemed a crisis. This one, though, I do need to say is obviously on a much larger scale. We're not talking about one particular region—although we obviously recognise the significance of the Canterbury earthquakes—and so I think that this is the responsible action to take. I stand by it, as does our Government. 
Hon Louise Upston: Does she accept that when the Government, rightly, closed New Zealand's borders to China on 2 February, many tourism workers lost their jobs due to COVID-19, and, if so, why are they being discriminated against and not able to access the COVID-19 income relief payment? 
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: 1 March till 30 October is when this will be open for those that may have lost jobs because of the impacts of COVID-19. As I said also, I am relieved that this Government has taken action quickly, keeping in mind that our first response, I think, with regard to COVID was to increase benefits and double the winter energy payment. Is there more to do with respect to the welfare overhaul? Absolutely, and this Government's committed to doing more. 
Hon Louise Upston: Does she think it's kind that someone with a permanent disability on the supported living payment will now receive less financial support from the Government than a job-ready worker with a $20,000 redundancy package and a partner earning $2,000 a week? 
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Can I just say that I find that quite rich, given that even when the Opposition members were in Government and they did lift benefits, they only lifted benefits for those that had children. They had no regard for those that had a disability or a health condition. When we lifted benefits on 1 April, they were for all benefit recipients. We took into consideration that, actually, 136,000 of those on benefit did have a health condition or disability, and we ensured that that benefit increase went to them as well. 




Question No. 6—Social Development
6. PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: What recent announcements has the Government made on providing financial support for people who have lost work due to COVID-19?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, we announced the COVID-19 income relief payment to provide support for people who have lost work since March due to the impacts of COVID-19. Like Australia, the UK, and many other countries, we can't escape the reality that there will be job losses and people's lives will be affected. The measures we have taken to protect jobs and help businesses stay afloat against the impacts of COVID-19 are significant, but, unfortunately, unemployment will rise before it improves. As with the global financial crisis and the Canterbury earthquakes, widespread redundancies were expected and temporary financial assistance was introduced to reduce the impact on those who lost their jobs. The COVID-19 income relief payment will help cushion the blow for families who have experienced an unexpected job loss due to the economic impacts of COVID-19. This payment is part of our next step to help New Zealanders respond and recover during these unprecedented times.
Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Who will qualify for the COVID-19 income relief payment?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The COVID-19 income relief payment will help reduce the negative impact of job losses on individuals and families. We know that many people who may be faced with job loss might not qualify for a benefit. In ordinary times, we'd expect many of these people to quickly find other work or manage their costs over time without additional support. However, the unprecedented times we face mean many of these families and individuals will be under pressure to get back on their feet quickly to meet their living costs but will be doing this in a different labour market than they have faced before. These are extraordinary times, and there is a growing cohort of people not eligible for the benefit but also facing the global economic impacts of COVID-19. This payment will provide a cushion for up to 12 weeks for people who have lost a job or a business since 1 March, and up until 30 October, and whose partners earn under $2,000 per week.
Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What feedback has she heard on the COVID-19 income relief payment?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We have received support for our announcement from a diverse group of stakeholders. Business New Zealand said yesterday in their press release, "we are glad to see the Government cushioning the blow and protecting jobs where possible and supporting workers back into jobs where necessary". The New Zealand Council of Trade Unions said they "support this initiative to really make sure that those Kiwis who are out of work are actively assisted to find new work while being financially secure." There has also been some criticism about this payment and what this means for our welfare overhaul. I want to confirm that we are still committed to continuing our welfare overhaul and improving support for New Zealanders who interact with our welfare system. We have made significant changes to date, including indexation of main benefits and benefit increases. Is there more to do? Yes, and we are committed to continuing this work.




Question No. 7—Health
7. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Health: Has he received any advice regarding the number of surgical procedures that did not take place as planned due to COVID-19; if so, what is his best estimate of the number of these procedures?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. Budget 2020 included a one-off investment of $282.5 million to fund a planned care catch-up campaign following disruption caused by the COVID-19 global pandemic. That will fund an estimated 153,000 surgeries and procedures, radiology scans, and first specialist appointments over the next three years. Preliminary data suggests that approximately 8,500 elective and acute inpatient surgeries were deferred, and 11,100 minor procedures. I'm advised that the Budget 2020 funding will more than cover that level of deferred care.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he agree with Sarah Dalton of the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists, who said, "The health system will absolutely not be able to relieve the backlog in a year. No way in the world."?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I think what we've seen during the COVID period is an extraordinary response from our health system. People have been willing to step up and deliver care in new ways. I expect that people will be working as efficiently as possible to deliver as much care as possible.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is he saying by the Budget numbers that there will be a net increase of 120,000 to 130,000 elective procedures next year, and, if so, why will he not publish data to confirm or refute that?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I think the member misunderstands. There are, of course, a number of components of those surgeries and procedures, radiology scans, and first specialist appointments that are accounted for in the 153,000 surgeries and procedures, radiology scans, and first specialist appointments that have been funded over the next three years by the Government in the Budget. It is a significant investment; make no mistake. Also, we do note that the hospitals are having to work in different ways—allowing more space, extra cleaning routines, and so on—because of COVID, but we are prepared to invest in our health system. It has been under-invested in for a very long time, and we will continue to invest. That is the record of this Government.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Will there be a specific quantitative target of elective procedures for 2020-2021, and if not, why not?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: We have seen more planned care for more people under this Government, and that is what we are absolutely focused on. Targets don't treat people; well-resourced doctors and nurses treat people. Under this Government, we have 1,500 more nurses, we have 900 more doctors, and we have over 600 more allied health workers. After nine long years of neglect, the health system is getting the resources, finally, that it needs to provide the care that New Zealanders need and deserve.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: If he is so sure that as a consequence of this investment more will be done, why will he not publish the data that confirms this?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: We continue to publish data that shows more care is being received by more people. That is the record of this Government.




Question No. 8—Social Development
8. MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for Social Development: Does she believe our social support system should provide enough income for all people to live with dignity?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Yes, I do agree, and that's why this Government has already taken steps to increase income for New Zealanders. We implemented our Families Package, which was the biggest boost in household income in a decade for thousands of families. In Budget 2019, for the first time in New Zealand's history, we indexed main benefit increases to wages, and also removed the punitive sanction 192. This year, we have increased main benefits and doubled the winter energy payment. It is important to note that support for employment and access to upskilling and training were also cited by the Welfare Expert Advisory Group as being of the utmost importance. This Government's investment of $1.6 billion into the Trades and Apprenticeship Training Package and the $150 million extra into expanding the Ministry of Social Development's employment support is also crucial. We have always said that we couldn't make all the changes that we wanted to in one year, or even in one term, but this Government will continue to work together on how we can improve income support for New Zealanders.
Marama Davidson: Is the COVID-19 income relief payment, announced yesterday, a recognition by this Government that current benefit levels are too low?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: This payment is temporary financial assistance in recognition of those New Zealanders impacted by job losses due to COVID-19 that may not be, in some instances, eligible for support in our current welfare system and/or find themselves unemployed at a time when the labour market is going to be much more difficult to navigate. The payment is one of a range of financial assistance initiatives that the Government is providing to New Zealanders. There is also further work under way to explore unemployment insurance schemes, following a request from Business New Zealand and the Council of Trade Unions. This Government is exploring how to best support displaced workers, and unemployment insurance is a key tool that many countries in the OECD use for that purpose. We want to understand the role it can play in New Zealand on top of the work that we are already doing to improve income adequacy through the welfare system.
Marama Davidson: Should people with health conditions and disabilities be able to keep their full benefits when they enter a relationship with someone earning less than $2,000 a week, just like people who will be receiving a COVID-19 temporary income payment?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: One of the key parts of this Government's medium-term welfare overhaul plan is to review the settings underpinning income support, including, for example, relationship settings and eligibility criteria. I look forward to us continuing to do that work together.
Marama Davidson: What further work is being done to ensure that every one in New Zealand has enough to live on, both during this crisis and long term?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Under our confidence and supply agreement, we committed to an overhaul of the welfare system, and we're already seeing positive impacts for people as a result of this Government's achievements—for example, for a person receiving sole parent support with a six-month-old and no other income, living in South Auckland, increases under this Government have meant a total increase of around $200 per week compared to a person in the same situation in early 2017. In response to COVID-19, we have also implemented the wage subsidy, which has supported more than 1.6 million employees through lockdown; developed a small-business cash-flow loan scheme; injected $27 million into the social services sector; and invested a further $30 million through civil defence emergency management into helping those with immediate needs around food and welfare. But I've never shied away from the fact that we have more to do in the long term to address income adequacy. We will continue our work to overhaul the welfare system to support the wellbeing of New Zealanders now and into the future.




Question No. 9—Transport
9. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Transport: On what date did Cabinet last consider the Auckland light rail project, and when does he expect to make an announcement as to a preferred delivery partner for the project?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): Talofa lava, Mr Speaker, malo soifua. 4 June, and after Cabinet decides.
Chris Bishop: 4 June 2018 or 2019?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I think it's self-evident, because we haven't got to 4 June this year, and the most recent 4 June that I'm aware of is in 2019.
Chris Bishop: Why has Cabinet not considered Auckland light rail since 4 June—as we've now learnt—2019, when the Government committed to having it built to Mount Roskill by 2021?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Because I haven't taken that proposal to Cabinet yet, and the reason is that it was due to go to Cabinet in February, after the Ministry of Transport completed a rigorous assessment of alternative proposals, that Cabinet asked it to do. And at the time that COVID-19 hit the country, we've incurred a delay of three months because the Government has been preoccupied with focusing all of its resources on the response to COVID-19, but the proposal will return to Cabinet shortly.
Chris Bishop: Is he seriously telling the House that COVID-19, which only really came into effect in terms of Government time lines in the last three months, is to blame for three years of inaction on a core Government election promise?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, I completely reject the premise of the member's question.
Chris Bishop: What premise of my question does he reject?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: That there had been no work done over the last three years.
Chris Bishop: Can he confirm officials recommended to him that a refreshed process would have allowed market participants the opportunity to bid for the delivery of Auckland light rail, and, if so, why did he not progress this option?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I can't confirm that, but I can confirm that the Ministry of Transport and Treasury advised Cabinet that the twin-track assessment process that the Ministry of Transport completed in the last six months of the last calendar year was justified and the appropriate way to deal with the options that were on the table.
Chris Bishop: Is he aware that the Deputy Prime Minister has just said this afternoon, "It's not an issue for us because it's not going to happen in the immediate term.", and will he now accept that Auckland light rail is not happening?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Discussions among coalition partners are an essential part of Cabinet decision-making. We've had those discussions and they will be reflected in the advice that goes to Cabinet.




Question No. 10—Research, Science and Innovation
10. Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister of Research, Science and Innovation: What recent announcements has the Government made about a vaccine strategy for New Zealand?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Research, Science and Innovation): Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. Today, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of Health, and I announced the COVID-19 vaccine strategy. The COVID-19 strategy aims to secure a vaccine—safe, effective, and in sufficient quantities—at the earliest possible time. It will enable New Zealand scientists to ramp up their important research, allow New Zealand to contribute to global research efforts, and explore the potential of vaccine manufacturing capability in New Zealand. We've set aside $37 million as part of the strategy, which will see New Zealand collaborate on the development of diagnostics, vaccines, and treatments of COVID-19. The development of a vaccine is an immense global challenge, and the Government's approach is recognition that this will take time, cohesion, and expertise from across the board, from home-grown science capability to the leading role New Zealand will take in the Pacific in the distribution of the vaccine once it is discovered.
Dr Liz Craig: So what are the key components of the strategy?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: There are five central pillars to this strategy, which acknowledge the complexity and interconnectedness of the vaccine challenge. The pillars are: connecting New Zealand researchers globally to contribute to all aspects of vaccine development, distribution, and use; investing in research that contributes to global efforts, builds relationships, and supports early access to a vaccine; developing the ability to manufacture in case it is needed to secure supply; optimising regulatory approaches to ensure safety, to support research, and to enable domestic manufacturing; and using our purchasing arrangements, managed by Pharmac, to secure supply where possible and to enhance resilience. The vaccine strategy will also feed into and support immunisation strategy and planning as safe and effective vaccines are developed.
Dr Liz Craig: So what role will the New Zealand research sector play in the production of a vaccine? 
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: New Zealand has a world-class research sector with a history of working with colleagues across the globe to tackle complex problems. I've been heartened to see the speed and enthusiasm with which researchers have been tackling this issue, and it is this expertise that will be crucial to New Zealand securing access to a vaccine as soon as possible. It is vital that we contribute to international research efforts as well as ramping up our own research and manufacturing capability to meet demand. New Zealand scientists and researchers have already initiated early work into vaccine research, and we've supported this through funding through the COVID-19 Innovation Accelerator Fund. I'm pleased to say this strategy will enable this valuable New Zealand research to continue.
SPEAKER: Question No. 11, the Hon—oh, sorry: Liz Craig.
Dr Liz Craig: Just one final supp: how will New Zealand play a part in assisting our Pacific neighbours?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: We also have a strong interest in ensuring access for Pacific Island countries. Our aid programme will work with Pacific Island countries, regional organisations, and other donors to help these countries access vaccines and implement successful immunisation strategies. This is consistent with New Zealand's ongoing commitment to the Pacific, and I'd like to thank the Minister of Foreign Affairs for his ongoing advocacy for the Pacific region and its part in the broader vaccine strategy.




Question No. 11—Tourism
11. Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) to the Minister of Tourism: Does he stand by all his statements and actions in relation to tourism?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister of Tourism): Yes. In particular, I stand by my announcement on Budget day which delivered a $400 million tourism recovery package targeted at helping businesses pivot towards the domestic market and protects our strategic tourism assets and the communities that benefit from them. This package, coupled with the extension of wage subsidies, our domestic marketing campaign, business tax relief, and the business finance guarantee scheme, forms this Government's strong support package for the tourism sector, which will help us all to respond, recover, and restart the tourism industry in a post-COVID world.
Hon Todd McClay: What does he say to Hobbiton chief executive, Russell Alexander, who said that there has been no detail in the Government's tourism response package and "The problem is we have Minister of Tourism who is talking at his industry not talking with or for his industry."?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I have received a letter of apology from the very same person, following their remarks, which were taken out of context. I have accepted their apology. He also said that a $400 million support package is significant and welcome, as is the wage subsidy relief extension.
Hon Todd McClay: As Minister, what is his personal plan to get tourism back on its feet?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Firstly, our plan involved a strong and urgent Government response to support workers in small tourism businesses. We did this through the wage subsidy scheme and the various tax relief measures, of which the tourism industry accessed billions of dollars. Secondly, we are moving into a recovery and restart stage, extending the wage subsidy while we look to help businesses pivot towards a domestic or trans-Tasman market, protecting strategic tourism assets and the communities that benefit from them, and easing into a domestic marketing campaign to get Kiwis to "Do Something New, New Zealand!"—all the while keeping an eye on ensuring the tourism sector we are restarting and rebuilding is the reimagined industry we are planning for. The tourism task force, which is a private-public partnership, will continue their work on providing that leadership and advice.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given that that misrepresentation or misinformation comes from a member of Parliament and is against him and is wrong, does he expect now to receive an apology?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: No. I don't expect an apology from the Opposition; I think that would be expecting way too much.
Tamati Coffey: How important is Māori tourism in the recovery of the tourism industry?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: It's very important. We value the Māori contribution to our unique tourism offering. In my list of priorities, I wouldn't rank the Māori contribution at number 13 or number 17. On this side of the House, our Māori contribution is more likely to have been seen at ranks number two, three, 11, 18, 20, 21, and 22. 
Tamati Coffey: What alternative recovery plans has he seen for the tourism sector?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Our plan is to work with industry to respond, recover, restart, and reimagine a better tourism industry than the one we had. This is much better than another plan I've seen, which says we need to—and I quote—"run a major advertising programme, tell New Zealanders not to travel internationally, and instead to visit bespoke destinations." You'll find this underwhelming plan if you go to . 
Hon Todd McClay: Why, given that tourism was a $40 billion industry employing up to 400,000 people, did the Budget only allocate 1 percent of that to help the tourism sector?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The finance Minister was very specific in the Budget speech that after the initial response to COVID and the support that we gave to businesses, the Budget was the second wave of support and there will be a further wave of support. So the member just needs to sit and wait, because more is to come.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has he received any submissions on the future Māori contribution to New Zealand tourism from one Pāora Heke Goldsmith?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I'd really be interested in any contribution from the Hon Pāora Kōuramete. But, to be honest, having seen the policies from the other side, I don't have any anticipation that there'll be anything worthwhile and useful for the country.
Hon Todd McClay: When he says that the member should sit and wait, does he not realise he's saying to every single tourism business in New Zealand that, actually, they too must wait and that they need to urgently hear from him about what his actual plan is? They have now been waiting for more than nine weeks.
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The $400 million package is going to help businesses to pivot to manage through to a potential trans-Tasman bubble or hibernate, if that's what they need, or to explore other options, as well as the strategic assets programme, which will help those assets that have positive spillover effects not only beyond their own business but into their communities and into the wider region and potentially further afield. So the Budget announcement is good news for the tourism industry, and there is more good news to come.




Question No. 12—Employment
12. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Employment: What employment programmes or policies has he undertaken in response to the coronavirus outbreak?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): Tuatahi, tika me mihi ki a koe to that member. I congratulate him on his position. The first part of our response was to support workers and small-business owners to keep people connected to their employment: over $10 billion in wage subsidies to over 1.6 million Kiwis and more than $890 million in small-business loans to over 52,000 businesses to help with cash flow. We were in a strong position, in terms of employment, as we went into COVID19, with the lowest general and Māori unemployment rates in a decade. We must protect those gains as much as possible. As part of our response, I have direct oversight of five critical programmes that will help people, particularly young people and Māori, find jobs, learn new skills, and tackle other barriers in terms of employment. We're expanding He Poutama Rangatahi, our community-driven employment programme; we're investing in Māori apprenticeships, Māori trades training; we're strengthening our jobs and skills hubs in Auckland; we're working with and listening directly to our communities by establishing regional skills leadership groups; and we're expanding the very successful Mana in Mahi.
Dr Shane Reti: Is programme completion an outcome measure for these programmes, and if so, what are the targets for completion?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: In terms of the completion rates, we have had much success in that area—much success. We have an 81 percent success rate in terms of Mana in Mahi—81 percent success rate in terms of Mana in Mahi. That's 81 percent of young people not returning to the unemployment benefit. So of course completion rates are important.
Dr Shane Reti: What are the completion rates for the other four programmes that he's named in the House today?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: In terms of He Poutama Rangatahi, we have 3,000 young people who are involved in employment or in training. As I said, in terms of Mana in Mahi, we have an 81 percent success rate. Māori trades training has not yet started, but it will be very, very successful. Our jobs and skills hubs are working very well, because they work in terms of the community, and our regional skills hubs also are working very, very well. All in all, things are going very well in this area. We haven't given up, like the Opposition did after the global financial crisis, when unemployment spiralled to over 15 percent.
Kiritapu Allan: How will increasing investment into He Poutama Rangatahi improve employment outcomes for young people in response to COVID-19?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: By investing $121 million over four years with He Poutama Rangatahi, we'll continue to fund community-driven programmes that work with otherwise hard to reach young people who face multiple barriers to employment and training. This programme, up to now, has been based out in the regions, but we'll be moving this programme—still working in the regions, where I work with the Hon Shane Jones, but now moving this kaupapa into the cities. History shows us that young people are more strongly affected by economic crises, particularly young Māori, Pacific people, women, and disabled people. These groups face difficulties getting employment but also difficulties accessing training and education. He Poutama Rangatahi programmes can help them overcome these programmes. This is a programme we're very proud of. The Opposition talked about it when we came in three years ago but never ever rolled it out. Our communities have benefited so greatly, and it's of course just a shame that COVID-19 came along.
Dr Shane Reti: Did he take any new employment programmes or policies to Cabinet during the nearly four weeks of alert level 4, and if so, what were they?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: We had programmes that were already in front of Cabinet. Those programmes have already done the business, are already well established. So, in terms of new programmes, the only new programme that was put forward was the Māori trades training programme, that we're hoping will be a big success and the Opposition should support also.
Kiritapu Allan: In light of all the discussions around the impacts of COVID-19 on Māori, how will investing in Māori apprenticeships improve employment outcomes for Māori in response to COVID-19?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Māori have made great strides in the skills and employment outcomes in recent years, despite what the Opposition did to them over the previous nine years, and they need to be protected. Prior to COVID-19, we had seen the lowest unemployment rates for Māori in over a decade. So we must protect those employment gains we've made and ensure Māori emerge from this crisis stronger than ever. That's why Budget 2019—oh, Budget 2020, I should say—[Interruption] Oh, that was really funny, eh? Oh, right, OK—must be desperate if you found that funny. But the Māori Apprenticeships Fund will empower Māori entities to take on and support apprentices, such as through group trades training schemes, to protect recent improvements in Māori skills and employment and strengthen the Māori-Crown relationship. Our people are looking forward to the next few months, and although things are tough, there's a lot of optimism out there that they will form partnerships with a Government that cares.
Dr Shane Reti: Of the $100 million coronavirus funding he announced on 20 March to redeploy workers due to coronavirus, how many have been redeployed?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I'll come back to you with that number.





BUDGET DEBATE
Debate resumed from 14 May on the Appropriation (2020/21 Estimates) Bill.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Economic Development): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's good to be back in the House and speaking on this year's Budget, aka Rebuilding Together. Now, it's not the Budget that Grant Robertson expected that he would be delivering in 2020, but it is absolutely the Budget that New Zealand needs now. At the time of a once-in-a-hundred-year pandemic, history will record that this Government took decisive action not only to fight the virus but to protect jobs, incomes, and businesses. Alongside that, we took the view that the best economic response to this crisis was always a strong public health response—and when you turn on the TV news and you see what's happening in countries around the world, that is unquestionably true. We went hard and we went early, and, thanks to the team of five million, now is the time to start rebooting the economy and building the recovery. The challenge—[Interruption]
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! It's very difficult for the Minister. Carry on, Minister; I was just getting a bit of quiet for you.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The challenge now is, surely, that this country has to take the same level of focus and discipline that it applied to fighting the virus over the first two months since we went into lockdown and apply that same measure of resolve to the economic recovery.
It shouldn't surprise anyone that, since our health system has been supporting us through this time of COVID-19, it's appropriate that we support the health system. Budget 2020 delivers the biggest ever increase in funding to the health system; it's also, importantly, had additional funding for around 153,000 more surgeries and procedures, radiology scans, and specialist appointments to help clear the COVID-19 backlog. Budget 2020 continues this Government's record of tackling the legacy of neglect and underfunding that we inherited in the public health system.
Last week, the Government's west Auckland MPs had the pleasure of hosting the Minister of Finance, the Hon Grant Robertson, in a public meeting—a Zoom and Facebook Live session—about the Budget. One of the queries that was raised by Margaret in that session was about services at Waitakere Hospital. She said that she wanted Waitakere Hospital to have all of the services and the status that North Shore Hospital does, which is also in the Waitematā DHB. Well, good news for Margaret: the Budget put around $300 million into the Waitematā DHB, and a good share of that will go to the Waitakere Hospital—something that myself and other Government MPs in west Auckland strongly support.
Some other feedback that we had during the Facebook Live session with the finance Minister came from Leigh, who said that she was so pleased to see the restoration of funding for adult education after it was decimated by the former National Government a decade ago. It is a very, very popular announcement: a $16 million boost to adult and community education in the Budget. The new funding will give 11,000 New Zealanders the opportunity to take up adult and community education, which will involve a modern approach to rebuilding and reinventing night classes—something that our communities treasured but was taken away from them. And, of course, it's particularly important now given that so many people in the job market will be looking for an opportunity to get back into education and to retrain.
Tevita—you know who you are, Tevita—said it was fantastic to note that $36 million was being put up to support community groups in Budget 2020. A specific focus of this Budget allocation is to help Māori, Pacific, refugee, and migrant communities to access this fund to support grassroots work. That's really important in west Auckland, because our community is so diverse—very big Māori communities, Pacific, other new migrant communities. They will treasure the extra resources being put into these community groups. And, of course, those organisations play a crucial role in supporting the most vulnerable people in responding and adjusting to the shock caused by COVID19.
West Auckland is, of course, the home of small business. A few days ago, I did a Facebook Live panel discussion with the Central Park Henderson Business Association, and the leaders of that association made it very clear in that discussion just how important the wage subsidy scheme has been to keep workers in work and businesses in business. The wage subsidy scheme has supported businesses, from large ones in my electorate like Tasti, the snack bar manufacturer and exporter in Te Atatū Peninsula who employ more than 200 local people in their factory there, to the family who run my local fish and chip shop.
We followed that up with a $1.4 billion injection into skills and apprenticeships. If there are two things that west Auckland needs at the moment, it's support for jobs and for training, and skills and apprenticeships. This could not have been received more warmly in my community. That injection into skills and training will financially incentivise and support businesses to keep apprentices on during these difficult economic times—that's absolutely essential. It will also ensure that some trade training and apprenticeships will be free in targeted and selected industries. One of those will be construction. I'm sure another will be retail. Those two industries are critically important for people in West Auckland—a lot of jobs in those two sectors.
We've also put support packages in place, in the response to COVID-19, to save jobs in tourism and in aviation—two of the sectors that were hardest hit and earliest hit. We're also doubling our assistance to exporters. That's a really important part of the COVID recovery plan. It has to be export-led. We need the jobs that our big exporters generate—particularly in the regions—and the foreign exchange. Those are the big industries that are going to get us through the next few years. We are doubling our assistance through NZ Trade and Enterprise—NZTE—a fantastic Government agency that works directly with thousands of New Zealand firms, helping them to lift their export performance.
At the smaller end of the scale, for small to medium sized enterprises, another part of the assistance package for small businesses has been $10 million to help them hone their e-commerce skills. We saw this during the level 4 and level 3 lockdown periods. So many businesses reached for e-commerce as a way that they could keep operating, keep looking after their customers, and keep their staff at work. Many have discovered that, actually, that can become a successful and productive part of their business model. They can reach more customers more efficiently, and so directly helping those small businesses with e-commerce is, I think, one of the best and most targeted things we could do.
As economic development Minister, I'm working with the film industry to get productions back under way in west Auckland. I'm pleased to say that a number of the big American studios are very keen to resume production, and there are a number knocking on our door to come here and start new productions. That's also something to celebrate in west Auckland, because it means literally billions of dollars of investment over the coming years, and hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs directly and indirectly supporting these big international screen productions.
During our Facebook Live session with the Hon Grant Robertson, Heather said that it was great news about the school lunches programme. The expansion of the free and healthy school lunch programme was part of a whole package of initiatives designed to really support some of our poorest and neediest communities during the economic crisis. The expansion of the programme will see around 200,000 extra Kiwi kids get a free lunch every school day. It's not just good for the kids; it's estimated that this policy will create around 2,000 jobs in those communities. I know, in west Auckland, in some of our neediest schools, parents and staff in those schools come together to provide nutritious food for the students that need it to ensure that they can learn. This is a great policy—no wonder it's so popular.
Lynette from Sport Waitākere welcomed the package for sports and recreation, in our Facebook Live discussion, and pointed out that, actually, since COVID-19, much of the funding for the sport and community sector has dried up, putting sports under real strain. The Government—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member's time has expired.





Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Look, New Zealand's facing a great economic challenge right now. I have every confidence—and we on this side of the Parliament have every confidence—that New Zealanders can overcome the challenge and get back on track and restore ourselves to prosperity, and for New Zealanders to have the opportunity to live the lives that they want to lead, looking after themselves and their families, having opportunities for good, sustainable work, and getting on with it. So New Zealanders are resilient, and I have no doubt that we will get on top of the challenges that we face.
This Budget, however, will probably help in some degree, but not as much as it could have. When we look at the Budget figures announced on 14 May, what did we see? We saw the prospect of an extra $140 billion of debt. So, at the moment, New Zealanders have about $60 billion of net debt—$60 billion—and that $60 billion is going to go up to $200 billion—an extra $140 billion of debt. Then we'll see unemployment rising an extra 150,000 people—150,000 people losing their jobs over the next few months. You can imagine the impact that that has on the lives of New Zealanders, their families, their communities up and down the country, including the East Coast and all about. The impact on those lives will be significant; so we want to reduce that impact as much as we can. So the only relevant questions are: are we making it worse than we need to, and how do we get out of it? Because everybody accepts that all around the world, the COVID crisis has led to an economic challenge. Many countries are grappling with it; in some, it's still getting worse. New Zealand has got through the health crisis relatively well. Now we need to focus on the economic crisis.
There are three things that could be making it worse. One is being too slow to open up. We just heard yesterday that the Government's going to take a month to figure out whether we can come out of level 2. Each passing week adds significantly to the costs that we sustain. So our strong view is that we should look to open up as quickly as we can. We should have an absolute focus on getting the international students back—a major industry, used to employ 55,000 New Zealanders, created huge jobs and opportunities. We should have an absolute focus on getting them back for the second semester, and not just letting it drag on. We should have an absolute focus on getting the trans-Tasman bubble up and going to save our tourism industry, get those people back. We should be taking the attitude that we shouldn't be focused on what we can't do but focused on what we can do, and allowing it to happen.
Second thing is that we can make it worse by not helping small business, particularly, stay afloat during an extraordinary crisis where they've had seven weeks with no income, no revenue, no opportunity to do their business and sell to people. The extraordinary thing is that, with all the billions of dollars announced in this Budget, and billions and billions of dollars spent, they have not chosen to get any direct cash into the hands of those small businesses. Sure, there's been the wage subsidy, which has gone to workers and employees, and people have been grateful for that, and there's been the prospect of all sorts of loans, but when you're a small business struggling to stay alive, the prospect of taking more debt on is not all that appealing. That's why National has argued for getting cash into the hands of those businesses, and we just haven't had any response from the Government on that.
And then, finally, you can make it worse by continuing on with nice-to-have spending that might have made sense in the good times before this crisis. If you just carry on with that, you add to the overall debt mountain that future generations are going to have to pay for. And what we didn't see in this Budget—nowhere did we see anywhere in this Budget any significant attempt to reprioritise spending away from things that might be nice to have in the good times.
So what we see is a fundamental contradiction opening up in this Government. So, for the first two years—for the first two years—they spent the entire time talking about nine years of neglect under the previous Government. Then, in the third year, they spend their entire time saying, as Grant Robertson, the finance Minister, said, "We're in good shape. We've got the lowest debt in the world." Now, those two things don't actually go together very well, because we're only in good shape right now, right here in New Zealand, from a debt point of view, because the previous National Government dug us out of the hole—a $50 billion hole—in the global financial crisis and the Canterbury earthquakes, where we had to borrow $50 billion. And, after that, the previous National Government, led by John Key and Bill English, worked hard, diligently, in a disciplined way, getting back on track, getting on top of that debt and reducing it so that this Government could inherit debt in good shape.
At not a single point did the Opposition—then, as it was, the Labour Party—support any of those moves. They complained and they grizzled and they opposed it all the way. So, for the first two years, they talk about nine years of neglect, and then, for the third year, they talk about the lowest debt in the world and how we're in good shape. That underscores the complete absence of any coherence in what they're saying. It also represents the fact that this Government and this Budget show no clear path to get back on track, to get on top of the debt. It just continues to balloon further and further into the future.
So how do we get out of the challenge? Well, first, we've got to open up the economy, focus on tourism, focus on international education, look for opportunities for people to work. Secondly, we've got to get cash into the hands of those business people that are struggling; as National has suggested, returning GST. There's billions of dollars being spent on catching possums, lots of money spent on the railways, thanks to Winston Peters and his friend from the Far North, but not much in the way of helping businesses directly.
Third, we've got to fire up private sector investment, because it's private sector investment that will drive growth and opportunities for New Zealanders. It's small-business people and large-business people taking a punt, saying, "OK, I'm going to reinvest in my business. I'm going to hire that person. I'm going to take a risk and start a new venture." It's private sector investment that will drive the growth and restore the economy. So we need to have a focus on reducing the regulatory burden that they face. Unbelievably, in the middle of the COVID crisis, this Government pressed ahead and increased the minimum wage when businesses had no revenue. Now, any Government that does that has no idea. Of course, the primary purpose of economic policy is to increase wages, but it has to be based on the ability of a business to pay those wages.
The other thing is you need to have the investment flowing. Associated with this Budget have been very tight rules around foreign investment, where it makes it very difficult for even the smallest amount of inward investment to come in and save businesses. So, if you've got a shop, you're in trouble, you're struggling to survive, you've got a brother or sister overseas who wants to contribute, well, now, according to this Government, you've got to go through a notification process and you've got to wait 10 days; you've got to get lawyers involved, no doubt. It becomes difficult, and it makes it more difficult for businesses to survive and get the capital they need to grow.
Fourth point is we've got to continue to invest in quality infrastructure, and no doubt—we've just heard from Phil Twyford previously, Minister of Transport and infamous for the lack of delivery on KiwiBuild; now equally infamous for the lack of delivery on light rail down Dominion Road; thirdly, infamous for coming in as transport Minister, cancelling all the roads that National had on the plans, because Julie Anne Genter did not want to give in to the "car fascists", and he felt we'd over-invested in roads. Two years later, he started to build those roads again, having wasted 2½ years. That same Phil Twyford will be standing there saying, "We're going to invest in infrastructure. Trust us."
Well, no New Zealanders have any confidence in the ability of this Government to deliver infrastructure. They are great at announcing it; they are world class at announcing it. The Prime Minister—you cannot fault her ability to announce infrastructure projects, and you can't fault the ability of Shane Jones to announce all sorts of infrastructure projects. He's announced his roundabout up at Waipapa in the first week—way back in the hot summer of February 2018. Still haven't built it—still haven't built it. There are a few cones that have been put up, but nothing else has happened. So they'll announce infrastructure till the cows come home and there'll be shovels ready—there'll be shovels and all that sort of stuff—but no New Zealanders have any confidence in their ability to deliver it.
Finally, we need to invest in skills to help New Zealanders retrain and re-equip themselves for the modern world and for the changed world post - COVID-19. Yes, there'll be a lot of New Zealanders saying, "Oh, well, good. They're spending $1.6 billion on apprentices." But that is this Government to a T. Big announcement, no detail, no plan, and, in the meantime, Chris Hipkins has gone and turned that whole sector upside down, in a state of chaos and dysfunction. How on earth they're going to actually deliver all the apprentices that they're talking about is beyond me, and it's beyond anybody here. So lots of big talk.
So this Budget: big Budget—$62 billion of extra spending. As Professor Gemmell, one of New Zealand's leading economics professors noted, the $20 billion - plus of unallocated recovery fund can be strategically dropped into the election battle as further subsidy extension and other vote-targeting sweeteners. I do hope that he's mistaken there, and I do hope this Government will show some discipline over the next couple of months and ensure that future generations don't carry any further burden than they have to, and that we can get back on track. Thank you, Madam Speaker.





Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): That was Pāora, ko te Sky Tower taku whare, ko Ngāti Epsom taku marae, ko Māngere sewage pond taku moana, ko Pāora tōku ingoa.
[That was Pāora, the Sky Tower is my ancestral home, Ngāti Epsom is my village, Māngere sewage pond is my ancestral body of water, Pāora is my name.]
That was the list member based in Epsom who bears the now Māori-fied name "Pāora", which reminds us of Paul from the Bible. Paul was struck blind for three days; this Paul has been blind for three years—intellectually inert, vocally mute, and, sadly, spiritually very negative—failing to recognise that this Budget lays down a handsome array of opportunities for community, for business, for international investment, and, indeed, for domestic employment.
Let's take a small part of the Budget associated with infrastructure. Now, infrastructure has been blighted for far too long by red tape, excessive delay, and processes that may have made sense in a time of economic surplus but now must be trimmed. They must be shortened and they must be rationalised in order for the $3 billion set aside—that's before we get to the $20 billion that the Minister of Finance has wisely sequestered for future developments. The $3 billion will be dealt to by the Cabinet and will identify those projects that will add momentum to people's need to create jobs, to absorb the slack labour, and those firms that are ready to go in the small to medium sized enterprise sector—those projects that can move with pace, timeliness—because I accept, on the odd occasions where Mr Goldsmith has made a sliver of sense, that it has taken too long for a number of our roading projects, rail projects, to get up and get galloping.
And, indeed, the Opposition infrastructure spokesperson has made the point that the Resource Management Act (RMA) changes are overdue. But, deep down, we don't have the luxury of waiting incessantly for these projects, which is why that part of the Budget has as a companion piece the work that Mr David Parker is pursuing in revamping the RMA. There is more work to be done in the application of the Public Works Act and, in addition to that, the Building Act. Both of those, I have no doubt, will enjoy the refining, soothing qualities of bureaucratic reform in the not too distant future, preferably before the election.
Let me come back to another key piece of the Budget. Now, often it's unkindly said about the former Speaker Sir Lockwood Smith that he presided over the death of apprenticeships and vocational training in New Zealand. It's wrong to blame that single individual, and he was the Minister of Education. He was implementing the policies of the time. If there is one awful error that was made back in the early 1990s, it was to downgrade the significance of that type of training and uplift the significance of university-orientated training. One of the great contributions of this Budget is that fees will be met, money will be available for people wanting to move into education, the tertiary sector or to retrain, because infrastructure and housing are going to be key ingredients as we search out ways to expand economic activity to make up for the loss of income associated with the diminution of international tourism and, indeed, international education. 
I see two types of international education myself. I do believe international education has a tremendous amount to offer with those kids that are coming here and going to secondary school. It actually expands the knowledge, the experience, and the confidence of our Kiwi kids when they meet, look, learn, and consult with our international students. And, indeed, universities are able to expand their services for Kiwi kids by attracting highly paying international students. But where I draw the line is where we have dodgy language schools that really have paraded as educational institutions where, sadly, too often they'd be nothing more than visa factories. So, in that sense, no one in this House should look for an early return to that type of education, because many of the unfortunate souls attracted to New Zealand to study in that context have been abused and they've been used and they've actually been a source of cheap labour fodder by unscrupulous employers. Those days, as a consequence of COVID thinking, are over.
Now, let me return to the Budget. During the course of the Budget urgency period, we introduced an overdue small piece of legislation to deal with forestry registration of advisers and log traders, otherwise known as "log mongers". I won't say too much about that bill, because it's still at the select committee, other than to share with the House that, if we are going to diversify the sources of revenue in our economy, we need to turbocharge those parts of the economy where we can rely upon our own natural resources and invest and expand in a better mix of goods and services. Now, admittedly, a lot of our raw material does go, at the moment, to China. That's not surprising from the time that the Helen Clark Government negotiated and bedded down the free trade deal with China—a historic and extraordinary development. Sadly, it has left too many of our commodity traders, such as the woebegone crayfish traders, in a situation that, once that tap is turned off, they have nowhere else to go. So one of the great contributions that will come, post-COVID, from that small piece of forestry reform will be to broaden the markets, given that we'll have a richer array of products coming out of our own country to lessen our reliance on commodity trading with China.
However, we should value the economic relationship with China. It is very important, but we must address our own economic sovereign interests, which is why later today we will be dealing with the overdue reform that Mr David Parker is shepherding through to ensure that, as a consequence of COVID, our country does not lose the ownership of strategically important industries, firms, and enterprises by tightening up the Overseas Investment Office criterion, not to prevent overseas investment but to ensure that it contributes to deepening our ability to survive in an increasingly turbulent world.
One of the features of the Budget has been the focus and attention shown to ensuring that Pasifika and Māori endeavour is not marginalised. But I have a message: we have zero tolerance, we have zero willingness in the party that I belong to, to acquiesce or to encourage any growth in the mistaken beliefs ideologically driven by the iwi leaders group that they have a role to play in either vetoing, consenting, allocating, or rationalising any funding out of our Government to achieve better outcomes for water quality, better outcomes for resource management, better outcomes for farming. I say to those iwi leaders: go back and ensure you look after your own rangatahi before you try and eclipse the status and the experience of those Māori that are already in Cabinet. Any iwi leader who wants to eclipse the role of parliamentarians: hang up your rūnanga spurs, join the fray, stand for election. Otherwise, get out of the way.





Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, that member who's just resumed his seat, Shane Jones, has clearly missed his calling in the Southern Baptist church in Alabama! That was an interesting contribution, and I see that he's pleased with my suggestion that he has missed his calling. But, actually, this is quite a serious business.
We've got a Budget to discuss: the Appropriation (2020/21 Estimates) Bill. It is one which creates a tremendous amount of debt for the country. I think everybody in Parliament, certainly to my knowledge, understands that there is a very serious economic situation that the Government is trying its very best—not very well actually, but trying—to address. We have in the Budget and the Estimates around an extra $20 billion of money that seems to be unallocated, floating around, available to be used at a moment's notice. That is really unusual, and certainly, in my years in Parliament, this is not something that I've ever seen before. Some people have suggested that it goes back to the days well before the Fiscal Responsibility Act. People are wondering about quite where that money's going to be spent and how, and certainly in which electorates and whether it be somewhere around election day. So there are certainly issues here.
We've heard today some questions from the Leader of the Opposition to the Prime Minister around small business, and I thought they were exceptionally good questions. They showed to me that the Prime Minister did not have the detail on small business. And why this is important to this particular bill is to understand that big business always has an open telephone line or email to Government—certainly to Government departments—but small business, which represents most business in this country, certainly the most employers in this country, do not generally get a look in. It's only through their local members of Parliament that they can often even get noticed—whether it's in terms of immigration to get staff in, or whether it's to help bring back into the country staff who have been overseas at the time of the lockdown, or whether it's to deal with the fact that there is no extra money for small business.
I've heard today about how there is a wage subsidy—well, wage subsidies are, by their very nature, for the benefit of the employees, as they should be. We heard some contribution from a member on the other side of the House—apparently a Minister, I can't remember which one; quite truthfully can't remember which one—calling out and saying that even sole traders got a wage subsidy. Well, yes, that's because they're in the business trying to work it as an employee as well. But what's not there is anything to assist people with paying their rent, paying their rates, paying their insurances, paying all the other costs and licences that they often have to have—paying their general way through.
And why should that be available for small business? Well, I can tell you it's because small business did not ask for the COVID-19 shutdown. It did not have any—any—input into what happened to their businesses. Unlike some members of the Labour Party—I'll try not to embarrass her by mentioning her name—I don't believe that's small businesses' fault. I believe that small business, like every other business, were sitting around thinking that they were going along OK, they were paying their bills, they'd got over the Christmas shutdown, which they have to pay for—pay wages for and pay the rent for and pay everything else for—and they were getting themselves back into being cash positive, and all of a sudden this struck.
They did not have a direct line through to the World Health Organization. They did not have access to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials who knew what was happening overseas. They did not have the ability to make any provision. So this bill—this Estimates bill—makes, basically, no provision for them. What I see it making provision for is a whole lot of Government spending. Now, this party on this side is not against Government spending; we just believe that that spending must be useful for the people of New Zealand, and it must be something that's going to help grow the economy and also help people through their time of need.
Despite everything and all the rhetoric out today from the other side—and my dear colleague the Hon Shane Jones', who has resumed his seat, very good talking about people being employed. Well, let's just get serious about this. People are losing their jobs. There are a thousand extra people a day going on to the jobseeker benefit, which in the old parlance is "the dole"—a thousand people a day. That is not a thousand people a day losing their jobs—there's a lot more than that, because if one is in a partnership, is living with somebody who is earning an income who is over a certain level, they can't get the jobseeker benefit. And that's one of the things that I think is really sad, is that people who have never been on the receiving end of a jobseeker benefit or any other benefit are suddenly finding themselves now in that situation of having to ask for help—having to ask for help when they are used to other people asking them for help. That is extraordinarily hard for people who have always been self-reliant, and it's really hard on the mental health of people who have always seen themselves as being survivors and able to cope no matter what to suddenly find they can't cope. I see nothing in this bill that really addresses that.
I don't see anything in this bill that addresses the significant harm that is being done to our communities in this country. When I look at the fact that, even today, the chief economist for the ANZ bank has come out and said that by September—only a few months away—we will have at least 10 percent unemployment, I think that is an absolute tragedy. That is not taking into account the number of people who are not having to be on the jobseeker benefit because of sickness or other disability issues. These are people who are—this is a very serious issue for us as a country. I know that just about every country in the world is having to deal with very similar issues like this, but simply saying that we're going to pay out a lot of money to a lot of big industry doesn't necessarily address the fact that most of our communities that we represent are actually small businesses and small communities.
I was in Clevedon yesterday—part of the Papakura electorate coming up to this election—and on almost a whole side of the street all the shops were shut. This was, until two months ago, an extremely popular, busy area where lots of tourists came and lots of Aucklanders, actually, just went out to Clevedon for the weekend and to go and do something on the way, and there was also a lot of through traffic. Half the businesses there are shut. I just think—how do people come back from that without some help? The best way of helping them is, in the Budget, to look at how the Government could actually just directly help these businesses.
There's no point, as the Prime Minister said today, in giving people advice about liquidations or how to go into bankruptcy—well, that's pretty easy: just don't pay your bills and anybody will be bankrupt; that's the way it works. But the other issue, surely it must be, is that getting advice from some bureaucrats about what to do is hardly going to make anybody who's spent the last 30 years building up a business, seeing it fail—or, actually, by the way, bought a business last year and actually has plenty of debt—that's not going to help them one scrap. Until anyone's been in small business, until anyone's understood what it's like to pay the wages and not pay yourself, until anyone's been in the situation of having to pay the GST and not pay your own mortgage, they don't know anything about small business.
It's all very well to sit there and moralise about how these people should be better off, and at the same time putting up the minimum wage for those who are lucky enough to have a job. Well, how about thinking about the small-business owners who don't even pay themselves the minimum wage, because they don't have the money. It's all very well saying, "Well, we've got the wage subsidy." Well, that's great. I think that's a good thing, the wage subsidy. I think everyone on our side of the House agrees, but the fact is that's not going to the employer; it's not going to the small-business people. If anyone wants to ask, just ask how much the Wellington rates have gone up. Just ask how much Auckland rates are going up. Just ask who's paying for that. I can tell this House it is not the Government; it is actually small, medium, and some large-style businesses, but most are small.
New Zealand needs better than this Budget; it needs a Government that understands small business, it needs a Government that cares, and it needs a Government who understands what to do and will do it.





MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Talofa lava. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I thought I'd get up and have a go. I just want to take every opportunity—as we should in our roles as representatives—to ensure that we are speaking up for people removed and disconnected from resource and power, people who, sorely, don't often have that representation in any places of power around the world, people without the means and the vested interests to lobby the way that other groups and communities are able to lobby.
So I'll start off by pointing out very clearly that everyone should be worthy of receiving support, whether they are recently unemployed or longer-term unemployed; that employment status in and of itself is not the sole determination or indication of how people contribute to their communities; that for far too long we as countries and around the world have not valued the unpaid and volunteer work that is every bit as vital for sustaining our families, our households, our communities, and, yes, our businesses and our broader society and community the way that they have done for thousands of years. So, employment and relationship status should also not determine whether you are worthy of living with any sort of dignity. Aotearoa needs to live up to all of us being in this together and truly value everyone being able to live with dignity. So it has been a lack of political courage of who does and doesn't have access to power and resource that has prevented this change over successive Governments.
Over successive Governments, we have continued to see people kept in poverty, kept living below the line, not able to make ends meet because of the decisions that powerful people, like those of us in this House, have far too often made that have kept people struggling for what should all be guaranteed, minimum, basic, fundamental human rights, what should be a guaranteed minimum level of humanity that we, as a country, agree to share collectively with all of the people of Aotearoa. The benefits in this country, in our social safety net, have been kept so low for so long that this has created intergenerational poverty and hardship and, as importantly, has severed relationships and trust with democratic processes, with engagements with agencies, with political elected representatives, because people lose their faith and trust in a system which is not seen to uphold their needs and their aspirations of basic care at all.
So the impact of this has been very, very clear to see over a long time. Just recently, the Auckland City Mission reminded us that, in 2002, they gave out 3,000 food parcels. In the 2018-19 financial year, they gave out 23,000 food parcels. In the last three months alone, demand for food parcels has doubled again—just in the last three months alone. I wanted to take a particular quote from yesterday on social media platforms, where a person is speaking out for the disabled community and says that the announcement that we are going to afford some people, recently unemployed through COVID, the ability to live with dignity is "a huge slap in the face for disabled people, many of whom are excluded from paid employment and make up a large proportion of people on long-term benefits."
Those are the impacts that our social safety net creates when it is not one that ensures that everyone is respected and can live in dignity. Only the Greens have consistently and long-term continued to call for the urgent increase of benefit rates according to the Welfare Expert Advisory Group and the report that they released over a year ago, which offers us a clear blueprint and solutions for how to overhaul our social safety net system to one that is indeed kind and compassionate and understands the value of helping people get the support they need, at the level they need, and when they need it. It takes—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I just remind the member, sorry, that this is a debate on the Budget, and we've now had over 5½ minutes—I don't think that the member has mentioned the Budget once.
MARAMA DAVIDSON: Fair call, Madam Speaker, thank you very much for pulling me back on track. We were pleased to see, in Budget 2020, for example, the massive upscale for public housing—8,000 more public and community houses that are going to be affordable, that are going to allow more people to live with some security. We were pleased and worked hard to see thousands more families going to be able to live in healthy, safe, warm, dry homes, with a massive upscale to the warmer Kiwi homes programme, allowing for more families to have bigger subsidies to get that insulation done.
We were pleased to see, through the COVID initial Budget response, the increase of $25 to base benefit rates. There are so many examples of the good things that we have to hold on to as the initial start of hope, including through this Budget. And, again, we pushed for and received the $1.1 billion package for green, nature-based jobs, thousands of jobs around the country that are going to provide for decent livelihoods, protect and nurture our environment for generations to come, and help to get our country on reducing our climate polluting and our carbon emissions. Those are long-term visions that we really can be proud about.
We also have to go further on what the Budget was able to announce. Again, we are also really proud of having been at the core push for indexing benefit increases to wage increases and for removing the harsh sanctions for those children whose fathers and other parents were not named on the birth certificate—one of the cruellest sanctions, I think, that this country should never have had in the first place.
So we are very clear that we have seen some good signs of good beginnings and a good ray of hope about what we can do collectively for this country. We have built incredible mandate and support through Budget 2020 and the fantastic initiatives that were in that Budget, particularly around keeping people safe and secure, and creating jobs coming through COVID. Those were essential. Those are necessary changes that we should all be leaning into as a sign of where we need to still continue to go. We have been able to bring people together rather than separating people out into who is deserving and who is not deserving of our help and support.
So, once again, to finalise, we want to keep pushing and working towards making sure those on the lowest incomes have enough to live. No one should have to line up for food grants in this country. We have enough for everyone to be able not just to live and provide for their families but also to ensure they are able to spend and revive their local communities, local businesses, and neighbourhood initiatives as well. There is every good tick to making sure that everyone has enough to live on, and I'm proud that the Greens will continue to call for those changes. Thank you.





Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. These are indeed very extraordinary times, and it cannot have been easy for the Government and the Minister of Finance to pull together a Budget in the context of what was such a rapidly evolving situation that we faced with the COVID-19 pandemic. But, frankly, they should have tried a little bit harder to be more realistic about their financial projections and what they are going to spend this eye-watering sum of money on.
Before I go into some of those projections, I just want to reiterate the point that the Hon Paul Goldsmith made in his intervention around this clear contradiction between the tired old mantra of nine years of neglect and pivoting so quickly over the fact and what a relief it is that our financial situation is in such good shape, because I think it's really important to point out that, before COVID, things were going backwards. It took this Government just two years to turn a solid surplus into a deficit, in the best economic times this country has seen in a generation. The only reason debt to GDP was dropping was because the economy was growing. They certainly weren't repaying any of it. So it's really important to point out, as I go into detail in the Health Vote—but the economic picture more generally—things were bad and getting worse before COVID.
While this is, as I say, a very difficult Budget to write in that context, let's not candy coat where we were at. This Government took a good economy and made it worse. Indeed, the projections in here, as was pointed out to the Secretary to the Treasury and the Epidemic Response Committee meeting last week, are frankly heroic. I want to just touch on the issue of Crown revenue, because the actual Crown revenue last year was $93.5 billion. This Budget is forecasting our current year—because we won't know that position until October—at $89.5 billion. Now, we were on track to meet whatever that budgeted revenue was, and that $4 billion backslide happened in the last six weeks. Yet this Budget projects Crown revenue next year to be only $2.5 billion less than that: $87 billion to the Crown. 
So, for all the reduced spending, which creates a reduction in GST; for all the unemployment that is heading our way and has already started that means that people are not paying as much PAYE; for all the economic carnage that is going to be produced by companies going to the wall, and at very best making a loss but surviving—no Crown revenue from that—this document says, "By the way, all of those things are going to result in just a $2.5 billion drop in Crown revenue." I'm sorry; I cannot see how on earth that can be right. 
I think actually there was an admission that many of these projections were done in early March to inform this Budget. Well, we should throw this out and recognise that that revenue is simply not coming into the Crown coffers. What does that mean? It means that that $140 billion that we think we need to spend just to stay afloat is going to be even greater. We will have to go into more debt, saddling future generations with greater interest and greater repayments for generations. That goes, therefore, to the importance of making sure that spending is of appropriate quality and in the right things. 
I agree with Ms Davidson that, through these times, we do need to protect and support our most vulnerable. My Government, the Key-English Government, in those years following the global financial crisis and the Canterbury earthquake, did just that—not that they got any credit for it from the other side, but indeed that is an appropriate thing. But, when it comes to infrastructure spending, health spending, other social development, conservation spending, it's got to be of a high quality. I don't think we can say—in fact, we don't even have enough detail yet to be able to say—whether that is going to be the case. This is a war chest, but is it a recovery war chest or an election war chest?
Now, I want to touch on Vote Health. There is a significant sum of money going into DHBs: $980 million per year is going to DHBs, and that is as it should be. It did need a bolus of money in order to continue that sector. But let there be no illusions, lest people who are listening be under any impression that that is going to result in a single extra treatment. Here's why. We don't have the latest data, because the Minister of Health seems to be not only ambivalent but allergic to information. These are reports, remember, that last year sat on his desk for seven weeks before he even knew what the combined financial deficit of DHBs was. 
As at January this year, they were already in $304 million of deficit combined and they were heading for $560 million of deficit. Annual inflation in DHBs is about $400 million, and when you add the extra $100 million a year that the DHBs will need to spend because of the Holidays Act remediation, their spending next year is going to be at least $1.1 billion to recover deficits and manage inflation. They got $980 million. They're going to go backwards, even with this, unless something happens. But this is a Minister who in question time today admitted that it didn't matter what came out the other end as long as you're putting lots in the top—whether it was people or money or kindness, that's OK. Well, actually, you know what? Kindness doesn't replace the hip, cure the cancer, check the diabetes, screen for cervical cancer; organisation of resources does. So the bolus of money is good, but let's not pretend this is going to make a blind bit of difference to the health of New Zealanders. 
Now, I would say this: the positive aspect of the spending is in disability support, and I'm sure Mr Ngaro will talk a little bit more about that—$833 million, if memory serves. But I make two comments about this. There is no detail behind how that's going to be spent, and when the Associate Minister of Health or the Minister for disability support—I can't remember which one it was—was asked by a reporter last week about whether that would mean that people with profound hearing loss would finally have equity, this Government having cruelly taken away the extra funding the previous Government had put in for extra adult cochlear implants, they couldn't even say yes or no to that. Now, either they're not going to do that and they just didn't want to say it or they're not even organised enough to say yes. And why should we be surprised by that? 
The mental health funding from Budget 2019 of $460 million - odd hasn't even been spent; three point something million dollars of $460 million has been spent. And this goes to the point. Hope is not a plan. Allocation of money is not a plan. The fact that people would like something to happen doesn't make it happen. There is no sense of purpose in this Government; there is just hope and cash, and that ain't going to get people well. 
And then, of course, there is that silent group of heroes in our health sector, the midwives, who took the previous Government to court in a very novel way to get equity under section 88 of the Human Rights Act; because they weren't employees, therefore they didn't have the protections under employment law. The previous Government set up a mediated, co-designed process to understand what the proper value of a midwife was, and the Minister of Health received that report nearly three years ago. He got his Ministry of Health to apologise, frankly, on his behalf for the fact that they didn't put a Budget bid in in 2018. They didn't put a Budget bid in 2019 and went to the College of Midwives to explain that that was all going to happen in 2020. Budget 2020 has come and gone and midwives are still waiting. 
The college issued a press release last week to say they were perplexed. Well, they should have been apoplectic, frankly, at having been ignored once again by this heartless Government that does not care about midwives; it does not care about parents and their babies. And, as a consequence, the health of our most vulnerable New Zealanders, our newest New Zealanders, is now at significant risk because those independent midwives are leaving. They've had enough of this Government. They've had enough of the talk and no action. And, actually, that's what this Budget says about health: throw some bucks at it to solve the huge fiscal hole that they themselves created and then walk away. That is not good enough.





Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Like the new Leader of the Opposition, Todd Muller, I'm something of a political nerd in that I got interested in politics at a very young age, and I've been listening to Budgets, literally, since I was a teenager. In the early days of listening to Budgets, they used to be read at 7.30 in the evening, as I recall, and they were full of detail about how much petrol would be from midnight and how much cigarettes would be from midnight and how much alcohol would be from midnight. Then, in the hours between the reading of the Budget and the midnight of that night, there would be a rush on petrol stations and dairies to buy tobacco and cigarettes and on bottle stores to buy beer, wine, and spirits, and I didn't think ever that I would in my lifetime get to experience a Budget of the sort that we have had this year, in 2020. 
Not only are Budgets read at a different time but they are fundamentally structured in a different way, and this year's Budget was structured in a way that I acknowledge—as do my colleagues on the Opposition benches—was done under incredibly difficult circumstances for the Government. The Minister of Finance has had to change what was inevitably his master plan for Budget 2020, probably something that he was well advanced in his thinking about towards the end of last year. Then he's had to pivot away to try and accommodate the challenges that we as a nation find ourselves confronting, and the world, indeed, confronts internationally. 
But little did I expect that, in a Budget that has literally sprayed around billions upon billions upon billions of taxpayers' borrowed money, there would be so little focus and so little actual inspiration out of the opportunity that investing that money could have for the long-term benefit of New Zealanders, of their way of life, and of their long-term health and wellbeing, and, ultimately, for the benefit of our natural environment. That's disappointing to me as the National Party's environment spokesperson and climate change spokesperson, and now looking at Resource Management Act reform, because here was an opportunity when so much more could have been done—when so much more could have been done—and what did we find? Well, actually, very little in the way of inspiration. 
I listened a couple of speeches ago to Marama Davidson, the co-leader of the Green Party. She spent 10 minutes speaking about aspects of social policy and of social justice and spent about 30 seconds speaking on the Budget, when she was required to do so. But not once—not once—did the co-leader of the Green Party, for goodness' sake, talk about the environment or talk about our natural resources. Not once did she talk about climate change. Not once did she involve herself in the name and understanding that New Zealanders would expect from a party that used to profess to be an environmental party. They've so long since forgotten their role as being an advocate for the environment that the co-leader now, in a Budget debate speech like this, simply doesn't even mention the environment, and that saddens me. 
Some of the most difficult conversations I've had to have over the last month or two have been with constituents in my Coromandel electorate, and they are people who have been impacted and affected dramatically by the events of the last couple of months. The economy in the Coromandel is, by and large, made up of small-business people: sole traders, family-run enterprises—people who have been hit very hard. Some of them are farmers, some of them used to run tourist operations, some of them used to run international tourist lodges, and some of them now no longer have businesses. 
Some of them have had to make some of the most difficult, heart-wrenching decisions of their working lives, of their business lives, in terms of laying off staff. I particularly recall one tourist lodge operator in my electorate, and he and his wife had, over 20 or more years, built up a business largely focused on international tourism. He rang me and said, "Scott, every single one of my forward bookings for the next six months is cancelled." This was early on in the piece, and I suspect that even more have cancelled since then. Effectively, his business got turned off like a light switch, and it's not a big business. He said, "I employ four or five people, but that's four or five people that won't be working and won't be employed in my Coromandel community, and their families won't have a breadwinner."—their families won't have a breadwinner. 
What he was most concerned about was, he said, "Well, look, the wage subsidy's good as far as it goes, but it doesn't help my business. It doesn't sustain my business. It doesn't make my previously viable, profitable, growing business sustainable in the short-, medium-, or long-term future." And I think that's very sad. We heard today in question time the Prime Minister, who simply didn't get it—who simply doesn't understand how economies work and how businesses work and how enterprises work, and the stresses and strains that go on small-business owners and operators when they have to make hard decisions about putting off staff who, in many cases, have been long-serving, hard-working, dedicated members of the family, so to speak, in terms of that business. I think that's very sad. 
One of the other sad things that was in the Budget was the lack of focus that was applied to the spraying of $1.1 billion of Budget allocation into the environment area in terms of make-work for what the Government expects, or hopes on a wing and promise, may be 11,000 jobs for people who are going to be supposedly employed catching rats or hunting possums or pulling out wilding pines, or otherwise doing that kind of work on the conservation estate, and maybe doing a bit of riparian planting around the place as well. Now, a little bit of quick maths: $1.1 billion, 11,000 jobs; that's $100,000 per job that they've allocated—$100,000 a job that they've allocated—for that funding. I'd like to have hoped that that would have been more focused. 
In a previous life, I ran a company that sold and manufactured and distributed PPE, or personal protective equipment, and, to use another acronym, that was in the tail end of the days of the famous PEP schemes—the Project Employment Programme—which were a bit like this scheme that this Government is hoping to employ 11,000 people with, with $1.1 billion, at $100,000 a job, to do some make-work stuff in our environmental area. That's good as far as it goes, but I can tell the Government one thing for nothing, and that is that, of the $100,000 that's been allocated to each and every one of those jobs, the vast majority of that won't be going to the people who are doing the rat catching, the possum hunting, the riparian planting, or the wilding pine pulling out. It'll be going into servicing those jobs, and those companies that sell and manufacture and distribute PPE will be issuing a pair of boots, a Swanndri, a hard hat, a pair of gloves, a raincoat, and probably a pair of gumboots for every single one of those jobs, and what will happen is that those people who take those jobs up will find that working through a long, cold, hard winter in our natural environment, as beautiful as it is, is blimmin hard work. It's very hard work. Many of them actually won't last or stay more than a month or two or three, and when they go, all that PPE will go with them—it usually does—and then someone else will be employed, and a new set of PPE will be bought and issued to another worker who'll do another couple of months. 
Now, that's not a grand vision for our environment. Surely—surely—a Government of inspiration, of aspiration, particularly when it comes to the environment and natural resources, could have been more imaginative, more targeted, and more on message in terms of the investment that they were making with borrowed taxpayers' money to the tune of $1.1 billion in terms of environmental spending. I think they could have done better, and it saddens me that they didn't and that they didn't have an opportunity. But not only that, there was no progress in this Budget towards any of the lofty goals of environmental aspiration that they so often used to talk about only a couple of years ago. Where's the progress on the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary? Where's the progress on improving water quality? Where's the progress on what they said was going to be a tax on exported bottled water? 
No, this is a Government that has an opportunity to invest wisely, given the authority that they have to borrow extensively on behalf of New Zealanders for our future—not only our future personal wellbeing but the future wellbeing of our environment and our natural resources—and this is an opportunity that they have squandered. They have squandered it poorly, and that disappoints me enormously, that they haven't been better at it. 





Hon JENNY SALESA (Minister for Building and Construction): Malo le soifua. Talofa lava, and happy Samoan Language Week, Mr Speaker. The Wellbeing Budget 2020: Rebuilding Together is coming through during an unprecedented time of global and financial and health crises. In terms of our health response, I'd like to acknowledge and thank our Prime Minister, first and foremost, for her leadership. You can see, in comparing Aotearoa New Zealand with other countries, just where we are. I'd like to thank her, as well as the Director-General of Health and all of our Government departments, for how we've come together. And I cannot go ahead without thanking all New Zealanders: our team of five million New Zealanders. We are where we are, we've come together, and we are close to eliminating COVID-19 only because New Zealanders have come together, united to fight against COVID-19. But, our Budget, "Rebuilding Together"—I'd like at this time to refer to one of the former speakers, the Hon Paul Goldsmith, where, and I quote, when he gave his speech he said, "Investing in skills and retraining is beyond him." This is exactly why we are the Government which will absolutely invest in the right way. 
When we came into Government, we were confronted with a huge shortage of skills in building and construction. This Budget of 2020 is going to invest $1.6 billion to train and retrain people, but we wouldn't have had to do that if the Government before us, over nine years, had actually trained the people that we need. When we came in, in building and construction, we needed 30,000 more skilled people in this area. This sector, construction, is the fourth-largest employer in New Zealand. They employ 10 percent of our workforce, contributing billions of dollars a year into our economy. Between 2017 and 2018, the construction workforce grew by 5 percent. However, in terms of that long-term investment in training our people, that is something that is quite different between this side of the House and those on the Opposition, because we always look long term and train the folks that we need. One of the things that we're investing in as well is we're going to build 8,000 public and transitional houses. The Government before us sold houses. They didn't actually build the State houses that we need. We are focusing and ensuring that we build those houses.
Hon Member: Brave work, Minister.
Hon JENNY SALESA: Absolutely. In terms of assisting our small businesses, the fact that we have invested and 1.6 million people have actually benefited from our wage subsidy scheme—that is something that we absolutely know, from people writing to us, telling us when we walk around small businesses—is something that they absolutely love: the fact that our Government has invested to ensure that they can keep their employees employed. In this Budget, we've extended that wage subsidy scheme. But, of course, we're targeting that extension. We will ensure, in terms of training our apprentices, that in the future we won't have such a huge shortage in skills. 
Just over the weekend, I made an announcement as Minister for Building and Construction that we will ensure, in terms of exemptions—and I also would like to thank many of our colleagues from this side of the House—that we will allow our homeowners, our DIYers, and indeed, with the assistance of our builders, to be able to build carports, to be able to build verandas, to be able to build greenhouses without having to go through the council for consent. We know from feedback from the construction sector that this will actually assist them. Many of our builders and our tradies, instead of going through the process of consenting and then building, can get on and assist with that build right now. 
The other thing that our apprenticeship scheme will do is it will actually incentivise our employers. As feedback from our construction sector, we know that this is really, really positive because, when we incentivise them to take on our apprentices and our tradies to ensure that they are well skilled, they will, we are told, take even more trainees in. 
The other thing that the last Government did is they stopped what we call ACE—adult community education. In this Budget 2020, we're reinvesting and ensuring that our adults who have to retrain can actually come back and retrain in the evenings, because we know that we're going to go through a contraction in terms of jobs. 
The other thing that we're doing is we have the Construction Sector Accord. With that, one of the things that we and industry are focused on is how we can transform the construction sector. I'm glad to say that they are really giving us a whole lot of advice in terms of the areas to focus on. 
I do want to also focus on the fact that, as a Government, we are investing the biggest amount ever in disability support services: $833 million in Budget 2020 for disability support services. There's never been such an investment in disability support services. In our first year, when we came in, we invested $211 million. Last year, in our Wellbeing Budget, we invested $348 million for disability support services. But this year, this huge investment of $833 million is historic. We know that one of the things that the disability support services sector usually does is, after every year, it actually gets a top-up. So this huge investment of $833 million should ensure that we won't actually need such a huge top-up in the future. This year, we are topping up by just over $100 million, but as I say, one of the reasons why we're investing that much is to ensure that in the future we won't have to come back and top it up. 
The other investment that we're doing is in terms of a Pacific package. This is also an historic amount—$195 million for investing in Pacific—but I do want to cover just one small part of that overall investment, which is in education: a package that's called Talanoa Ako. Now, this is a programme where teachers, communities, and parents actually get together to ensure that the parents themselves know how best to support their students. Now, this programme is going to be expanded to 65 different schools right across New Zealand, right across the motu. 
As soon as COVID-19 hit, what we needed to do in terms of the Ministry of Education and this investment was to reach our parents in a different way because of the fact that schools were closed but we still needed to actually get in contact with our parents. So we changed the focus of this particular programme, Talanoa Ako, and we went to deliver it via the radio—so, via Radio 531pi—and we did it in the various Pacific languages. So we engaged with Pacific parents via Tongan, Cook Island Māori, Fijian, Samoan, Niuean, Tokelauan, Tuvaluan, English, Kiribati, and Solomon. We've gotten so much good feedback from our parents because not only do they connect on a daily basis with our teachers but this programme, Talanoa Ako, also allows them to be able to ask our teachers questions and then, when they come through the next day in the next session of Talanoa Ako, whoever the teacher is is able to answer our parents' questions in the language that they actually can understand. 
Another innovative programme that we changed because of COVID-19 in education is an initiative called Developing Mathematical Inquiry Communities (DMIC). Now, this particular programme, basically, teaches our young people, our Pacific young people in schools, to utilise things that they are really familiar with—whether it's tapa, whether it's mats—from their own culture. They can actually be really great mathematicians, but it is actually teaching them using things that they are really familiar with. So, when COVID-19 happened, what DMIC actually did is they changed their programme so that they could actually reach out and continue teaching our Pacific students DMIC, but in a distance way. So, you know, I'm very, very proud of Budget 2020, and I'd like to also thank and acknowledge the Minister of Finance, the Hon Grant Robertson, for doing such a wonderful job of this Budget. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.





Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to stand and take a call on this, the Budget debate. First of all, can I acknowledge the Government and their health response to what emerged to be a serious global threat, and that was COVID-19. The only issue, of course, that I did have with it is that I felt very strongly that the Government was too slow to respond in closing the border, and it pushed them into the inevitable position where they had to take the country into level 4. As we went into level 4, everyone could see very clearly there were going to be enormous economic consequences around that.
What I've been very concerned about in this debate and in comments that have come from members of the Government is a complete disconnect in terms of what it actually meant taking our country into a level 4 lockdown. I think the best way—the best way—that I could describe it for the members opposite is when you made that decision to take us into a level 4 lockdown as it relates to small to medium enterprises (SMEs) is that you, effectively, cut your own pay.
So Jamie Strange, who's in the House—I'll use him as an example. Jamie Strange's revenue, his pay, his cash flow, is cut off from that date—he has no cash flow, but he's got a guy that comes and mows his lawns every week. How is he going to pay him? I'll tell you how we'll pay him; we'll pay him with the wage subsidy. So we'll pass that through Jamie Strange, and Jamie Strange passes the wage subsidy on to the guy that's mowing the lawns, but where does that leave Jamie Strange? He's still got his children that he has to provide for. He's still got his mortgage that he has to pay. His wife needs to be able to go and do the groceries each week. Tell me—maybe he can take a call—tell me, how are you going to cover those fixed costs when your cash flow has been cut off? [Interruption] And they're joking about it, they're laughing about it, because they don't understand. The Leader of the Opposition, Todd Muller, had a very good line of questioning, a very pertinent line of questioning to the Prime Minister today, and she had no answer whatsoever. Her default setting was "We've put a wage subsidy in place." She doesn't understand. She doesn't get it.
I remember 10 weeks ago, as we moved into level 4, every Wednesday on the Mike Hosking show with the Hon Stuart Nash, and I said to him, "Stuart, you're going to have to make sure that you've got a cash-flow payment that's going into our SMEs and businesses." The wage subsidy, that's great. In fact, use that mechanism. If you're going to put that in place, use that mechanism to get cash flow into the business. There's a saying in business: cash is king. You can't do much when you've got utilities to pay, when you've got licensing fees to pay, when you've got rent, when you've got insurance, and you've got no income. I was accused of being alarmist. I was only saying that because I did a start-up with my own business, my own company. I had a thousand employees plus. 
Hon Member: Oh God, here we go again.
Hon MARK MITCHELL: I actually understood the importance of cash flow. And there's murmurings and little comments from the other side there. Take a call. Tell me how many employees you've had to care about or worry about or think about their families—looking after them, making sure that you have cash flow to meet those payroll commitments. Take a call and tell us, because I'll tell you what I feel like: employees are critically important—employees are critically important to any SME or business, so look after them. We have to look after them.
But this crew over there—listen to them. This crew over here, they treat the employers like they're second-class citizens. They treat the employers like they've got massive cash reserves that they can just dig into and they somehow have to look after themselves. They treat the very people that take the risks to actually establish businesses, that put their own cash into establish, so they're not dependent on the State, so they can actually create employment for those employees, because no one on this side of the House is creating employment. No one on this side is creating the tax receipts that you are collecting; it's the SMEs that are out there. There is one person on the Labour benches, and I acknowledge her that she does have a small business, and she's nodding in agreement with me, because she knows completely and understands the issues that I'm highlighting and that I'm making in relation to this.
Hon Willie Jackson: Who's that?
Hon MARK MITCHELL: It's Jo. Sorry, I'm terrible with names.
Hon Members: Jo Luxton.
Hon MARK MITCHELL: Ha, ha! Jo Luxton—it's Jo Luxton, and I admire her, I admire the qualities that she has to get out there and have go, to start a business, and have employees. She's agreeing with me. Everyone down here is trying to shout me down, trying to say that the employers are bad and somehow a second-class citizen—they don't deserve the same respect as the employees themselves. Everyone except Jo Luxton; she understands what I'm saying, which is great.
So I do have some ideas. I would like to put some ideas forward to this Government, because they're completely devoid of them. They have no plan. You do have a licence—you do actually have a licence from the public right now to borrow some money—you do have a licence to borrow some money and we support that. We understand that we're going to have to help the country through this, without a doubt. This is the problem with a Labour-led Government, though. How many times have we seen someone that's won the Lotto, they've won the jackpot, and they've come into a lot of money, but they don't spend it wisely. All of a sudden, at the end of it, 12 months down the line, all the money's gone and they've got nothing to show for it. This is the danger. This is the real danger that you guys are falling back into right now.
I'll tell you why, because you've come out with big announcements, you've announced eye-watering sums of money—that's debt for the future generations and it's going to take a National Government to sort that out and get that worked out—but you've got no plans. You've got no details. You can't stand and give us any details. I see Marja Lubeck in the House, that's great.
Hon Members: "Mai-ya".
Hon MARK MITCHELL: Sorry, "Mai-ya" Lubeck. I told you I wasn't good with names.
So Penlink—the great saviour and advocate for Penlink. If you are talking about investing in infrastructure, let me give you this message: at the last election I stood up—finally, I actually managed to get support from the National-led Government to say that we'd build Penlink, and we campaigned on that, right? We campaigned on that. Penlink would have already been three years into construction. Do you know what Marja Lubeck said in that campaign? "Labour will not commit to Penlink. We will not build it." Now, all of a sudden—which is great news because we need Penlink, it's a safety issue, we have 30,000 people living on a peninsula with one way on and one way off. To me it's always been a safety issue. If we have some type of civil defence event, we've only got one way in and one way out. In fact, we had a fatal motor accident up there two years ago that cut off the only way off the peninsula. Everyone was stuck there. They said, "It doesn't matter, we'll use the ferries. We'll get the ferries operating out of Gulf Harbour." There was one problem with that: the ferry captains were stuck in the traffic, they couldn't get there. So it's a major safety issue. We need that road built off Penlink.
Here's the challenge to Marja Lubeck: that project's ready to go. Why are we waiting two years? We're going to build it—we're going to build it, we're going to start it, it's ready to go, it's shovel ready. So I hope that you are advocating and I hope that you are having the conversations now to get it going, because two years is not good enough—two years is not good enough. So we'll get Penlink going—we'll get Penlink going post-September.
Here are some ideas: e-commerce. What are you doing around e-commerce? Support companies to get online. Actually, one good thing that might have been driven out of the level 4 lockdown is giving people the ability to actually work from home and have more flexibility around their employment—I support that. I think if that can work then we should go for that.
Sports clubs: trust them, work with them. They're going under. They're under enormous pressure. In my own electorate, in the North Shore—
Kiritapu Allan: That was in the Budget.
Hon MARK MITCHELL: So where is the funding going? Stand and tell us the detail. Don't stand there telling me it's in the Budget; this is where you're getting it wrong. You're fantastic at saying, "It's in the Budget. Look at the line item." What's the detail? Because they need help now, they need certainty now, and they need to know what the plan is. There is no plan.
Business: an integrated proposal centre. Unfortunately, I've run out of time because the Hon Shane Jones was talking about value-add. We signed, under the World Trade Organization, the Government procurement agreement—that's a trillion-dollar pipeline internationally that we've never been able, as a country, to play in. We've got a huge opportunity there to tap into that. We have to know what to do. And that's—thank you, Mr Speaker.





Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): It's going to be a hard act to follow. But I want to congratulate the National Party and particularly a Māori member who's been very critical of our Budget—over there, very critical of the Māori members too; said some terrible things about us, actually—Jo Hayes. She's the Māori development spokesperson for the National Party and she's said things about Whānau Ora in the last couple of weeks and she's said things about Māori members that I just find very hard to take. However, she did say today, though—I need to say this, because we're talking Budget—that she'll be questioning the leader of the National Party, Todd Muller, about the seniority list in terms of the National Party. She said on that very famous radio station, Radio Waatea—she said, "This is not good." This is from Jo Hayes. "We need to remedy this or you need to front up." That's what she's saying about Todd Muller. "You need to give a better explanation of why you've left us out. We have a party full of challenging people"—la, la, la—"and you need to actually say what is it you wanted, and it's up to him as to whether he'll come up with a response and why Māori have been left out"—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): And if the Minister could relate his comments to the bill in front of the Parliament—
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Well, no, absolutely. 
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Well, you haven't yet, and you should do that.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Absolutely. Because I'm talking about Jo Hayes, because she's been talking about the Budget and she's been criticising us, and you know, when you criticise us about the Budget I think, "Well done, Jo Hayes." You know, I've got to congratulate Jo Hayes. I'm just mentioning how she's put a vote of no confidence in her leadership—a leadership that's collapsing already, and it's sad. Like, I was listening to Nikki Kaye, who doesn't know how to identify a Māori from a Pākehā and clearly has problems in identifying—she's part of the dream team that is actually turning into a nightmare team. 
Hon Shane Jones: Yeah, Ngāti Kāpō—Ngāti Kāpō.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Yeah, tino kāpō. And so, you know, I have to respond because this is a crew saying we've got no plan. We've got plenty of plans, but we're a little bit upset by the so-called "dream team" that's really turning into a nightmare team and the Māoris are revolting—they're revolting. You saw it. [Interruption] Yeah, revolting? Revolting against the Opposition. And we saw Shane Reti today. Only one of them in the House. Ka aroha, ka aroha, taumaha. 
[Sympathies to them, sympathies to them, it is tough.]
You know, watching him today, and he's lost—poor Shane. He's lost. And Paula Bennett, totally upset, because the other problem is with their spokesman in terms of finance who made some criticisms of Grant Robertson today—Mr Speaker, coming back to the Budget—and you will have heard his criticism of the Budget and our finance expenditure, and as we've heard today, this is from a person who's totally confused: another leading member of the dream team.
But the campaign manager, of course, of the dream team who's come back, as we all know, doesn't actually know how to board a plane. Who will ever forget the way he just walked through security and jumped on a plane? We also know his respect for ethnic minorities. Can we all remember the aroha he showed to the Finnish people when he called them murderers and he said that we've got nothing to learn from the Finnish? This is the person in charge of the National Party has-been nightmare team who they're trying to sell to everyone at the moment. [Interruption] And I'm glad that the Opposition are finding it funny, because they're very divided at the moment. 
They're divided because they've seen the amount of resourcing coming towards Māori: $900 million coming towards Māori through this Budget. As a Māori caucus, we're very pleased that we've been able to address certain areas. Kōhanga reo—I want to mihi to my good friend the Hon Kelvin Davis for a wonderful job: $200 million appropriated for kōhanga reo. Let's not forget the history here. The National Party, aligned with the Māori Party, wanted to get rid of kōhanga reo or relegate kōhanga reo. They refused to address the equity argument in terms of kōhanga reo. You'll recall the arguments for a number of years. Kelvin Davis put that to the side and decided to work with our kōhanga reo whaea Iritana Tāwhiwhirangi, and the result is $200 million. That is a kaupapa, as I said, the National Party refused to support.
Whānau Ora—very controversial kaupapa. As I said, Jo Hayes has been particularly ruthless on us here. My mate JT has been horrible to my mate the Minister Peeni Henare, but the Minister's put that to the side: $136 million for Whānau Ora. Why? Because they're delivering out in the regions, they're delivering everywhere, they're reaching whānau—funding that the National Party could never dream of. They only gave them breadline funding, and I was very proud of the funding that he was able to acquire in that area. 
Minister Nanaia Mahuta in the housing area has done a terrific job in terms of papakāinga housing. We're talking $40 million going out there. Right across the spectrum we see the funding happening. In my own area, we heard this nonsense from Mark Mitchell in terms of what are we doing for businesses: 1.6 million workers. That's what we're doing for businesses. We're looking after businesses, and the question today is: where does that money go in terms of wage subsidies? It goes to the businesses. That's where it's going, and they pass that sort of pūtea on to their workers. That's something that I'm very proud of. We came to the aid of the people of this country at a very, very stressful time, and, as members on this side quite rightfully say, that wage subsidy is something that we treasure very much.
In other areas we've been able to extract $121 million for He Poutama Rangatahi, a kaupapa that myself and Minister Jones over here have supported very, very much in the regions. I've been very lucky in the past because I've been able to get pūtea out of the Provincial Growth Fund and that's been a wonderful kaupapa. Anyone who says there hasn't been a change in the regions because of it doesn't know what they're talking about. So Poutama Rangatahi has been great, courtesy of Minister Jones over here, for a while. Now, we've moved on. I don't need his pūtea any more, but I thank him for his support of the kaupapa. And his original kōrero about getting the nephs off the couch is something that has always been an aim of this Government. So Poutama Rangatahi's been exceptional.
Our Māori trades training is another kaupapa that our people have talked about for some years. A lot of us have fathers, uncles, and grandfathers who've been involved in Māori trades training and the hope is that we can partner with our iwi and with our Māori groups right around the country as we try and activate and motivate rangatahi into turning their lives around. So we've got our Māori trades training. We've got He Poutama Rangatahi. We're also expanding in our Mana in Mahi area—an area that the Opposition seem to have a few problems with, but we have an 81 percent success rate in terms of Mana in Mahi, as I said today; young people not returning to benefits, so we're on track on terms of success. 
There's been a lot of kōrero about what's going to happen in terms of the unemployment rate. If we can cushion the blow as much as possible, incentivise different industries, incentivise iwi, look at apprenticeships, look at retraining, look at redeployment, I think we're on track. We are doing that. Minister Robertson is doing the business as our finance Minister. Minister Jones is doing some terrific work out there. All of us as Ministers are committed to turning things around. So I think that we're on track in terms of employment. 
This Māori caucus is on track in terms of delivering for their people. Don't believe the nonsense being trotted out by the National Party's mates, the Māori Party. Don't believe their nonsense for one moment. We know that we're on track at the moment. But, again, I want to finish by saying we are worried very much for the Māori members in the National Party and we are here for Jo Hayes and Shane Reti if they want to come and have a kōrero with us. We will support them, because clearly there are divisions in the ranks of the National Party at the moment as they struggle to identify just actually who are the Māoris, but we'll give Nikki Kaye and other members a hand, if they ask us. Kia ora tātou.





Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): For those people who watched the Epidemic Response Committee when the member who resumed his seat, the Hon Willie Jackson, came before us, I said to him—I meant it then and I mean it now—his job is the most important job in the Government because, as we know—as the forecasts are showing—300,000 New Zealanders will lose their jobs.
So what the public of New Zealand want to see in the Budget 2020 is the plan and the detail for how this Government intends to get those 300,000 New Zealanders back into work. So where's the detail? Where is the plan and where is the detail? Well, let's just crunch a few numbers because there's a bit of a track record, and I'm pleased that another member of Parliament is in the House, because I want to just start with some figures from the Provincial Growth Fund, because I'm sad to say that there are some communities around the country—and as our leader, Todd Muller, has said, the economy is actually our communities. It's the shop that you go to for your bread; it is the shop you go to for your groceries, for your fruit and veggies; where you get your petrol, and the staff that work there. It is not some "thing" out there somewhere. The economy is about communities and it's about people. 
So when communities that I represent have big expectations around the Provincial Growth Fund or the Crown infrastructure projects, it's a bit of a stark reality, when the reality is—of the multiple announcements in the Provincial Growth Fund, I think it was $2.6 billion as of October last year that had been announced—$330-something million delivered in terms of cash out the door. 
So if you're a business—and I started my first one at 19—if you have a business, you are sitting there today worried about how you're going to pay your bills, and staff costs are not your only bills. So, yep, the wage subsidy's fantastic. That is absolutely fantastic. But if a business wants to keep the doors open, and as I look around the room, hopefully, those members opposite have been visiting their local businesses, looking them in the eye and saying, "Yes, we're giving the wage subsidy, but no other support to your business." 
So back to the Provincial Growth Fund: how many jobs had the Provincial Growth Fund created—because at the end of the day, that was all it was about, right? All about jobs in regional New Zealand, and I'm proud to be a representative of a rural electorate. How many jobs? Any guesses? 
Hon Member: A thousand?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Oh, a bit more: 1,900 jobs and 1,000 of those were part-time.
Hon Member: How many in Wellington?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Quite a few. Quite a few bureaucrats. But of the $2.6 billion—1,900 jobs. Now, I'm not sure that that actually represents good value for money in terms of taxpayer spend. But, you know, roll forward. 
Let's have a look at some of the announcements that have been made in the Budget, because the Provincial Growth Fund jobs are actually 550 grand per job. If that was your business, you would not be spending $550,000 for a job. But let's just look at the figures, because it's a bit confusing. If we look at the redeployment plan: $100 million—sorry, I can't call it a plan; I can call it an announcement—$100 million. One of the written questions that I did get from that Minister, which was helpful, was the number of jobs full-time and part-time. If you think $28 million of it actually went to one electorate rather than anywhere else around the country, so that was—
Hon Member: Which electorate?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Tai Rāwhiti?
Hon Members: No. We're not going to help you with it.
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: No, no. Well, it was one. It was one electorate.
Hon Member: One?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Yep. So $100 million, and for those jobs it was $3,100 per job. But bad news if you're in the tourism industry, $400 million was the Budget announcement in this Budget 2020, for an industry where in my electorate alone, one-third of the workers are in tourism. So a $400 million Budget announcement by the Minister of Tourism who couldn't even define, couldn't explain on the Epidemic Response Committee what tourism even was. That's 400,000 jobs they're trying to save there. So that's actually only a dollar a job. So I'm sorry, but if you're in the tourism industry they don't value your jobs very much. But, in the green jobs, the Budget announcement there was worth $100,000 per job. They actually did the detail of where those jobs were going to be, which was helpful—11,000 jobs. 
But my point is, the reality is every job lost is a family who struggles, and a family who struggles to put food on the table and pay for the roof over their head. So I actually think they deserve a bit more detail from this Government in terms of what actually is going to happen on the ground. But what have we got: zero detail. Zero detail: $150 million that's going to the Ministry of Social Development (MSD). But actually, what have they been spending the last lot of money on—that was meant to be for work-focused case managers? Oh, well actually the number of employment engagements—put it this way: if you were a newly employed person, you would hope that you could turn to MSD and get support. Yep, they'll help you get a hardship grant, which you'll need, that's great. But actually what you need more is a job. You need a job to be able to provide an income for your family. 
So, Willie Jackson, where is the detail? Where is the plan? Where are the jobs? How many jobs in my electorate are you saving? How many jobs in Rangitata are you saving? How many jobs in Waikato are you saving? No answer. So there's this grand figure. We're going to have—
Hon Willie Jackson: Infrastructure.
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Oh, infrastructure—that's the answer. How many jobs? How many jobs? How many jobs in infrastructure? Are you going to reinstate the road that you cancelled—the road of national significance—the Waikato Expressway extension that both Mr van de Molen and I are championing, which is the Cambridge extension through to Piarere. That would bring a few jobs to our electorate. It'd be great to see that commitment from the Government, because actually then you could see exactly how many jobs, what area, who was going to benefit. But no, I suspect this Government is going to string people along with big numbers and no detail. 
Well, at the end of the day, when you talk about big numbers, most people still have a household budget. The Government's Budget, admittedly, has a few more dollars on the end, but you still need to be accountable for how that money is spent because, after all, it is the income and the tax off that family that pays for everything in the Budget. So any time someone says, "Oh, the Government was so generous with this.", well, no, actually taxpayers were, because taxpayers earned it, paid for it, and then if you're in need of support, you will absolutely get it back. 
So what do we see? You know, a $50 billion response to COVID. Well, you know, I'd actually want to know where every one of those billions is being spent. Oh, but no, we're told $20 billion is just, you know, a figure out there with no detail. Well, if there's no detail, surely it's not being spent because there's no plan for how to spend it. And the reality is, if you have a budget at home, you don't just say, "Oh, well, I've got a bucket of money over there and I don't have a plan for it." That's absolutely ridiculous. And I think the Government owes it to New Zealanders, some of whom are desperately afraid of losing their job. They want to know the Government has got this handled and they have a plan and they have detail for every single job. And if they think it comes at $550,000 per job, they'll be pretty concerned. Oh, but as I said, if they're in tourism, it's only a dollar. 
As I said before, there is still no support for the actual costs a business has to keep its doors open. When I visit the local businesses, that's what they want. They want cash support. They want it now because, yes, the wage subsidy covers some of their employees' costs—not all of them—and they want the confidence to know this Government has a plan. And no one's answered it, no one's provided it—not the Prime Minister, not the Minister of Finance—and, unfortunately, the person who I said I thought had the most important job in this recovery, the Minister of Employment, Willie Jackson, has absolutely no detail, has no information, no idea, and no plan. 
The problem is what New Zealand needs right now is a Government who understands business, who understands the economy is about local businesses and local jobs so that individuals have a job and can keep a roof over their own head and food on the table—because that's what they're worried about right now.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): The next call's a split call. I call Jamie Strange.





JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): Madam Speaker, thanks for the opportunity to take a call. I'd like to begin where the previous member, Louise Upston, left off, because the previous member is the member for Taupō, and she was talking about the Provincial Growth Fund and how terrible the Provincial Growth Fund is. However, the Taupo Airport, in February, received $5.87 million for an upgrade—$5.87 million to create 60 jobs; to create economic benefit in the region, for tourism, and particularly domestic tourism at this point. The Mayor of Taupō said this is "a landmark day"—a landmark day for Taupō in terms of economic development in the Taupō region. So, obviously, the member who just resumed her seat has a fairly short memory.
What we've been facing across the country is a pandemic that we haven't seen for a hundred years. The last time we saw an influenza pandemic was 1918—in terms of this scale—and it swept the globe and it killed 60 million people around the world. Now, history tells us that those countries that responded early in terms of strong and strict measures, their economies recovered quicker at the other end. So that's what we've done as a country as we've been led by our Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern. We have gone hard and we've gone early in terms of that health response.
In terms of the economic response, this Budget is a huge shot in the arm for our economy. We understand that there are a number of challenges out there, in a number of different areas, and this Budget begins the recovery in terms of addressing those. I'd just like to pick up on a couple, in particular—there's one that I haven't heard during this debate yet, and I'd just like to touch on it, and that's a $63 million investment in Surf Life Saving.
Now, we are a water nation. We are a nation surrounded by beaches. Every summer, people flock to the beaches. Unfortunately, 82 preventable drownings took place last year—82. I'd just like to give a really big shout-out to all of our surf lifeguards out there, most of them volunteers. I spoke to a board member today before this speech, and I asked him "What will this mean for Surf Live Saving clubs and those who are carrying out the role of surf lifesavers in New Zealand?" The board member said that this operational grant is a game-changer for the sector and that it provides stability in terms of the delivery of services. 
The way things currently work is that regional councils pay the wages for lifeguards over the six-week summer period; the rest of the time, which is the other 46 weeks of the year, the lifeguards are funded through donations. Those donations are certainly really appreciated, but this Government investment gives them certainty for those other 46 weeks, mostly between October through to March; however, areas in the Waikato region, like Hot Water Beach, have people go there all year round and, unfortunately, they have had a number of drownings there in recent times. 
So this Government contribution pays for operational costs—for example, signage; medical; fuel; life jackets; radios; all those things that the lifeguards need to perform their duties. There is also a capital-works component which will enable a number of clubs to do much-needed capital work. This is just an example of the Government hearing from people out there in the community—because the lifeguards have been saying this for a number of years—and we've got a Government who's been listening to those in the community and putting that investment in. So that's something that I am particularly proud of. In the Waikato region, there are a number of surf lifesaving clubs and I know that they're certainly excited about this.
In my last few seconds, I'd just like to touch on another one, which is the night classes—and the Hon Jenny Salesa mentioned this. Look, lifelong education is incredibly important for our society. As we've seen through COVID-19, unfortunately people have lost their jobs and they need to retransition into other jobs. Having the ability to learn and to retrain is incredibly important for people to have the skills that they need. These night classes—the $16 million—the previous Government cancelled the night classes and we're bringing them back. That will enable more lifelong education right across New Zealand.
I commend this Budget to the House. Thank you.





JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise with great pride to take part in this debate around the Budget. I would like to acknowledge the Hon Grant Robertson and the team around him who worked so very hard to get this Budget—outstanding Budget, I will say—in place in a short amount of time with not a lot of preparation going into it.
Before I begin my contribution properly, I just want to comment on a couple of things that the Hon Mark Mitchell brought up; the first one being that this Budget should consider supporting small businesses to grow digitally via e-commerce. Perhaps he should read the Budget, because it's actually in there. Then he also talked about—he used Jamie Strange and his life at home as an example of how one might be affected by this, and he just assumed that it was Jamie's wife that might go grocery shopping. Well, I don't know why that would be, but one should not just assume that it's just the woman that goes grocery shopping, in my view.
Anyway, I want to talk about the small business and early childhood education in this Budget. The other day, we had an online Zoom meeting, if you like, with the Hon Grant Robertson and the South Canterbury Chamber of Commerce. They wanted to talk, obviously, about the Budget and all the things that were in it for business, etc. We hear quite frequently from the members opposite that the wage subsidy doesn't support the business, it supports the employees. Well, firstly, I would say that any business who has employees—if you can't support your employees through something like this with the use of the wage subsidy, you have no business. Your employees are your business, and they are like family and they are valuable to the ongoing success of your business. So I say that the wage subsidy does benefit the business by looking after the employees and keeping them employed.
Wendy Smith, the CEO of the South Canterbury Chamber of Commerce, in her opening remarks said something along the lines that, "We would like to acknowledge the wage subsidy scheme. We recognise and show our appreciation for the subsidy. It is bringing $133 million to $139 million into South Canterbury. And it has provided a lifeline for many small to medium sized businesses across South Canterbury." And I am hearing that with many, many businesses that I speak to.
I want to come back to early childhood education (ECE) because I've only got a couple of minutes to go. So ECE, the $278 million for the reinstatement of the 100 percent funding band. Now, I can remember working in the sector when that was cut—around 2013, under the previous Government. The sector felt a sense that that Government didn't value early childhood education by the way they were consistently stripping money from it. They got rid of the 100 percent funding band, but said, "Oh, you know, well, we'll get rid of that, but we will allow you to have primary school teachers in your centres." There's nothing wrong with primary school teachers, but they do learn a little differently for school as opposed to working in an early childhood setting. 
So I want to acknowledge the Minister, the Hon Chris Hipkins, for being a Minister who listens to the sector, he hears what they say, and he acts on it. He shows that this Government supports the early childhood sector, acknowledges just how important it is to have quality early childhood educators in front of our children, because we know that a good quality early childhood education sets our young children up for life, in fact, and particularly those from lower socio-economic groups.
I also want to just briefly talk, in the time that I've got left, around the increased funding for increasing the minimum salary that early childhood teachers will be receiving, because we know that it's been an area of contention for many teachers. Wages were increased for the kindergarten sector many years ago, but not the early childhood education sector. So we will see the minimum salary go up from around $45,000 to $46,000 right up to $49,000 from 1 July 2020. So again, I want to congratulate the Hon Grant Robertson and the Hon Chris Hipkins.





Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Madam Speaker, thank you very much. Normally, on this side of the House, all MPs start a speech in a debate like this saying, "We welcome the opportunity to speak on the issue." But in the case of this Budget, it's very hard to welcome it, and the reason for that is it has a very, very large amount of money the Government is committing to spend, backed up by one of the largest amounts of debt this country has ever seen, but what it will deliver on is a bit like KiwiBuild; it's very, very hard to see.
I'm going to come to some of these issues in a moment, but to the last speaker, Jo Luxton, who spends a bit of time every second or third week down in the South Island, the thing that happens here is that actually, when it comes to active campaigning—when it comes to active campaigning—it is important to get out and listen to the public, just to talk to them. Andrew Falloon is a great, hard-working MP who has spent the last three years in his electorate, up and down that electorate, talking to farmers, listening to them, finding the things they need to do, talking about the things that they need in that electorate that this Government has failed to deliver on. The top of the list was actually KiwiBuild houses, because they were promised 100,000 houses by Labour before the last election, and they don't talk about KiwiBuild any more, although I do notice in the Budget there are 8,000 houses. Well, actually, you would imagine if you were going to do 100,000 houses in the KiwiBuild over 10 years, that would equate to be something like 10,000 houses a year. We are now almost to the end of the third year and they haven't even done the 8,000 that they promised to in this Budget, and so therein lies the problem.
The biggest issue that we have with the Budget is that whilst there has been support for the public and some in business, it hasn't gone far enough, and it actually is not delivering the help that they need to make sure that particularly small businesses and tourism in New Zealand, those businesses can survive. One of the last speakers said, "Well, you know, actually, when we talk about the wage subsidy and businesses, you have to look after the workers." Well, the thing about small businesses in New Zealand—and 97 percent of every business in New Zealand is a small business, and the vast majority have fewer than 20 employees—is they are run by hard-working mum and dad New Zealanders, the people that live in our streets and our suburbs, who actually put their life's effort and their savings, their security and their houses into these businesses. They work hard to use that to employ people, but also to feed their kids and to pay for their education and many other things. They are the everyday Kiwis that actually need, more than anything else, help from this Government in this Budget. I fear far, far too many of them are being let down.
We have had the wage subsidy, and, without doubt, during lockdown the Opposition—National—supported that. It was very important that New Zealanders had some certainty when they were locked away in their houses after the Government closed the economy down for eight weeks. But that didn't help the business; what it did was kept people at least on the payroll. For every single small business in New Zealand bar a few, their costs continued and their debt went up. There are examples of cafes in parts of New Zealand that do very well and might employ 20, 25, 30 people, that over the lockdown ran up $120,000 to $150,000 worth of debt. They were helped with the cost of their employees and they were grateful for that. It was necessary, but what was needed was much more help so these businesses didn't come out the other end and now have a weight of debt upon them. Not their fault; nothing they could do about it; they weren't allowed to open. Now that they are opening, they're finding the turnover is much, much less than it was.
These costs are the rent. We heard from Grant Robertson probably 10 weeks ago now that he was going to come forward with a package of support for small business, particularly, and landlords, to help them through the crisis—and this was an economic crisis I'm talking about now—and actually we are still waiting, because whilst there have been some things the Government has delivered around small business and landlords particularly, it hasn't gone to the heart of the problem of the great debts that have been created. Guess what! Many landlords in New Zealand are small-business people as well, people who've worked hard and have invested in a commercial property, and they, too, are suffering.
The one thing that small businesses in New Zealand don't need more of is debt, no matter how cheap it is. So when the Government says, "We'll help you rearrange your debt and move it sideways, and we'll lend you some money for a first year interest-free and then a lower interest rate thereafter.", that wasn't what they needed. What they actually needed was direct financial assistance—cash-flow assistance—to help them get through. I fear we are going to see far too many of these small businesses closed in the coming weeks and months—far more than is necessary to have closed, with just that little bit of extra help and understanding from the Government.
Every time we question the Minister or we raise it as an issue or say they should be doing more, they go straight back to the wage subsidy. Well, the wage subsidy helped, but during lockdown it was unproductive help because they were giving support to a business to pay workers who weren't able to work. So it wasn't helping that business. We do now see that some of them are back at work and therefore the subsidy is there. It's about to run out, and the Government has announced an extension of that, but here is the challenge: these businesses need to show that they have had a fall of 50 percent in revenue over the last two months. There'll be many that have great debts that are growing, and it may not be 50 percent any more, yet their costs are high, their debt's high, the cost of serving the debt is very, very high, and at the same time, they have had no direct financial assistance from the Government.
In the area of tourism, this is going to be a catastrophe unless the Minister, Kelvin Davis, steps up with an actual plan. I questioned him in the House today on this. I asked him, as Minister, what his personal plan was. It is good to see that he's able to read what his officials have given him; I give him credit for that. He's much better at reading today than he was two years ago when he became the Minister. But for the entire sector, that used to be a $40 billion industry—I apologise, Madam Speaker, I almost made you laugh there. For—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): No you didn't, actually. I found it really unnecessary, to be honest.
Hon TODD McCLAY: Did you? Well—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): It wasn't laughing.
Hon TODD McCLAY: Were you not? Well, it looked like a smile. I apologise; I haven't seen them very often.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): It was like a grimace.
Hon TODD McCLAY: The point here is—was it a grimace?
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Correct.
Hon TODD McCLAY: Was it really? Well, they normally go downwards, not upwards. But I'll continue with my speech. The point here, though, is that there are 400,000 people that are employed more widely in the tourism sector in New Zealand. It was a $40 billion industry, primarily made up of smaller businesses up and down the country. We see today that one of the larger hotel chains has just announced 900 employees have lost their jobs. What they need from that Minister is not that he is reading out the things that his officials are giving him. What they actually need is a real plan, not something that he says is coming, and we're consulting, and we're talking, but a real plan today. He said that there was $400 million in the Budget, and that's been welcomed. It's a very, very good start, but it's not a big start, because with 400,000 employees, that's about a thousand dollars per job. For many of these businesses, they will continue to struggle unless they see there is a plan and there is an opportunity for them to have more visitors through their door.
We take KiwiRail as an example. KiwiRail got $1.2 billion in the Budget. That's $300,000 per job. Nowhere near as many people employed, of course. But I think the Government should have put that the other way round; $1.2 billion would have shown a real commitment from this Minister to the tourism industry and some of those 900 people that have lost their jobs in that hotel chain over the last few days may well still have been employed.
When I say an actual plan, it doesn't mean that the Minister has to have every answer today. That would be asking too much. But what he could do, for instance, is send a very clear signal to the sector that he hopes—the Government hopes—in three months or in six months to have the trans-Tasman border opened, under the condition that it could open. The reason for that is if it is in three months, the entire ski season would gear up and would start talking to Australia, marketing themselves there, and there could be hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Australians that come to New Zealand safely every weekend to spend money in these tourism ventures.
I was asked a while ago, "Will they come?" Well, they won't be going to Bali and they won't be having their holidays in South-east Asia. New Zealand is seen to be safe. Actually, the rate of the epidemic in Australia and New Zealand tracked almost identically. They were able to keep their economy open a lot more. As soon as that trans-Tasman border is open, the tourism sector will breathe a sigh of relief. What they need to hear from the Minister and the Government today is what the plan is, when they hope to have it open, because if it is six months away, then the tourism sector can plan to that. If it is longer, they can plan to that. But actually, I don't think it has to be longer. If it can be three months, then many of them will talk to their bank managers, they will talk to their staff, they will look to how they market themselves and they can make a plan. The worst thing in business, actually, is uncertainty, and sometimes a no is as good as a yes, if it comes quickly. In this case, the Government is not saying no and they're not saying yes; they're leaving them hanging. For those 900 people in that hotel chain that lost their jobs this week, I feel for them. They need a full-time plan, not a part-time Minister.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Dr Deborah Russell—this is a split call.





Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): The Opposition talking about the Budget reminds me of nothing so much as the Life of Brian. You know, "What have the Romans ever done for us?", "Nothing!", "Well, actually, there's the aqueduct.", "Oh, well, aside from the aqueduct—", "And the sanitation!", "Well, aside from the aqueduct and the sanitation—well, I'll grant you the aqueduct and the sanitation—", "And the roads!", "All right, the aqueduct, the sanitation, and the roads". And so it goes until we go, "Well, apart from the sanitation, the beds and the education, the wine, the public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system, and public health—what have the Romans ever done for us?" And that's how they talk about the Budget. They say, "What has the Budget ever done for business?"
Well, what has the Budget done for business? Let me talk about that. Coming up for business there was the wage subsidy—that little wage subsidy that helped businesses to keep their staff on through the weeks of the lockdown; the wage subsidy that helped businesses to keep their valued staff with them, that enabled them to keep on going. "Well, it was just a wage subsidy. Well, all right then, aside from the wage subsidy?" Well, there was the wage subsidy extension. Another eight weeks of wage subsidy was there to help businesses keep their staff in touch with their jobs, to help them get through these weeks of the downturn with support for their wages, because employees are important. "Well, all right then, we'll give you the wage subsidy and the wage subsidy extension, but whatever else did the Budget do for small businesses?"
Well, there's the loan scheme, the low-interest loan scheme, because we know that for small business one of the critical things is cash flow, and that low-interest—and indeed in some cases no-interest—loan scheme will help business cash-flow and help them to get through. "Well, all right then, aside from the wage subsidy, and the wage subsidy extension, and the loan scheme, what has the Budget ever done for business?" Well, then there is the e-commerce package—there is the e-commerce package—because what we found was that many of the businesses who managed to get along reasonably well during the lockdown were those who already had e-commerce in place. But it's hard for a small business to get that going, so in the Budget we put in place support so that all small businesses can get going with e-commerce. "All right then, so we've got the wage subsidy, the wage subsidy extension, the loan scheme, and e-commerce, but aside from that," the Opposition say, "what has the Budget ever done for business?"
Well, then, leading on from that, there's the $400 million that is available to help tourism, because the sad fact is—the sad fact is—that the international visitors are not coming back any time soon, and so tourism does need a really well-developed plan that is developed in consultation with the sector, that is done in such a way that enables the sector to change what it's doing to swing to a new market, to rethink what they're doing. In fact, in that, in terms of helping with tourism, the wage subsidy has helped with that, the wage subsidy extension has helped with that, this $400 million package will help with that—that is what we have done for tourism. "Well, all right then, aside from the wage subsidy, the wage subsidy extension, the loan scheme, the e-commerce scheme, and the $400 million for tourism, what did the Budget ever do for small business?"
Well, what did the Budget do for small business? There's the apprenticeship scheme, and this is a really wonderful idea. Businesses take on apprentices and, during hard times, apprentices are often the first to go. But, in this Budget, we have a scheme to enable businesses to retain their apprentices, to help support them so they can keep that apprentice on their books, and that is so important because, when business picks up again, those apprentices will be up and trained and ready to work. So we've done that. "Well, OK then. All right, so we've got the wage subsidy, the wage subsidy extension, the loan scheme, the e-commerce, the $400 million for tourism, and the apprenticeship scheme, but aside from that," they say, "what did the Budget ever do for business?" Well, there is the transport package, the package that's designed to help keep the supply chains open, to keep transport links open so that businesses can continue to trade here and overseas. And so it goes.
So there we have it. We have the wage subsidy, the wage subsidy extension, the loan scheme, the e-commerce, the $400 million for tourism, the apprenticeship scheme, the transport package—that's what we're doing for business. There is a lot we are doing for business. The words from the Opposition are hollow. They are hollow. They are just slogans. The local businesses that I have spoken to are grateful for the wage subsidy, and I suggest that the previous speaker goes to speak to Bianca at the Arts Village Cafe in Rotorua, who is very grateful for the wage subsidy. They are pleased to hear about the loan scheme that will help with their cash flow. They appreciate the other measures being put in place, because this Government has put in place a package that helps business, businesses of all sizes, and small business. That is what this Budget has done, and it's a lot. And I figured it's time the Opposition stopped bleating and acknowledged the work that this Government is doing.





GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): E Te Māngai, he mihi mahana ki a koutou i tēnei rā, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. 
[Madam Speaker, warm greetings to you all on this day, greetings one and all.] 
I'd like to spend five minutes today talking about housing—housing. This Budget is delivering 8,000 more public and transitional homes, and I'd like to look at what's been happening in the Hutt in particular. So far this term, we've built 115 houses in the Hutt—in this term. In that, there are more than 260 new Kāinga Ora homes under way right now. What's also been going on in the Hutt Valley, which has been really good to see, is there's been this pilot programme in which all of those existing State houses that weren't ripped down are being retrofitted. What that means is they get warm, dry insulation put inside them. They get new heat pumps. They get carpet. Some of them get kitchens. They get completely done up so that those families, in the cold months, get to turn on the heater, with their winter energy payment, and keep their home warm and dry for a whole lot less, and that's a good thing.
It's a good thing to be building on land that has lain vacant for eight years, and it's a good thing that those families and their children go to sleep every night in those warm, dry homes, but it's even better—for the Hutt as well—that as well as that great win, we also get builders, electricians, plumbers, roofers, and landscapers. They are the people that will be doing the work in the Hutt. Those are the businesses that will be turning up day in, day out to make those homes warm and dry and to build on that vacant land. What's even better than that is that all of those builders, electricians, plumbers, roofers, and landscapers have got apprentices—apprentices—that will be training and learning and being able to be the next generation of tradespeople, who have their own skills, their independence, their tino rangatiratanga, and their ability to earn their own crust in the world and to go forth and be able to provide for their own families.
In this Budget, we saw some great stuff for apprenticeships. We saw $1.6 billion invested in terms of making people—over 50,000 or 60,000 young people, and those ones who need to retrain—have access to free training. Those businesses can train apprentices for free. They can retain apprentices when they've got them, and people who are in areas can retrain. Some of them I've seen in the Hutt are 40-plus, who are learning to be home decorators and having a change of course, and that's a good thing, to have a flexible workforce. There is a specific fund for Māori apprenticeships as well. I was going to say something there, but I won't. There will be specific apprenticeships for Māori apprentices. Well, I'm sure there will be lots of people applying in that space.
When I was at home just not long after lockdown and we got into level 2, we had an electrician come to my home in the Hutt, in Belmont, and he had with him an apprentice that had been on the job for just two days before the big lockdown kicked in. The business owner said to me that this young guy—he looked about 17 or so—wouldn't have had his job, because he got paid the wage subsidy for the entire time that he was on the job. Furthermore, he wouldn't be keeping him. He said he'd be gone. He actually sent him out to the van to get something, and he said "He'd be gone. I wouldn't be able to keep him if it wasn't for the fact that I knew, on 1 July, that there will be funding for me to retain my apprentices."
I'm going to go back to what the Minister for Finance said in his Budget speech, because what the Minister of Finance said in his Budget speech really resonated with me, because I grew up in about a similar era. I grew up in the time of the 1980s and the 1990s, when austerity reigned supreme, when we knew families who were on welfare and had their entire budgets cut. Mums with three kids couldn't feed them. It was awful. I had friends and family who had horrible times, and we went to university not because we were particularly that keen on going there; it's because there weren't any jobs to go to. We learnt the hard way that austerity and hard times burns the next generation, and we don't want to do that. We want a country that grows the next generation, who have hope, who have jobs, who have money in their pockets, and who are able to learn and to be confident that they can provide for their own. That's what this Budget does. It looks after the next generation. Yes, we know damn right that there are tough times ahead, but this is a team that is united to respond, to rebuild, and to recover, and we will do that together.





CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Well, it's good to hear the member who's just resumed her seat, Ginny Andersen, endorsing the National Government's retrofit programme for State housing—fantastic. We're still waiting for the 400 KiwiBuild homes in the Hutt, but no doubt they'll be along before the election.
I want to cover the five elements in Budget 2020 as they relate to transport. I want to talk about shovel-ready projects. I want to talk about Auckland light rail, talk about the New Zealand Upgrade Programme. I want to talk about KiwiRail. And I want to talk, finally in my remarks, about the fuel tax, because the increase in fuel tax is due in this coming financial year, starting on 1 July.
Let's first talk about shovel-ready projects. Now, Budget 2020 contains the "COVID response and recovery fund". It's got a funkier name than that, but that's, basically, what it is. It's a $50 billion fund to make sure that we recover and respond to COVID19. Included within that are going to be shovel-ready projects, and my question to the Parliament is: where are they? When is the Government going to tell us exactly what they're funding? Critically—this is my second question—will they be sensible projects? Because there's about 1,300 all around the country that the councils have bid in—local smaller councils, larger councils; in fact, there's a range of private sector projects that have been bid in as well, and we've got Mark Binns and the infrastructure reference group going through them. We've got to make sure that the spending is value for money.
Now, here in the National Party—and as National's new infrastructure spokesperson and spokesperson for transport—we're all in favour of sensible infrastructure projects that move the dial, that make it easier to get around our cities, make it easier to transport freight to and from our export ports. We're all in favour of those projects. But my fear is that what we're going to see from the Government will be low-value projects that don't actually move the dial and don't represent good value for money.
And then, of course, you say, "Well, OK, it's fine to have the shovel-ready projects." That's all good. There's about $3 billion flagged in the Budget. Some of them are coming at some point. We were told a few weeks ago they'd be ready by now; presumably, we'll get them at some point in the future. But, of course, we worry on this side of the House about the history of lack of delivery from this Government. Because when it comes to critical infrastructure projects, and when it comes to transport projects more generally, this Government—as it does in so many areas, whether it's child poverty, or housing, as I mentioned at the start of my contribution—they talk a big game, but they don't actually deliver. My point is, talk is cheap; actually, it's the delivery that matters, and that's what New Zealanders want to focus on.
So that brings me to the second point I want to cover, which is the debacle and the train wreck that is Auckland light rail. Now, members will remember this was a key election promise in 2017 of the incoming Ardern administration. It was promised that it would be under way to Mount Roskill by 2021, which is only a year away, and we found out today, after a bit of back and forth with Mr Twyford, that the last time he took a paper to Cabinet on it was June. I asked him, "Well, June of what year?" And it turns out it was June last year. Cabinet hasn't considered the matter for about a year, so as of now, in late May 2020, we have no consents, no business case, no funding, no delivery partner, no route. We don't even know if it will be heavy rail or a monorail-type structure along Dominion Road on the way out to the airport. In fact, we don't even know if it'll be to the airport. There is actually a real lack of clarity around that. It's called City Centre to Māngere, and Mr Twyford likes to talk about going to the airport, but, actually, there's a bit of confusion around that.
So OK, good luck, Mr Twyford. If you can build, you know, 20 kilometres' worth of a tram network in a year's time, I will give you that and say congratulations. But I'm putting it to the House: that is not going to happen. In fact, we found out today from Winston Peters, the Deputy Prime Minister, there's no plans to build it in the immediate term. This project is dead. It's absolutely dead—first election promise from the Labour leader, now Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern. This project is going nowhere. We add it to the long litany of failures that Phil Twyford and Julie Anne Genter have overseen in the transport area: no projects started, cancelled roads, funding gutted out of the transport budget, and light rail—the flagship promise—nowhere to be seen. Nowhere to be seen, just an absolute train wreck, a real disaster.
Let me talk about the New Zealand Upgrade Programme, because, basically, what happened between the last two years and then over the summer break is the National Party won the argument about roads. We said, for two years, you cannot cut $5 billion out of the State highway budget and expect there to be no consequence of that whatsoever. They cut $5 billion over 10 years out of the State highway budget, and what was the response? Well, immediately, projects that were on the books got cancelled—the term was "re-evaluated", and they're still, you know, sitting in the ether somewhere on the New Zealand Transport Agency website. But let's be frank about it, let's be upfront: they were cancelled or delayed. I'm thinking of projects like the Melling interchange—
Hon Member: Waikato Expressway.
CHRIS BISHOP: —in the Hutt, or Pētone to Grenada, or the Cambridge to Piarere section of the Waikato Expressway—and my good friend Tim van de Molen's—four lanes from Christchurch to Ashburton, as Andrew Falloon likes to talk about. I know Matt King is very keen on four lanes up north as well. In fact, the East-West Link, that's another one that associate transport Minister Julie Anne Genter liked to criticise all the time. All these projects are simply re-evaluated and delayed, and that's simply because of the $5 billion funding cut to the State highway budget. 
And so the National Party, we did our petitions, we did our criticism, we ran those campaigns. Phil Twyford spent most of the last two years talking about how we'd over-invested roads. He was not going to give way. He was not going to give way. They were gold-plated roads! They were unnecessary! We'd spent too much on highways, we'd spent too much on motorways! They were uneconomic! The National Party was obsessed with roads! Blah, blah, blah. We heard it all before—he spent most of six years saying it. And then what did we get in February? A big spend-up on roads: $6.8 billion announced for new, National Party roads. Melling interchange back on the table, Cambridge to Piarere—well, that's actually not on the table, but we've got at least one section of it, we got some parts of it—and a whole bunch of spending around the country. I know this drives the Green Party absolutely demented. They cannot cope with the fact that the Government lost the political argument on roads and they're finally funding these.
Our argument, the simple argument of the National Party, is: you should not have wasted two years. These projects could have been gotten on with right away. I'm not saying they'd all have been built straight away. Obviously, you can't build everything overnight. But what a waste of two years and what a destruction of the construction sector pipeline. The pipeline of projects—and I know for a fact, from my talking to the industry, there are people out there working on roads right now who expected there to be a pipeline, and that pipeline was destroyed, pretty much overnight, by the Labour Government's government policy statement on transport. That has caused enormous harm to the pipeline of projects. And now they're back on the table, and we welcome that. We welcome them being back on the table. Doing the Melling interchange, 2022—that's fantastic. We welcome that. That's good news. But the delay and the chaos in transport policy is really regrettable.
Fourthly, just briefly, on KiwiRail: $1.2 billion in this Budget. And we ask: is that really the best value for money, from a use of $1.2 billion? We've seen the opening of the Napier to Wairoa line—$23.3 million to reopen the Napier to Wairoa line, I think it is. Guess how many trains have gone down it?
Hon Member: Surely, every day.
CHRIS BISHOP: No, three. Not three a day. Three. Not three a week. Not three a month. Three. Three trains have been down that line. It's $3 million a train. And these guys like to say to us that we are, you know—$3 million a train, it's a waste of money. And, of course, Gisborne to Napier: the Government has finally, after campaigning to open it and being told by Julie Anne Genter for nine years that this was an enormous destruction of taxpayer wealth and it was an amazing train line—even KiwiRail and the Government have admitted that that is an uneconomic line. But, of course, giving $1.2 billion to KiwiRail, some of that investment will make a difference. Some of it will be sensible. But just a big lump sum, $3.6 billion over the last three years, we really query.
In my final minute, I want to talk about the fuel tax, because this Government came into power and they immediately lifted the fuel—well, firstly, they put in place the Auckland regional fuel tax, 10c plus GST, and then they put in place the three fuel tax rises. We had one last July, we had one in July the year before that, and now we've got another one coming on 1 July. And my simple point is, the reason we had the fuel tax increases put in place was in part to pay for the enormous multibillion-dollar cost to pay for light rail, to pay for the Crown taking over that project—well, it's dead. It's not happening. And, of course, coupled with that, we're in a time of enormous economic crisis. Households are going to be under pressure. Yes, we accept the wage subsidy scheme's done a great job, but households are going to be under enormous pressure in the coming weeks and months, and we think it's time the Government bit the bullet and deferred that fuel tax increase scheduled for 1 July. You can expect to hear more from us on that in due course. Thank you, Madam Speaker.





Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Minister for Women): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. We are all in this together—COVID-19 has made that crystal clear. We have shown in the last two months that, as a country, we were able to all pull together to work together for our common good. And we've been cooperating, not only in Aotearoa New Zealand, but even internationally—the human race is all in this together. We've had to work together to combat COVID-19. In our country, we can be so enormously proud of what New Zealanders have done, working together to stop the spread of the virus—stop it right in its tracks. I'm incredibly proud of the work that's been done by our Prime Minister and our Public Service to pull together an incredibly rapid response, and, of course, all the work that's had to go into this Budget to rethinking it completely, because everything has changed and yet nothing has changed—we're still all in this together.
Together, we have to grapple with many losing their incomes and jobs due to our reduced ability to travel and interact closely while COVID-19 remains a threat. Our solutions to this economic shock have to take that into account, and I think that this Budget has made an excellent start. I have to speak, firstly, about how proud I am of what the Green Party secured in this Budget: $1.1 billion for good green jobs, practical jobs that will get New Zealanders out there to work, looking after our waterways, our conservation estate, our natural environment. That is incredibly important mahi, and I'm so proud that the Green Party has been able to deliver that.
I'm proud of what this Government has already delivered, with a record increase in State housing and the commitment to deliver 8,000 new public and transitional housing units. I have to correct the Opposition who've been claiming that somehow housing hasn't been delivered. In fact, Kāinga Ora has delivered and is delivering record amounts of new public housing, and we'll continue to do that.
School lunches: 200,000 children in New Zealand will have access to school lunches. I think that is a fantastic initiative. It's so important to make sure that every child in New Zealand has enough to eat. By feeding people at school, it means that we really are all in this together; that everyone has that opportunity. We know too many Kiwi children are currently left behind, unable to learn because they were going hungry, because we had an inequitable system. Admittedly, that was more than just one Government that created that, and it's going to take more than one term of Government to correct it, but at least this Government has the aspiration to do something, unlike that last National Government who never set any targets about reducing child poverty, never even tried to increase the supply of public housing until right at the end—right at the end of their nine-year term started to grapple with the fact that they'd overseen a horrific housing crisis and done nothing.
The last Government wasn't brave enough to set targets; they erased targets, they stopped setting targets, except for the ones that were easy to meet, and they left a horribly underfunded health system which this Government has started to fix. I'm proud of the steps that we're taking and continue to take to rebuild our public health system, which is needed now more than ever.
The apprenticeships: again, a fantastic initiative. As Minister for Women, I am incredibly keen to ensure that we do everything we can to make sure that these are benefiting women as much as men, that a diverse group of people are able to benefit from that, and to upskill, to retrain, and to get into jobs that they are passionate about that will help make this country an even better place.
Just talking about that economic shock, the Budget, we know—not everything has been announced yet, and there's still more announcements to come, and I'm really excited about the announcements that I have to make. I think we are making good progress on those areas that were under-invested in under the last Government, including women's health, maternity services—I hope to make an announcement about that soon.
Of course, we will be making further announcements about infrastructure. The Green Party is incredibly keen to see that sustainability and equity is at the heart of our recovery. There is no economy if we don't have healthy people who can do and make things for each other. There is no economy without a healthy planet for people to live on. We all need a stable climate. We are part of nature and we must look after it. We can provide for our needs now, while tending to the earth in a way that will sustain us and future generations. Ultimately, our lives and our livelihoods are all interdependent. The balance of one's bank account or the wealth one has means nothing if there aren't other people producing food and goods, providing services, healthcare, and education. That is the backbone of our economy, really, are those public services that make sure that we have healthy, happy, nourished, fed people, that we have clean, drinkable water, that we have clean air, and that we have a stable climate for future generations, and the Green Party in Government is delivering on that. This Budget begins to deliver on that.
But we don't for one second pretend that there isn't a lot more work to do, and that we need to go further and faster to ensure that we do have an equitable New Zealand, that we are looking after our planet for the long term, and that, ultimately, by doing those things, that is what will enrich us and our lives most of all; far more than short term—the Opposition can't stop talking about these really short-term, silly ideas like oil and gas exploration, as if that was going to create much jobs. No, it is threatening life on the planet, so it seems like a bad investment, but, sure, if that's your big idea for how we're going to respond to COVID-19 and build a flourishing, stable economy in the 21st century, good luck to you in September! Good luck to you in September is all I can say to the Opposition.
And as long as I'm speaking right after the member Chris Bishop, I will correct him a little bit. I think his memory and his history is just a little bit off. So let's just go back to 2009 when Steven Joyce announced the roads of national significance. I just want to bring this up because this was the big flagship economic development idea from the National Party which has been spoken to in this debate. You know how much it was? It was seven highways—just seven highways they promised. Of course, they promised a whole bunch of them without doing a business case first, so it turned out that many of them had incredibly low benefit-cost ratio (BCRs). That means the cost of project is many times more than the actual economic benefits. I'm happy to provide the evidence of that for any of those members over there who I'm sure have never bothered to look at a business case for a highway project in their life.
So Steven Joyce's big idea: seven highways, two of them had already been committed to by the previous Labour Government. So two out of seven had already been promised by the Helen Clark-led fifth Labour Government, that was the Waterview Connection which got delayed by Minister Joyce, and, of course, only got delivered very recently, and the Victoria Park Tunnel, already started by the Labour Government. So that was a good project that had a relatively high BCR. Do you know that project was only $200 million—maybe $200 million, $300 million. It seems incredibly efficient compared to the cost of the highways that were then proposed by the last National Government. So they then promised the Waikato Expressway, Wellington Northern Corridor, Pūhoi to Wellsford, Christchurch, and Tauranga.
So they were spending the vast majority of the transport budget just around our largest cities on highways that don't even reduce congestion really. We all know highways induce more traffic. So within five years you have to expand them again. So you're spending billions of dollars for no gain. And it's funny the National Party are laughing at this as if they don't know. All around the world people know this now. So in 2009, they promised seven roads by the end of nine years: the five roads that were their idea, all of which had incredibly low BCRs, not yet completed; the Waikato Expressway, not yet completed; the Wellington Northern Corridor not only not completed but their big idea for Wellington was a flyover, which got rejected by the board of inquiry that they had put up; Pūhoi to Wellsford, not done—they haven't even completed Pūhoi to Warkworth because Pūhoi to Wellsford was more than a billion dollars more than what they had estimated. That isn't done yet. That was signed up to as a public-private partnership (PPP), which is a total mess now. Transmission Gully, a PPP: a total mess now. We've actually had to go back and resurface a bunch of these roads that the National Party "delivered". So that was what they delivered.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I'm sorry to interrupt the member, but the time has come for the House to adjourn for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7.30 p.m. and the member will have 21 seconds, should she wish to take it.
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.





NICOLA WILLIS (National): This Budget has been delivered in the context of a global health crisis unlike any I, certainly, have seen in my lifetime. I think we all wish to congratulate New Zealanders for their sacrifices and to feel some gratitude that we are coming through the first stages of this health crisis better than many other countries around the world. However, what this Budget lays bare in the forecasts that are set out in its pages is just how severe the economic impact on New Zealanders is and what it will be.
What these documents show us is that the economy is forecast to have contracted 4.7 percent this year. So that's not just an economy that's stopped growing; that is an economy that has shrunk and got smaller. It's very easy to get lost in the numbers of the Budget and to think "Well, that's interesting" and economists can analyse them, but a shrinking economy means dreams that are thwarted. It means businesses that are closed down. It means people who have lost their part-time job, who have had their hours reduced, and who have had their pay reduced. We are seeing that impact in our communities, and it hurts. The question that this Budget raises is how long that pain will continue; this Budget certainly does not answer the question of how that pain will be treated.
The Budget also forecasts a peak of 9.8 percent in unemployment, and that, of course, is one in 10 New Zealanders who wish to work, who are ready to work, and who are able to work and have had the training, are unable to find a job. Many of those people, of course, will be young people. They will be people straight out of university or straight out of school, eager to get a start in life, and they will find it very, very difficult to get a job. So the human toll in this Budget is severe.
And, of course, the numbers set out here by Treasury—it is important to note—have been described by some external economists as "wildly optimistic". There are still scenarios in which that unemployment rate gets worse and stays worse for a lot longer. If we are to believe that we're going to bounce out of this as fast as Treasury are currently predicting, we have to be prepared to believe that 189,000 jobs will be created in the next two years. I simply do not see the plan inside these Budget documents that would deliver job growth on a scale of that sort. Why is that? Because, yes, the Government can create some jobs, it can employ people, it can do conservation schemes, it can do things with the Government departments that it owns—and those are all, potentially, worthy initiatives—but, ultimately, the key place of employment growth in our economy has been, and should continue to be into the future, New Zealand businesses.
In this country, the vast majority of those businesses are small and medium sized business. Typically, they're family-owned. I want to tell you about what is happening for those businesses in our community, because I don't see their pain being adequately addressed in this Budget. It's actually the swimming teacher or the dance teacher or the karate teacher who owns their own business, who has children who come to have their lessons each week, and you can't charge for fees anymore, because the lessons aren't happening—members on the other side of the House are laughing; I hope not at people who have lost their income and are unable to sustain their families anymore, because I don't find it very funny—but, actually, that person has found that their livelihood, the business that they have created, they may no longer be able to sustain because they can no longer pay the lease on the building where they do those lessons, they can no longer do the advertising for that business.
Or it's the restaurant that struggled through bad weeks and bad months but hasn't been able to stay open through successive months. It's the tour guide whose job was something they created for themselves with a bit of entrepreneurial spirit, they were the person who met the tourists off the cruise boat and toured them around the great sights of the city here in Wellington, and now don't have that job to do. And it is the young couple who took their savings and bought a motel because they thought "This will be the way that we create some more earning for ourselves and our future and create security.", and now there is no one coming through those motel doors. Yes, the wage subsidy will help for the next few weeks, but what certainty do that couple have in the future? What does this Budget say to them about what the opportunity will be in the future? It doesn't lay out a plan; it is simply not here. They have no idea what the future holds. That lack of certainty and that anxiety is leading to people making decisions to let people go and to reduce their businesses, up and down the country.
I want to take a moment to also talk about housing, because the previous speaker in this debate, Julie Anne Genter, talked about how this Budget delivered 8,000 houses. I think it's about time that members on the other side of the House learnt the meaning of the word "delivery", because "delivery" doesn't mean that there's a line in a press release that says "We will do something". Delivery doesn't mean "We've put a big number next to something and we've said we're prepared to spend a whole lot of money on it.", because if that were true, then everyone in New Zealand would believe that KiwiBuild's being delivered, but, you know, KiwiBuild hasn't been delivered, because, meanwhile, while these people on the other side of the House spent hours in the last campaign going up and down the country, telling us they'd build 100,000 houses, they haven't. So we on this side of the House question the commitment to 8,000 houses, not because it's not a good idea—building more houses is a great idea; certainly, our country needs more houses—but we question this Government's ability to deliver it, because, yet again, we don't see the kind of detailed plans that are necessary to make something like this happen. We see it throughout this Budget: the unallocated billions that are there, that we're meant to believe will stimulate the economy effectively, but with no plan spelt out for how that will be.
The apprenticeship fund—again, who would argue with the idea of investing money in apprentices and skills training at a time of unemployment and economic crisis? No one would argue with that, but what we will question is where the plan is to actually deliver that and actually make it happen.
So this is a Budget that leaves New Zealand uncertain. Yes, it addresses some of the immediate crisis, and, yes, it does some good things, but at the centre of it is a gaping hole, where what New Zealanders needed was a plan set out that gave them the aspiration and the hope they need at a time of terrible global uncertainty. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): I move, That this debate be now adjourned. 
Motion agreed to.





EPIDEMIC RESPONSE COMMITTEE
Disestablishment
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That the Epidemic Response Committee be disestablished.
When Parliament met just before we began the COVID-19 lockdown, it would be fair to say that not many members of the House had any idea at that point how events were going to unfold over the next eight weeks or so. We knew what the worst-case scenario might be—or we feared what the worst-case scenario might be—having looked around the world and seen how COVID-19 had taken off in other jurisdictions, overwhelming their health systems and leading to pretty drastic and Draconian measures being taken in those countries to bring it under control. 
New Zealand made the decision as a country, and led by the Government, to go hard and go early, and it worked. We did not know that it was going to work eight weeks ago—or more than eight weeks ago now—when we met here in this Parliament. We made the decision at the time that Parliament would also not meet during the period of the lockdown, and that was a big call to make. It was a big call to make because many of us, myself included, believe that Parliament has a vital role to fulfil in scrutinising the actions of the executive, and that becomes all the more important in a time of national emergency when the Government is exercising the extraordinary powers that the Government has been exercising during the COVID-19 response.
It was important that parliamentary scrutiny was able to continue during that time, even if Parliament itself did not meet. After some quite interesting negotiations, we formed the view collectively as a Parliament that the way to do that would be to establish a special select committee, that that select committee would be chaired by the Leader of the Opposition, and that it would include an Opposition majority. The committee would meet remotely using Zoom or other technology, whether it's teleconference or otherwise. Where possible, those meetings would be broadcast—and they were broadcast—and they would be able to call witnesses, or whoever they wanted, to scrutinise the actions of the Government. Ministers who played critical roles in the COVID-19 response appeared before the committee and answered questions, I think, in good faith and were subject to quite rigorous scrutiny of the actions that they had taken. Some Ministers appeared multiple times before the committee, and some of the key officials involved in leading that process also appeared before the committee.
I would like to thank the Hon Simon Bridges, the then Leader of the Opposition, for his work in chairing the committee, but also, in particular—returning back to the circumstances under which we created the committee—for the goodwill that was shown in supporting the Government's decision to stop Parliament meeting during the period of the lockdown. I do appreciate that for the Opposition, that's a bigger sacrifice than for the Government, in the sense that they lose their opportunity to scrutinise the Government, and I think that between Simon Bridges, Gerry Brownlee, myself, and the others involved in the Business Committee discussion, we were able to come up with a solution—a pragmatic solution—that I think served the New Zealand people well. It was well attended and well watched by those both livestreaming and also using the Parliament TV channel, and I think the committee has served a very useful purpose.
When we moved to level 3, the role of the committee changed. As we resumed question time, as more regular parliamentary scrutiny resumed, the committee still had a role in scrutinising COVID-19 - specific legislation that was referred to it by the Government and that was to be passed by the House—
SPEAKER: By the Parliament.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: By the Parliament. I said "by the Parliament", I thought. Did I say by the Government?
SPEAKER: No, no. Refer to it by "the Parliament".
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It was introduced by the Government and referred to it by the Parliament, and that was to be passed in a very, very short time frame. So the committee did have an opportunity to scrutinise that legislation as thoroughly as they could, given the time constraints. Again, I think they did a very good job of that, and I've already acknowledged Michael Woodhouse, who played the role of facilitating and chairing those particular sessions. I thank him again for the work that he did there.
Parliament is now back, more or less, as normal. Members are able to attend the House. The legislative programme has been resumed. Question time is happening every day. Select committees can meet again, and Ministers will all be appearing before select committee in the coming weeks to discuss the Budget Estimates. So the regular function of parliamentary scrutiny that is so vital has now resumed, and, therefore, the Epidemic Response Committee has concluded the job that it was set up to do, which was to fill the void created when Parliament was no longer meeting.
I do again want to say to all members involved, on both sides of the House, that I believe that this was an incredibly important thing for the New Zealand Parliament to do. I believe that it differs from other jurisdictions, other Parliaments, around the world, where the Parliament has been shut down and there is no parliamentary scrutiny of the actions of their Governments. I think that at a time of national emergency, there does need to be scrutiny. It's more important than ever, and the New Zealand Parliament was able to come up with a mechanism to do that, and I think that that's something that we should all be proud of.





Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I move, That the words "be disestablished" be replaced with the words "remains for as long as the alert level remains at or above level 2, with consequent restrictions on the operations of Parliament, and the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act has not been repealed, and that the committee convene weekly." 
I shall be tabling, for the Clerk, a written copy of that. There are two main reasons for this proposed amendment. The first is simply this: this House, this motion, is not the place to disestablish this committee. The committee was established by agreement between the parties at the Business Committee, as I understand it—I'm not a member of that—with the agreement of the Business Committee.
Hon Chris Hipkins: No, it was an agreement with a phone call between Gerry Brownlee and I.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well, the member may be right but the reality is—[Interruption] hang on; I think this is important—these are important matters that are discussed between the parties, and usually at the Business Committee, a committee that runs on consensus. There is no consensus that the committee be disestablished, and, therefore, the Government is going to do exactly the opposite of what the committee was set up to do, and that is use its majority to crush it.
But here is the second reason why I propose this amendment, which, effectively, continues this committee: the work has not concluded. Normal transmission, in terms of our parliamentary democracy, has not been resumed. We have had—I'll start with the positives. This committee has worked extremely well. I'm sure colleagues on all sides of the House have had positive feedback about the manner in which that business has been conducted, and, indeed, I think it was Derek Cheng of the New Zealand Herald who wrote an op-ed piece quite early in the committee's time saying, effectively, if oral question time is the measure of our parliamentary democracy, then we should be very, very worried, but if the Epidemic Response Committee is a measure of our parliamentary democracy and the way in which MPs interact with each other, then we should be greatly encouraged by what is going on.
Now, that, I have to say, was very early on in the committee's process, and I remind members where we were at when that committee was established. We were, obviously, in lockdown. This place was closed, and I have to tell you I was one of those members that opposed that course of action—that if we were going to ask our supermarkets, our hospitals, our police, our ambulance, other essential workers to continue through that lockdown, why should we not?
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Back to the motion and the amendment.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well, this is very important in laying out the reasons why this committee is so important, Mr Speaker. We have heard from experts that this place wouldn't otherwise hear from. At a time when the Government didn't even have all the questions, much less all of the answers, the committee called on experts. Professor David Skegg, Peter Gluckman, the economic experts, Cameron Bagrie, Phil O'Reilly came and provided information—the submissions that we got so that we could understand exactly what was going on in corners of the country that were, essentially, locked down by executive fiat. Indeed, there remain questions about the legality of that lockdown that have not been adequately answered by an Attorney-General that came to the committee and said, "Trust us. We know what we're doing." Fine, that's good; show us the advice you got—"Nope, can't do that."
So that is the contest that needed to go on. But then, of course, we had, I think, the two most extraordinary contrasting speeches I gave within an hour and a half of each other on about 13 May: one commending the Government; the other condemning it for the use of the Epidemic Response Committee to scrutinise, in very short order, two important pieces of legislation that, thanks to that scrutiny, came out of the committee in better shape and are now in law, and then another piece of legislation that was outrageously pushed through this Parliament in a matter of 18 hours, without any public input or parliamentary consideration through a committee.
Now, then came, actually, the biggest slap to the Epidemic Response Committee. Often Acts have reviews in them, and it's usually between two and five years after the Act is passed. Twenty-four hours after the Act is passed, the Attorney-General comes to this House, at the death of urgency, and moves a motion to have the scrutiny of the very bill that didn't have scrutiny before it was passed. But which committee does that go to? A committee with a majority of Government members on it, that is already busy enough and that has nothing to do with the bill that had been passed, bypassing this committee that was set up to do exactly that. That was the start of the snub that included the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Tourism, and the Associate Minister of Health thumbing their noses at the most important oversight committee this Parliament has ever established. Why? Because things were getting a bit hot for them. There were some questions—[Interruption] Well, OK, here's the alternative—they scoff at that. So that means they're just too busy and important carrying out executive decisions without stopping and being subject to the scrutiny that a strong democracy requires of it.
I have spoken—and I do intend still to write; it's on my list of things to do—about my experience at the World Bank Parliamentary Forum on 25 April, where the chatrooms were full of descriptions of the executive fiat that was being exercised around the world in the lockdown, and the description of those countries as having weak democracies. They're not just developing nations, they're not just former autocracies; they were countries like Italy, like other Western European countries, and I'm sitting there, watching that, thinking "We could be one of those weak democracies, but at least we have the Epidemic Response Committee." Only the same executive fiat, the same Government muscle that was being used to ignore the source of scrutiny that would be appropriate, is now being used to shut down the only committee that this Parliament has specifically designed to scrutinise the actions of the Government during the worst pandemic in 100 years, the worst economic crisis in generations.
Democracy works not for the good times. Our Standing Orders, the rule of law, the constitutional separation between the executive and the legislature and the judiciary is important not in the good times but when things go bad and we are on a war footing. That's when it matters the most. I understand the need for the Government to act quickly and decisively—frankly, we've been there, through things like earthquakes, and it's hard to get that balance right, but balance it we must. We must ensure that this place continues to scrutinise executive decisions. And, yes, we're back—we're back and it feels like we're doing what we used to do—and yet we've got that sort of legislation last week going through under urgency. Tomorrow, we go back into urgency to pass more laws without public scrutiny on COVID, and, by the way, we're going to throw in a few other things—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! For the last 30 seconds, can the member get back to the motion.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: This is why this committee matters, Mr Speaker. It should be scrutinising these legislative changes. It should be scrutinising the sorts of decisions that the Government continues to make on behalf of New Zealanders, who, frankly, are in some kind of political Stockholm syndrome at the moment. That will change, and when it does, the Epidemic Response Committee will be as important as it has been in the last 10 weeks. I strongly support, and ask colleagues to support, this amendment.





DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to the motion and yet in support of the amendment. I'd like to reflect a little bit on the events that led to the establishment of the Epidemic Response Committee and the contribution that it made.
The first thing I would do is reiterate comments that I made in the House on the 23rd—or 25th, if I remember rightly, certainly the last day before Parliament adjourned for lockdown, which was that it was a mistake for our Parliament to shut. Examples were given at the time that other countries had shut their Parliaments actually for longer than us, and that made it good enough. I've always taken the view that my ancestors moved here to the edge of the known world for a better tomorrow. Our objective when we make policy in New Zealand is not to be the median, but to be the best, so we should never use other countries' poor policy as a justification for our own.
I think it was unfortunate, the contrast, that in the initial days of the lockdown, west Auckland liquor stores remained open but this Parliament was shut.
SPEAKER: Order! I'm now going to interrupt the member, ask him to resume his seat, and ask him to now speak to the motion before the House. It is not a general debate; it is a very narrow motion with an amendment.
DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, of course, Mr Speaker, and I think it's reasonable to give some context in which the Epidemic Response Committee was established, and that is the context: Parliament was shut, so it was necessary. I have to say that the Epidemic Response Committee performed exceptionally well, but it's important to preface that statement with the fact that it will never be a substitute for democracy and this Parliament. It's important in a democracy that people are able to send a representative from their community or from their preferred party to represent and speak for them—that is almost the definition of a democracy. So we had to improvise and do it in the form of the Epidemic Response Committee.
I think it's fair to say that the committee had an outsize and positive impact on the way that our country navigated—what many people say, and it's hackneyed, but it is true—an unprecedented crisis. The committee had the help of some expert witnesses and some very brave members of the public who told their story. The telling of stories and the injection of alternative perspectives on what was going on was very much needed as this country sought to navigate the crisis. Let me just give two examples of that. Professor Sir David Skegg put on notice to the whole country that we were not doing well enough with testing. He introduced us to the concept of planned epidemiological studies. As a result of his testimony, we saw a massive shift in the operation and attitude of the Government towards testing. That was an example of a great contribution made by the Epidemic Response Committee. 
But also there was Bjorn and Lucy Reymer, who bravely told the story of Lucy having a miscarriage, left with a box of tissues alone in a room in hospital while her husband Bjorn was pacing in the car park outside, unable to comfort her—the most natural thing, to comfort one's partner in one of the most traumatic times—because of rules that were ridiculous, that required scrutiny, that actually would not have got the kind of attention they received had it not been for the bravery of them and many others testifying before the committee. We had people from business—I might mention Eve Lawrence, who came and gave compelling testimony that the response of the Government was affecting the tourism industry and small to medium sized enterprises in general in a way that needed to be brought to light. So I think we should commend the responses—or the role, at least, played by the Epidemic Response Committee in contributing to our democracy.
I reflect also on the composition of the committee, because I think it actually is an opportunity to learn something about the role of select committees in our democracy, and this is why I think it should continue. It's interesting that usually any select committee that has really important legislation you can guarantee has a majority of members of Parliament who are also members of the governing party—take firearms legislation, sent to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. One of the results of that is that the outcome is very easy to predict. All one needs to know is what the Government's policy preferences are. The fact that this committee had a majority of Opposition members gave it a completely different tone and purpose from most important select committee deliberations. When I look at our country and its anaemic constitutional arrangements—no written constitution, no Upper House, no subnational Governments, no states or provinces—I think, actually, we can learn a lot from the benefit of having a select committee that has the power to actually change legislation and drive the outcome from a perspective other than the Government majority. I'd put it to you, Mr Speaker, and I suspect you'd be sympathetic with this view, that perhaps future Parliaments should actually learn from this experience and consider making select committee membership proportional to the non-executive members.
SPEAKER: Order! This will be a very good speech on the report back of the Standing Orders Committee, but we're not having a general discussion about the shape of the Parliament. That's the second warning.
DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, thank you, Mr Speaker. Again, I would put it to you that, actually, this does help build the case for why the committee should continue. Thank you, though, for your acknowledgment. The fact of the matter is that we can learn from this—New Zealand can learn from this wider experience.
But I'd also put it to you and to the House that this crisis is far from over and that a Government will continue to attempt to manage the crisis with a clear eye on 19 September, and that is the reason why—just as the Epidemic Response Committee was able to bring so many useful perspectives to national attention, which drove the questions that journalists asked members of the Government in the early afternoon and, ultimately, drove the stories that New Zealanders were watching at 6 p.m.—we need to continue this committee throughout the remainder of this crisis so that we can have democracy, so people can see their representatives putting forward alternative suggestions and solutions and questioning the responses that the Government puts in place. If it was important before, in a way it's even more important now.
It's particularly important while Parliament still remains under restricted operating circumstances. You see, if the reason for having the Epidemic Response Committee was that Parliament was shut, then that justification still partially remains. It still partially remains because we have a situation where we still do not have our Parliament fully seated and giving every member an opportunity to participate on an equal basis.
In conclusion, the Epidemic Response Committee has been a good example of this Parliament innovating through a crisis, just as so many New Zealanders and their households and their businesses and their schools have had to innovate every single day of the last two months to survive. For that, I commend the committee. But it's no substitute for this House to be sitting in full as it has in this country for 170 years. I'd put it to you that until the House can resume sitting fully and until the Government has finished operating in almost a wartime footing, then the Epidemic Response Committee with an Opposition majority is essential and should remain. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I speak in favour of the amendment from Michael Woodhouse that the words "be disestablished." be replaced with "remains for as long as the alert level remains at above level 2 with consequent restrictions on the operations of the [Government]".
So what we're talking about here is the Epidemic Response Committee, which was formed when Parliament was shut. I have spent a lot of time on that committee, and obviously it is a reaction to a 100-year crisis such as we haven't seen, obviously, for a very long time, where, as we've seen, $62 billion of money has been spent. Decisions have been taken to control people's lives and that have had a real impact on their ability to be with their loved ones at critical times and engage in their business, employ themselves, and do basic things. A big decision's been made, and so it was absolutely right, and I commend the Government for its initial decision and willingness to have this committee set up, with an Opposition majority, so that Ministers could be called and held to account to a degree, and experts could be brought before the committee. 
I remember many, many striking conversations that were had. I particularly remember the police commissioner coming in. We'd just heard from the Prime Minister that people coming in from overseas were going into self-quarantine but that New Zealanders shouldn't be worried because the police would check up on them within three days. Then it was useful to have the police commissioner come in and tell us, "Actually, that's not the case. We're not doing that.", and it was a great shock for many people. But if the committee hadn't been in place, that stark reality wouldn't have been brought to mind and the Government wouldn't have been, frankly, embarrassed into doing something about it. That helped us with our response to the crisis and made a difference, and on many occasions, such as with Sir David Skegg and many other people making their comments about the quality of the testing and tracing regimes, it made a real difference. 
So the question now is—now that Parliament has resumed and we do have the opportunity to have Ministers back before the Parliament at question time and we have the opportunity to have select committees meeting—is it still required? The Government seems to think no, but they should be conscious of the fact that they are developing a bit of a reputation for dismissive attitudes towards criticism and transparency, and we're all aware of the infamous message from the Prime Minister's office—
SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —and reluctance to turn up to the committee. I would have thought it would have been good politic from the Government to be responsive to that and not to be seen as dismissive of attempts to hold a candle or a light to the decisions that are being made. 
However, they have pressed on with wanting to close down this committee, and the only point I'd make is that this is—as we keep on hearing—a 100-year crisis, and it is occasion to do things slightly differently. The full mechanisms of Parliament are not yet working. We don't have written questions answered in normal timespans and there's not the same ability to get answers to a whole lot of things as quickly as normal. It's not possible for all members of Parliament to be in the Chamber and it's not as easy to have all the select committee functions operating the same as normal, but, more importantly, we're in a situation where the Government has granted itself the ability to spend more than $20 billion at its choosing over the next couple of months—extraordinary things, which in the normal course of events just wouldn't occur. 
On that basis, I think there is a very strong case for keeping the committee going—not three times a week, as we have in the past, but, I would have thought, on a weekly basis—so that that different, extra layer of transparency is retained at a time when Parliament is not operating as normal and these momentous decisions are being made, which will affect the lives of New Zealanders not only now but for many years to come as we pay off the debt. So my plea to the Government is that they reconsider this and that they do act magnanimously and allow themselves to be exposed to extra scrutiny at a critical time in our history, and I would think they would do well to reflect on that. 
The final point, of course, is that it's by no means guaranteed—we all hope and pray that we don't go back into a higher form of lockdown, but it's not impossible that we might. So it would certainly make sense to keep this committee on the books, at least, and able to be swiftly brought back to life. 
So, on that basis, I support this amendment to this motion. Thank you. 





Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to stand and speak in support of the amendment to the motion that was tabled by the Hon Michael Woodhouse. So instead of disestablishing the Epidemic Response Committee, it would be to have the Epidemic Response Committee remain for as long as the alert level remains at or above level 2, with consequent restrictions on the operations of Parliament and the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act has not been repealed, and that the select committee convene weekly.
At the start of this crisis, and, as my colleagues have said, clearly it's been a crisis—a one-in-100-year occurrence—the then Leader of the Opposition, the Hon Simon Bridges, committed us as the Opposition to be constructive. If I look at the number of issues that have been raised in a very respectful way by experts—and some of those have been mentioned here today—whether it was Professor Skegg, the former Chief Science Advisor Sir Peter Gluckman, whether it was economists, or, actually, whether it was industry organisations that wouldn't otherwise have had a voice, I firmly believe that the ability for those to be represented actually enabled a stronger response from the Government, which is what all of us wanted as a country. 
So, you know, at the time it was really interesting, because lots of constituents said "Why is there not a war Cabinet? Why are there not daily briefings by members of the Opposition, by their counterparts?" And the answer was "Well, no. Parliament has created the Epidemic Response Committee, which allows for three days a week in an open and transparent way for the New Zealand public to participate in the dialogue as well.", which I actually think was, and has been, really significant. 
As my colleague said, Parliament still is operating under restrictions, and to not have every member of Parliament able to sit in this Chamber and to take their place and participate in our democracy is a significant challenge. My colleagues have mentioned written questions, which is the normal vehicle, and Official Information Act requests. Legislation that the Government has been considering around the COVID-19 response hasn't required regulatory impact assessment. So a lot of the mechanisms of a normal scrutiny of Parliament haven't been in place and are still not in place, as well as the fact that Parliament also isn't operating in its normal manner. Back in the electorates, electorate offices aren't all able to open, to be staffed, to serve the constituents. Even simple functions like recruitment by the Parliamentary Service can't operate in the normal manner. So it is really important in dealing with this one-in-100-year event that the public have the confidence in the Parliament operating in a way that's clearly different because it is restricted. But Parliament needs to be able to have an alternative mechanism while these restrictions are in place to enable and to ensure that there is some scrutiny, and, actually, as my colleagues have given examples, that scrutiny has meant changes—the Government moving, shifting, and those decisions have been in the long-term interests of New Zealand.
So whether it's on providing more data and evidence—and at first we didn't see anything in terms of Ministry of Social Development data. We hadn't seen anything from Treasury. That came, which was really helpful, and I think it's been fantastic to see that data on a weekly basis, and it should continue, because it's important not just as a Parliament but as a public that we are informed about what's happening as a result of this crisis. Things like personal protective equipment (PPE)—there wouldn't be a member of Parliament, in this place, who wasn't bombarded by very, very concerned members of the public who were working as essential services, essential workers on the front line who didn't have access to PPE. We were able collectively to raise these issues and ensure that people who were at the front line doing critical work had PPE, which was important for them. It was important for their families when they saw their mum, dad, sister, auntie, or whoever go off to work each day, and it was really critical for the people that were being served, whether it was an older worker, whether it was a midwife—numerous examples that were shared. So it is really important. 
Yes, some of us are standing here. Yes, Parliament is operating in a limited way and also in terms of functioning democracy. I'm pleased the limit was lifted, but we are still only allowed gatherings of up to 100 people. So if you think that democracy is operating and there is the ability for members of Parliament to do their roles, we can't. We can't function in the same way that we used to. Michael Wood is looking surprised. Well, I'm sorry, but, actually, to have 100 people at a public meeting, at a gathering at a time of a one-in-100-year crisis, you expect that the public would have the ability to engage with you as their member of Parliament, whichever party you are in this House. Whichever party it is in the House, the public don't get the ability for the Parliament to function and the MPs to function in the same way they did before COVID. So the Epidemic Response Committee should remain while those restrictions are in place. 
Michael Wood, I'm surprised that you're shaking your head, because the number of people who came to the Epidemic Response Committee, and they'll be small businesses, large, industries that weren't represented otherwise that fell between the cracks—I think of the event industry. That's a critical one in my electorate. Do they go to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment? Do they go to the tourism Minister? Do they go to the Minister for Sport and Recreation? Do they go to the Minister of Health? Oh no, because, actually, a letter I wrote to the Minister of Health six weeks ago, I still haven't even had an acknowledgment for. Right? So as a member of the public or an industry association, having a voice and having a platform in the Epidemic Response Committee was critical. 
We want to make sure, on this side of the House, that they still have that voice. There are still restrictions in place. There are still restrictions in terms of funerals. There are still restrictions in terms of the number of people who can visit a loved one in hospital. There are still restrictions on gatherings. There are still restrictions on Parliament. That's why, as the Opposition, we want to make sure that the Epidemic Response Committee still has a role. It's played a really important role, and for that I acknowledge every member of Parliament who's been on it. 
I'm really quite disappointed that the Government doesn't think that we are still in a crisis and that we should still have a mechanism for this Parliament to scrutinise the decisions and to enable more voices to appear when legislation, even tomorrow, is being put on the Table, rammed through all stages. Actually, it could have gone to the Epidemic Response Committee even for a week. That would be a sensible, responsible, logical thing for the most open and transparent Government of our times to do. So I'm supporting the amendment.





MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak in support of the motion and against the amendment that has been put forward by the Hon Michael Woodhouse, and I will address the latter first.
The amendment has no basis. As I understand it, from the text of the amendment, it is put forward on the basis of the apparent restrictions on Parliament, yet not one member who has spoken in favour of the amendment so far has actually clearly identified the restrictions on the operations of Parliament that are actually relevant to this debate, because as far as I'm aware, this Parliament—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! There have been a number of irrelevant arguments made. I have asked people sometimes to stop, and I probably should have asked them to stop more often. I'm not going to have irrelevant arguments made relevant by their reply.
MICHAEL WOOD: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I'm simply responding to the amendment itself, not the arguments that have been put forward, and I struggle to understand how that is not in order.
SPEAKER: Fair enough—keep going, but make sure that you stay relevant and factual and within the tight confines of this debate, not responding to irrelevancies.
MICHAEL WOOD: Thank you, Mr Speaker. So I'm referring to the text of the amendment, which refers to the restrictions on Parliament as being the reason for why the Epidemic Response Committee should continue through the level 2 period. The argument that I'm putting forward to the House is that we have not actually heard in any coherent way what the restrictions on Parliament are that give a basis to the amendment, because the Parliament is meeting fully at the moment. All of its functions are intact and being carried out. Select committees are meeting. Question time is occurring every day. Legislation is being considered. All of the scrutiny functions of the Parliament are happening now.
This is a very important point, and I come to an argument raised by the Hon Michael Woodhouse in his comments initially, when he referred to the discussions that had occurred at Business Committee and I think somewhat confused the role of the Business Committee and the role of the House. It's important to be aware that it was the House which established the Epidemic Response Committee. I've checked the minutes of the Business Committee, which did discuss this matter on 25 March, in fact.
What occurred at the Business Committee is that—and I'm quoting directly from the minutes here—"the parties indicated they would grant leave to move a notice of motion on this matter". So it is appropriate for the House to address this matter because it was the House that established the Epidemic Response Committee. But I do wish to be clear that when parties used the forum of the Business Committee to discuss this matter, it was on the basis that the Epidemic Response Committee had an important job to do while the House could not meet, and while the normal scrutiny functions of the House—notably question time, which holds the executive to account directly and publicly—could not happen. We have clearly passed that Rubicon and the House, as I have described and as Chris Hipkins described earlier, is meeting and is fully alive again.
I don't come here to belittle or criticise the work of the Epidemic Response Committee in any way. It's met 24 times since it was established; I think that I've sat on it for 23 of those meetings. I agree with members around the House that its work has been important and that it's been something of a parliamentary and constitutional innovation that I think basically did work well. I acknowledge, very genuinely, the chair of the committee across those meetings, the Hon Simon Bridges. Members on this side sometimes had disagreements around the process of meetings and sometimes around the way that they were run, but, basically, it was a committee that worked. It had members from across the House engaging in good faith, engaging with Ministers, engaging with officials, and engaging with members of the public. But as David Seymour said in the course of this debate, it's not a substitute for Parliament. We have Parliament back now. That's the reason that this motion has been put forward in the House.
I would say to members of the Opposition who have crafted sort of would-be Gettysburg addresses about the downfall of Westminster democracy in the course of this debate just to back yourselves. Those members have access to all of the scrutiny functions of the Parliament. They can ask good questions. They can engage on select committees. I note that there is a select committee that is currently set up that is engaging in a significant inquiry into some of the more important powers that the Government is assuming during this period. They have a full capacity to engage in that inquiry as well. So the mechanisms are there for members across the House to be engaging in the issues that are created by COVID-19 and the Government response already. There simply have been no firm arguments put forward that really describe why it is that the Parliament is unable to fulfil the function and the powers that it has at ordinary times now, because the Parliament is meeting fully.
I'll finish off just with a thought about the creation of this committee and the way in which it was done well. It was done well, I think, all round. Let's remember that it was set up by a Government motion. So this was the Government of the day saying that the Government would agree to a committee being set up that had an Opposition majority and an Opposition chair, and it was agreed, I think, unanimously across the House. I return to the fact that it was agreed on the basis that that committee would function while Parliament was not meeting. So we had an important parliamentary consensus that allowed for the creation of this committee and significant goodwill between parties around that. I think that the Opposition does stretch that consensus and that goodwill when they go beyond the reason for the establishment of the committee in arguing that it should have an extended life.
I just ask Opposition members to consider that, because I think this committee has done its job well. It has most of the time shown this Parliament at its best, and I think that the House would do well to honour, effectively, the consensus agreement that was reached between parties at the time of establishment, which was that this committee would exist while Parliament was not meeting. Parliament is meeting now. It is doing its job. This committee has done well, but it has come to the end of its time. I commend the motion to the House, but not the amendment put forward by Michael Woodhouse.





Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, sir. I agree with Michael Wood that the Epidemic Response Committee showed Parliament and members of this House at its and our best, but there is a fundamental flaw in the argument that we have just heard from Michael Wood, and that is in the assertion—or, at least, the inference—that Parliament is now functioning typically and as we usually would. Well, that is absolute nonsense, and it's why tonight I stand to endorse the amendment moved by the Hon Michael Woodhouse and to oppose the Government motion seeking to disestablish the Economic Response Committee.
We've just heard from Mr Wood that the amendment moved by my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse has no foundation—no basis. Well, let me point out why that assertion is utterly wrong. This Parliament is still heavily restricted. I'm speaking tonight from near the back of the House not because I'm occupying my seat but because I can't go and occupy my seat. Because of the physical distancing requirements, four of my very fine colleagues are in the area where I would normally sit and I need to remain away from them. That's not a trivial point—that is not a trivial point—
Hon Damien O'Connor: You can blame your new boss. That's why you're that far back!
Hon TIM MACINDOE: —because—ha, ha! Well, clearly Mr Damien O'Connor wishes to trivialise it, but it's not a trivial point, because those who are watching—and there will be many people at home watching tonight—will have noticed that all members are sitting apart from one another. Today at question time, half of my caucus could not take their rightful place in this House. They could not enter the debating chamber to which they were elected; they were told they had to go and sit up in the gallery.
Hon Damien O'Connor: It was all right—we didn't miss them.
Hon TIM MACINDOE: Yet again, the Hon Damien O'Connor wishes to trivialise that point. We understand the reason for it, but it doesn't make it something we should be relaxed about or happy to accept as being the new normal; it is not.
So not only can I not sit in my seat tonight—and that's only of minor relevance—observers cannot enter the select committee room that I will be working in tomorrow morning. That is significantly more disturbing. We understand it, again, but this is a democracy. We have a very long, proud democratic tradition in this country, which includes the right of every member of the public to enter the precinct of Parliament and to scrutinise our actions, and at the moment, they cannot do that. Even if they wanted to, the chances are that if they were coming from other parts of the country, they wouldn't be able to do so, because their public transport options are severely limited, and if they were to get on a plane, again, they'd have to be occupying the physical distancing room.
More importantly, there is nobody in the public gallery tonight, just as there has not been now since Parliament resumed in our limited way a couple of weeks before the Budget was delivered. Now, again, that is something of which we should be very concerned. The public should have the right to enter this building, to scrutinise and observe the actions of their elected representatives. Again, we understand the reason why that can't happen at the moment. None of us wants to undermine the public health response to the COVID pandemic; all of us are proud of what we have achieved collectively. All of us want to—as what has become a cliché has been mentioned many times—lock in the gains that we, the team of 5 million, have achieved. But while members of the public cannot enter this House, cannot attend our select committees, cannot freely participate as observers in the democratic process of this country, we must champion their interests.
At any other stage, members of the public would be able to gather out on the forecourt and on the lawn in front of Parliament and protest or demonstrate against a matter that is of concern to them, or stand up for important principles—and every week when Parliament is sitting normally, we see that happen. Most recently, I think of the protest against the Concert FM proposals. Now, that is such an important part of functioning in a democracy. Members of the Government should not trivialise that; they should recognise that that is a reason why the Epidemic Response Committee has such an important function.
I had the privilege of participating as a member of the National Party's representation on the Epidemic Response Committee twice in my capacity as our seniors spokesperson. I was hugely impressed by the way it operated. I was hugely impressed by the chairmanship of the Hon Simon Bridges and the way in which members listened respectfully not only to one another but, in particular, to those who came to put their views before the committee—and, of course, in almost every case, they were doing so by Zoom because they couldn't enter this building.
So when the Leader of the House, in moving this motion earlier, said that the Epidemic Response Committee served a useful purpose, he greatly understated it. The Epidemic Response Committee served a vital purpose: the only truly democratic option for scrutiny of the actions of a Government during a state of emergency when Parliament was adjourned and we as members of Parliament were, effectively, forced away from this House of Representatives to which we were elected. We still aren't functioning in the way that we would expect to be able to, in the way that the public expected us to be able to when they made their decisions at the 2017 general election. Until such time as they have their rights restored as members of the public, can be sure that their voices are being heard, that their concerns are being listened to and responded to, we should not be disestablishing the one committee that protected their interests.
I led the charge for the National Party, as the shadow Attorney-General, against the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill just a fortnight ago. Never in my 12 years as a member of this House have I received so many messages and emails from people who are not supporters of my party but who were saying thank you to the National Party for standing up for their interests, for defending their concerns, and, in particular, for defending our democratic rights, as I did on that occasion. Now, without the Epidemic Response Committee, that opportunity to represent the concerns of members of the public will be greatly diluted.
Yes, belatedly, after that travesty of an abuse of Parliament, frankly, the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill went through under urgency, with no select committee process, with no opportunity for the public to make submissions. After the event, the Government said, "Well, OK, let's send it to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.", but as the Hon Michael Woodhouse pointed out earlier, that is a committee with a Government majority. At a time when Parliament is severely curtailed, when our ability to function fully as members of this House is not respected or, at least, not possible, now the Government wants to use its majority on a committee, effectively to minimise the concerns and the views that will be brought to it.
Well, the very nature of the Epidemic Response Committee going across all aspects of public policy was its great strength. I want to pay huge tribute to the many commentators and advisers, business and industry leaders, health and social and community sector leaders who advised that committee and whose advice is still needed, because we have the Director-General of Health telling us that we cannot ease up; so too is Professor Michael Baker. We know that every day across the world, hundreds of deaths are still occurring as a result of COVID, and thousands of new cases are being detected in other parts of the world. Therefore, the very real risk continues to exist of a further flare up in New Zealand. That's why I support the Hon Michael Woodhouse's amendment to ensure that the committee remains established so that it can quickly convene once more should it be required. I strongly oppose the Government's motion.





KIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.
Chris Penk: Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: No, I've been listening to this for nearly an hour now, and I think it's probably half an hour since I heard an original and relevant argument.
Chris Penk: It'll be grammatical.
SPEAKER: Well, the member guarantees he's going to give us new and relevant material?
Chris Penk: Yes, sir.
SPEAKER: If he doesn't, I'll stop him mid-turn.





CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): I'm sure you will, Mr Speaker. Sir, I was hoping to encourage you with the prospect of some scintillating syntax. Sir, I presume you have in front of you a copy of the amendment to the motion in the name of my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse, so you probably would agree with me that the word "remains" should, in fact, be "remain", because it's the subjunctive. But moving from that to, I think, a more important point—an even more important point. I think that the construction of the amendment, should it pass, is such that there are two elements of time. One is that rather than the committee being disestablished, it remain for as long as two things are true: one, as long as the alert level remains at or above level 2, with consequent restrictions on the operations of Parliament, and—meaning that both must be satisfied—the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act has not been repealed.
The significance of that in my submission is that it is a relevant consideration for the House that both these things must be in place. The significance is that the member Michael Wood suggests that because the House does not, in his opinion, currently have restrictions consequent on alert level 2, the motion is meaningless. However, because that's one of the conditions that would need to be satisfied, in fact, we could go back to an alert level that is higher than 2, as, indeed, the motion points out. So there could be consequent restrictions, such as we have already seen, come back into play.
The Prime Minister and others have made it clear that there's no "reverse ratchet"—that's my phrase, but, essentially, that we are not to expect as a nation that we'll necessarily remain at level 2, only to go to 1 and then 0, if such a thing exists. But, in fact, we might. If a second wave were to hit these shores, then we could go up to alert level 3 or 4 and, therefore, it might become necessary, once again, even if it were not necessary now, for the Epidemic Response Committee to remain relevant, and hence it should not be disestablished.
The clue in the title is that this is the Epidemic Response Committee. It was set up in response to an epidemic. Unless the Government is arguing that (a) the epidemic no longer exists, or (b) that it should no longer be responded to, then it makes sense that the committee—the body that was sent in response to the epidemic—should remain in force.
It's possible, I suppose—I've turned my mind to the possibility that the Government is looking to do the right thing for the wrong reasons, but I have searched my mind and my heart for these reasons, and I think others on this side have canvassed the possibility that it might be inconvenient politically. I won't traverse that ground. I promise you that there'll be no repetition of that nature, sir. Others have made arguments along the lines that—well, effectively, the arguments have been made that it's logistically difficult for the Government members, because we have seen in the past week or so, effectively, Ministers who would otherwise have been appearing in front of the committee deeming themselves to be too busy—the ministerial diary equivalent of washing their hair on the relevant day, such that they were unable or perhaps unwilling to appear.
Then, of course, we've got the possible arguments about the committee being extraneous from a constitutional point of view. Here is Parliament, goes the argument, so why would we need a parliamentary committee to continue to examine these? In the absence of that, again, so goes the argument from the Government side, should we not disestablish it? Well, while the Epidemic Response Committee is indeed a creature of Parliament and, as others have pointed out, it has a majority of Opposition MPs—almost uniquely among the current other select committees—the fact is for other select committees there must be an item of business on the agenda; a piece of work, as it's sometimes known. It's an interesting phrase, isn't it—piece of work. It had a different meaning when I was first aware of it. But anyway, if there's not something that's the subject of a petition or a particular bill or an annual review or an inquiry already before the select committee, then issues can't come before it.
So it is that that's the value of the Epidemic Response Committee—that it can bring forward these things in a way that is not otherwise able to be contemplated in a timely fashion by select committees. Of course, this Chamber is primarily a legislative body, we're making laws, and yet the purpose of the Epidemic Response Committee, mainly, is actually to scrutinise the operation of laws that have already been passed, and that's the value of it. Of course, it has been until now, it is currently, and should remain into the future.
My final point, sir—and I'm conscious I won't take my full 10 minutes, but I did promise you content that was relevant and non-repetitive. I hope the fact that I'm still talking—
Hon Jacqui Dean: Scintillating.
CHRIS PENK: In fact, the Hon Jacqui Dean reminds me I promised you scintillating comments, sir.
SPEAKER: I'm checking I'm not as asleep as Matt King was earlier in the gallery.
CHRIS PENK: Oh, right. OK. Well, I suppose if he's gone to sleep, I should wake him up, seeing as it was my doing in the first place. I suppose there's other explanations why Matt King might have that look about him, but I'm not responsible for all of those.
The final argument is—and I guess it's by way of summarising the ones that I've already been making, and others too on this side of the House—if it's not the case that the epidemic has gone away, such that we no longer need to respond to it, and if it's not the case that there are issues that continue to rise in relation to the response, not the epidemic itself but also the Government response to that, however impressive or otherwise that might have been—well, I think we can say, rightly, that the people of New Zealand will continue to be affected not only by the epidemic but also the Government response to it, and so it's appropriate for that committee to remain in force, not be disestablished. So I too add my weight and support to the motion as amended in the name of Michael Woodhouse, namely that it not be disestablished but remain in force for as long as those two things that we spoke about earlier remain true.





MICHAEL WOOD (Senior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand National 55.
Motion agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the words "be disestablished" be replaced with the words "remains for as long as the alert level remains at or above level 2, with consequent restrictions on the operations of Parliament, and the COVID19 Public Health Response Act has not been repealed, and that the committee continue weekly."
Ayes 57
New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Noes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Epidemic Response Committee be disestablished.
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.
Motion agreed to.





SMOKE-FREE ENVIRONMENTS (PROHIBITING SMOKING IN MOTOR VEHICLES CARRYING CHILDREN) AMENDMENT BILL
Third Reading
Hon JENNY SALESA (Associate Minister of Health): I move, That the Smoke-free Environments (Prohibiting Smoking in Motor Vehicles Carrying Children) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Talofa lava and happy Samoan Language Week. I'd like to thank the members in Parliament, Government officials, NGOs, and all members of the public who made submissions and advocated and played a role in getting the bill to this stage. I especially want to thank Brendon Baker, Nidha Khan, Kirsty Shepherd, Sally Stewart, and the rest of the tobacco control team at the Ministry of Health for their tireless work on this bill. I'd also like to acknowledge and thank the Director-General of Health, Dr Ashley Bloomfield, who's been a leader and an advocate and a strong person in terms of tobacco control and public health for many, many years.
Our collective desire and commitment to protecting our children, tamariki, and rangatahi have been a critical driving force behind this bill. I know this bill has taken a while. In fact it's been a decade since the Māori Affairs Committee recommended that the Government should investigate banning smoking in vehicles carrying children. Today, it is good to know that we are finally going to pass this important piece of legislation.
This Government has been clear that children's wellbeing must be at the front and centre of our policy agenda. With this bill I can stand here and proudly say that we are on our way to making New Zealand the best place in the world to be a child. At its core, the Smoke-free Environments (Prohibiting Smoking in Motor Vehicles Carrying Children) Amendment Bill protects our tamariki, our children, and our rangatahi from the dangers of second-hand smoke. It amends the Smoke-free Environments Act 1990, and makes it an offence to smoke in a motor vehicle carrying anyone under the age of 18.
The Health Promotion Agency will be running an education campaign to inform people about the changes being made to the law prior to the enactment of the bill. While this bill gives police the ability to issue an infringement fee of $50 when the bill comes into effect in 18 months' time, it is important to note that enforcement efforts will only focus on public education and changing social norms. Police will use their discretion over whether or not to issue an infringement fee, give a warning, or provide information and referrals to the local stop-smoking services.
During the select committee process members of the public raised concerns about the exemption that makes it permissible for adults to smoke in a vehicle with a child if the vehicle is stationary and used as a dwelling. They contended that all tamariki and children, regardless of their current living situation, deserve equal protection under the legislation. This Government reflected on these concerns and agreed that the exemption was too broad. This bill will now only exempt motor vehicles that have been manufactured for use on occasion as a permanent dwelling, for example, caravans or motorhomes, while they are stationary on a road and used as a dwelling. Any other motor vehicle—for example, a car that is in use as a dwelling—will not be included in this exemption.
To conclude, I'd like to thank everyone that has played a role in getting the bill to this stage. This includes the Health Committee and everyone who has submitted on this bill, especially our tamariki and young people, who came to make submissions. Your stories, concerns, and suggestions made a valuable contribution to the committee's consideration of this bill.
The public has been waiting for this bill for a decade and people want action as soon as possible. I'm very pleased to be able to stand here today and say that I strongly commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I share the Associate Minister of Health's aspirations for tamariki that New Zealand should be the best place in the world to raise a child. I fear that the rhetoric and the reality under this Government are two quite different things. We have family violence rates that are shameful by any measure. We have child poverty rates that are going backwards, and have been since this Government came to office. And yet, in order to create the environment in which this is the best place to raise a child, and in the middle of a great pandemic outbreak, we have this bill. Apparently, this is the Government's solution to the problem of child raising. Well, we will support this bill, with serious caveats—
Hon Tracey Martin: Who is the member talking to? The schools that have all been asking for it?
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: The member interjecting is going to defend this. Well, it's defending the indefensible, actually, because child wellbeing is going nowhere except backwards under this Government, and that Minister knows it. However, we will support this bill—
Hon Tracey Martin: Oh, great.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —despite it not being the great, dare I say it, burning issue of the day—did she like that?
And we have concerns. I mean, the Minister—talk about gilding the lily. She talks about how the Government listened carefully to the submissions on the stationary vehicle issue. They were lampooned and shamed into making something of a change, which is still not materially better than the nonsense that we had when this bill came in at first reading. Apparently, we're now talking about campervans when they're used as dwellings, but only if they're stationary. So if the campervan is travelling at 80 kilometres along State Highway 6 on the way to Cromwell, it's not lawful to have a ciggy, but once it's parked up on the side of Lake Dunstan, with the windows wound up, it's OK. Actually, it's still a vehicle. Somebody might sleep in it, a child may sleep in it, but it's still a vehicle. And if this is harmful and if this is important enough to disallow, then it should be disallowed.
I also know, as the member for Waitaki certainly does, the definition of a vehicle used as a dwelling is a very loose one. We know that from freedom camping and the idea of a self-contained vehicle being used as a dwelling. So that is a nonsense. It hasn't been fixed adequately.
Then we have the issue of police powers. Now, I wanted this bill to come in with immediate effect, because the Government's goal is to have an education campaign. Well, that's fine. Let's make it an offence now. But, actually, the offences regime is not going to come in for 18 months so that the police can build the necessary information systems to record the infringements that the very Minister says won't be issued because they'll take an education approach. Well, if that's the case, why not take the education approach from day one? Why wait for so long before those infringement regimes take effect?
And why on earth are we even involving the police, who have enough to do in this country, frankly? And yet they are now, in addition to all of the serious violent offending, which again is going up on this Government's watch, and the victims of crime also—and we have the police now being expected to check whether somebody is having a ciggy in a car with a child; something that is not appropriate. It should be discouraged. It should be made, culturally, a bad thing to do. And now we're going to get our police to enforce that. I think that is a complete waste of police resources.
Michael Wood: The member's voting for the bill to create a law. The police enforce the law.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: That's right. Says Mr Wood, "The police enforce the law." And boy, some people have said we've become a police State lately, because they're knocking on doors now without a warrant, taking a head count to see whether or not there are more than 10 people in a house, just because there's a few cars up the driveway. That's a strong democracy! That's what we really need! The Attorney-General chuckles, but he knows it's not that funny, because that's exactly the sort of police powers the State has been granting them—
Hon Tracey Martin: Has had for years.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —and now they're going to check on the ciggies. Well—oh, no. You see, the Minister for Children says, "Oh, it's been like that for years." Well, no, it hasn't. These are new powers, given by a Government drunk on the powers—
Hon David Parker: They're in the Health Act. They're not new powers.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Yes, they are. We passed the legislation only a week ago. The member forgets. Reasonable cause, without warrant, entry into people's houses to check numbers of peaceful occupants going about their private business: that's where we've got to, and now we include smoking in cars.
Well, I know what the police think about this. They cringe, because that is not what they were sworn to do. That is not what they want to be doing. They want to keep our community safe, but this isn't a safety issue. This isn't a matter for police. Yes, let's pass the legislation, if that's what the Government wants to do. But are we really going to divert police resources to this? I very much hope not. It's not going to change the world. It's not going to make the lives of our children materially better. Actually, laws—if it was as easy as passing laws to prevent crime, well, we'd have no crime. But people—the human nature that they are is such that they will continue their habits regardless of the law, and the thing that changes it is their fear of getting caught. And their fear of getting caught is a direct correlation with police's actions. Poster campaigns aren't going to change behaviour; the actions of police are going to change behaviour, and that's what worries me about this. This is a very, very strong step in that direction. I don't think police are going to spend much time on this, and I hope I'm right, because it's not what they should be doing.
With all of that said, we're going to support it. We're got to support it, because, as my friends on the other side continued to tell us for nine years, it's unlikely to do any harm. But let's not pretend for a moment it's going to do a material amount of good. And if this is so important that the House's time, right now, should be dedicated to this, then I fear for the next few months, when the economic tsunami hits and this Government has run out of ideas. The response has been pretty good; the recovery is going to be woeful, if this is their idea of what's important right now.





Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I welcome the member the Hon Michael Woodhouse's support of that bill. Obviously, he had a slot to fill and had to find something to say. For a bill that he supported, he certainly went around the houses, shall we say. I think what we also need to acknowledge, though, is his point on police entering without a warrant. There are numerous situations where police have always been able to do that—the Arms Act, the Misuse of Drugs Act, the Health Act. And the member knows that even council noise control can enter. So he is really in danger of misleading the House in this situation when he doesn't acknowledge those other situations where police are able to enter the building.
Now, I do want to acknowledge the work of the member Jenny Salesa to get this bill through the House. Thank you for your leadership on this issue. It is an issue that has been around for a very long time—a very, very long time. It's something that we don't foresee the police spending a lot of time on, other than public education and information campaigns and the like having an effect on the population. We know that children can be harmed from second-hand smoke. We know that asthma and other things—lifelong debilitating illnesses—can result from exposure to second-hand smoke. So this is a really good step forward, and it comes after committees previously—in 2010 the National Government ignored a recommendation from the Māori Affairs Committee on tobacco to investigate exactly this issue. In 2016, there was a recommendation from the Health Committee, then chaired by National MP Simon O'Connor, calling for a ban on smoking in cars with children, and there was no action then, of course. The National Government rejected that recommendation. So we do welcome their change of heart. It is good to have progress here.
Hon Member: It's never too late.
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: It is never too late, that's right, to make a difference in children's lives. And we also want to put on record that, of course, child poverty is being reduced by the efforts of this Government, and that member, Michael Woodhouse, stating otherwise, again, is not borne out by any of the facts that have been put before this House.
So this is a part of a wider effort to make sure that we do get towards Smokefree 2025. We'll continue to provide smoking cessation support for people. We've got vaping facts launched now so that people who want to quit smoking through vaping have a way of getting there. And we also know that there are myriad other ways in which we are supporting people with the health issues that are created by second-hand smoke. This Government has taken seriously the responsibility of funding our health system after it's been neglected for a very, very long time. So I am delighted to support this bill. Unlike the previous member, who acknowledged that it would be good just to get it through and then spent 10 minutes talking, I intend to keep my speech short. But, to acknowledge the member Jenny Salesa for putting it through: thank you for your leadership, Minister, on this matter. It's really good that our children will not be threatened for ever by second-hand smoking, because we are going to change the social norm that it's acceptable to smoke in a car with children present.





Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Mr Speaker. We will be supporting this bill through its final stage here, and I'd like to thank the Health Committee, who it was a pleasure to work with to progress to this stage. The member who has just sat down, the Hon Dr David Clark, commented on the vaping bill being close to maybe conclusion. Can I point out that in the regulatory impact statement of 2019, end of 2019, the comment was made—in fact, it was the departmental report from September last year—that the vaping bill will be introduced shortly, in the next few weeks. Wow. Six months ago we were told it was only going to be a few weeks away, when the departmental report for this bill came out. Unbelievable. Yet here we are now. That's a long time to get to this stage.
So I want to just focus initially on the cause of the damage that we're talking about here today, and then speak briefly on the health consequences as well. Can I reach out, first of all, to part of the genesis of this bill from a child's perspective, which was actually some of the schoolchildren in Northland in 2016 who were the Northland branch—the Whangārei branch, actually—of the Cancer Society. They had a Blue Light enterprise with the Relay for Life, and they surveyed those who were participating in the relay and asked them around their position on second-hand smoke in cars for children, formed that survey, put it on a big board, and came to my office and presented it to me and asked if I'd bring it to Parliament, which I was pleased to do, of course. So it's a reach-out back to some of those children. It's 2016; four years ago now. They'll have left the intermediate school, as I recall, that they were at, but I want them to take a little pat on the back here today because part of their work gets us to where we are tonight.
If we look at some of the statements around how second-hand smoking in cars is damaging—not quite what it's going to do; I'll come to that in a moment—we have a large amount of evidence showing us that in a vehicle where there's second-hand smoking, even if the window is halfway down, even if there is air conditioning on, the New Zealand Medical Journal tells us that it's still as if you were in a smoky pub. Absolutely. You might think just winding the window down or turning the air conditioning on will make a difference, but still: significant second-hand implications.
I think what I found interesting—what I've always found interesting—is the third-hand smoking, and that is the residues long after smoking in the vehicle is finished. I mean, that's really fascinating—these studies that have looked at second-hand vehicles, vehicles on lots that haven't been used for a while and where one vehicle, for argument's sake, had been a vehicle where smoking had occurred and another was not, and then to do wipe samples of the seating and do air and dust samples in each vehicle and look at the difference. Many years later, we still find residual effects of smoking in the upholstery where vehicles have been used as a smoking receptacle, and in the air and dust samples. So this third-hand smoking is really important—another piece of compelling evidence, as to why we are supporting this bill.
I want to reflect for a moment on the health consequences. We know—certainly, the regulatory impact statement told us—that there is an impact on asthma and on glue ear. I think we've probably known that for a while. I think the submission from the Auckland Regional Public Health Service (ARPHS) was really useful through the select committee stage. The select committee stage was very good, actually. We had 120 submissions, and I found them all very, very useful, with experts from a range of domains. But I particularly found the Auckland Regional Public Health Service useful, because they actually quantified the damage. It's enough to say, "Look, it affects asthma, it affects admissions, it affects glue ear." Well, that's kind of an easy statement to say, but give it a number. Give it a number so we can really identify what the impact is and compare it to what other interventions we might be looking at.
So that's what ARPHS did, and they said that, for under-16-year-olds, 15,000 children with asthma attacks will be prevented. It would've been useful to do a cost-benefit analysis on that, because I think 15,000 children with asthma attacks is probably going to get up to a big fiscal number that we're saving and able to deploy elsewhere in the health system with the bill that we're passing here tonight. They said that for under-two-year-olds roughly 500 children will be spared from being admitted with chest infections. Now, I imagine the case rate for an average admission for a child starts at about $1,500. So again, if we do the cost-benefit analysis on this, clearly a good saving in passing this bill, if we want to compare benefits.
I think another good number that I hung on to was the number around glue ears. A short procedure—only takes a few minutes, actually. But if we look at those people who are convicted and up at Ngāwhā prison at the moment, 95 percent of them will have had glue ear as a child, with a long consequence of that. So you get glue ear as a child, you don't hear, so you become disruptive, you get passed into being the troubled child, and your life's journey will take a different turn. So I think this has a really big impact on those children with glue ear, which are disproportionately for Māori. Again, the number's a big number. For under-two-year-olds, 15,000 glue ear operations will be prevented. In private, they're about $1,200. Again, that's a big number that the system is saving through a systems approach, a systems intervention like what is being proposed here.
There were some concerns that we've had, some which linger with us, and we'll just have to see how they roll out. My colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse has expressed our concerns around a vehicle as a private dwelling. It's kind of hard to understand, actually. We have a different view, and we'll just have to see how that rolls out. We've also expressed concerns around the time frames for the IT development and the infringement routine, exactly what the workflow is going to be and how that will look, and is this the best use of police resources, when will they intervene, and what that will look like.
I continue to be aggrieved at new section 20D(2)(a), set out in clause 9 of the bill, that said a person under the age of 18 who is smoking in the motor vehicle, either on their own or while people over the age of 18 are in the vehicle, is not committing an offence under this bill. Well, goodness. We're trying to reduce harm from smoking at any age, for any cause, at any time, anywhere. Who cares? Yet this bill, where we have the opportunity to be a bit firmer and send a true signal that children under the age of 18 at no time, whether it's in this bill or not, whether there's someone else over the age of 18 who's smoking—who cares? There was an opportunity here to say, "Unacceptable." But we're going to leave this weirdness here, where first- and second-hand smoking—certainly, second-hand smoking—is going to be OK, but we're going to wave the crooked finger at third-hand smoking. I would suggest, as I have in a previous reading, actually, that that's a lost opportunity.
Look, in summary, we are going to support this bill. There are clearly benefits for this. We, too, have weighed up the effects on civil rights and all sorts of other things, which I'm sure members across the House have as well, as did the select committee. We reached the very firm conclusion that there are more benefits than harms to this bill. We think that we will be doing a good thing for children, who have less opportunity to avoid, less opportunity to take other actions that an adult may take to remove themselves or remedy themselves from a situation in vehicles. We think we are providing them some protections. We think we will be giving them some health benefits. We think we will be sending the right signal for them, as they then become adults and their children mirror them, towards the overall end goal that we want, which is smoking reduction. So with that, I want to thank the select committee, who it was a pleasure to work with on this, and I commend this bill to the House.





JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Smoke-free Environments (Prohibiting Smoking in Motor Vehicles Carrying Children) Amendment Bill.
I'd just like to start my contribution this evening by acknowledging the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Jenny Salesa for bringing this bill to the House and congratulating her and the officials as well from the Ministry of Health for all the work that they have done. It has taken some time to finally reach its third reading this evening, and it had its genesis a number of years ago. In fact, about a decade ago there was the opportunity to bring such a bill to the House, but unfortunately the previous Government did not see fit to do so. That was following the Māori Affairs Committee saying this was an urgent response that needed to happen to stop the number of tamariki and rangatahi being trapped inside a smoke-filled car, because the health impacts for them were so great. 
So it was an absolute pleasure to have been part of the Health Committee as we took care of this bill, shaped it into the bill that is before us today and that we will pass this evening. To the Health Committee, it's been a pleasure to work with you all. We generally are fairly collegial and maybe it's something to do with the gorgeous cheeses and crackers that we tend to eat for morning tea. So thank you to all the members, and particularly the good doctor, Dr Shane Reti, for your contribution just now, relating to the health impacts it has on our children, particularly tamariki Māori. 
This bill is all about protecting children, because smoking is a killer. Five thousand people per year are either killed or have some kind of health impact from smoking. A hundred people a year die from second-hand smoke. So although the bill has a narrow focus, it does have a ripple effect out into our community and out into our families and whānau. So it is a sensible and practical bill before us, and it will change the social norm of smoking in vehicles with children. 
Back in the day when I was a young nipper in the back of the EC108 Mini that my father drove to work—we had a family car, which was a Holden station wagon. All the kids, we were always in the car without seatbelts, because you didn't buckle up; it was the social norm back then not to wear seatbelts. But over a period of education and changing what was required, it is now something that you do automatically when you get in the car. So, hopefully, this bill will change the social norm of people smoking in their vehicles with children so that you automatically won't smoke, you won't light up, when you've got your kids in the car.
Children and tamariki, the rangatahi that came to the select committee—they really added value to the discussions and the considerations that we made inside the committee, so a big thankyou to those young people who presented to us. 
I'd just like to mention a former colleague of mine, Duncan Garner. He has a television show some of you may have had the fortune to have been on. At one point recently, it was about a year ago now, he actually made an interesting comment. It wasn't really that controversial, but he did wage a bit of a campaign to make sure that the Government actually took up this challenge and banned smoking in cars with children. In fact, he was having a conversation with my leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, when he said that the common-sense strain of the Government strongly supports the ban, and so, actually, it was good to hear Duncan Garner speaking well of Winston Peters.
The Māori Affairs Committee—as I mentioned before, I was a member of that while I was here at Parliament in my first year, and we joined with the Health Committee and heard submissions on the smoke-free. And particularly one of the themes that came through—we sat in the Legislative Council Chamber as the two committees joined together, and one of the strong themes was we needed to have a piece of legislation that would ban smoking in cars with children. 
So that has been a topic that has been discussed publicly. There has been a public call for this legislation. The Māori Affairs Committee 10 years ago was asking for it. This Government has now taken the opportunity, and I'd like to congratulate all the members of this House who have worked on this bill, as I now am very pleased to commend this bill to the House.





Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Vaiaso o le Gagana Samoa. It's Samoan Language Week, and we honour the language, its people, its place, its heritage, and its history as well, and the importance of that. 
Mr Speaker, before I begin my speech, if I can ask for your indulgence, can I just acknowledge my colleague and friend Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki and say that during the lockdown period, she lost her mother. So our sympathies and condolences to you in the difficult time. Te pati nei tātou ki te Atua no te aroa meitaki ki roto i to'ou tumatetenga, ki roto i to anau, ki roto i teia po nei. So I just wanted to acknowledge you and your family as well. 
This bill is called the Smoke-free Environments (Prohibiting Smoking in Motor Vehicles Carrying Children) Amendment Bill. I wasn't on that committee, so I haven't been through the process in which we've heard submissions and we've gone through hearing officials, hearing the regulatory impact statements going through this process, but it's something that I can speak on from, I suppose, two different perspectives. 
I grew up in a time in which smoking in homes and houses everywhere was part of the norm. I can remember that we had a Holden HQ station wagon, and I can remember that the doors had a sort of red leather on them. They had the handle and then they had this smoke—a little latch in which you put your cigarettes. It was for your cigarettes, you know. It was just one of those things. Those of us who are old enough can remember that, and it was just part of what we knew. That's how we grew up, and that was just part of what life was all about. That's what people did. But we know that the truth is that second-hand inhalation—the impacts that that had on people's health brought us to a point that, as a nation and as a country, we are determined to do the right thing. 
I believe that this bill is about doing the right thing. It's been a long time coming, and, yes, we can haggle over when and where it started. I want to put on the record that the Hon Tariana Turia actually made quite a brave statement when she talked about "What if we could have a nation where we could be smoke-free?", and the evidence behind that is that we knew the impact that lung cancer was having on so many people in our communities. We knew the direct correlation. The evidence, the science, told us of the impact that smoking had on many of our whānau, our family, and our communities. So I want to honour her, because this legislation was part of her legacy that she's left in this Parliament, and in our nation as well. We're here today to talk about the amendments to that legislation and, in particular, around motor vehicles that impact our children, our tamariki, and our rangatahi as well that are in our communities. 
I believe that there's no intent, and no one will be standing up to say that this is not the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do. I also want to acknowledge the Hon Jenny Salesa. As the Minister, she has the privilege to take on this and to see it to completion, and today, in the third reading, that's exactly what we're doing. 
I just want to make a couple of comments on that, I suppose, and one of the challenges is: how do we make sure that we implement that in the most expedient way that ensures the greatest outcome that we're trying to seek for our children? It was with some concern that I read through the notes, I suppose just trying to get an understanding as to why there were two different elements that were happening, that once this bill passes through the House and has the Royal assent, we then have an 18-month lag between the implementation of Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 452, which was introduced by the Minister, which talks in particular about the dwelling places that are certain vehicles and campervans. So it's just a bit confusing, and I think the fact is that it would have been better for all of us if we'd just said, look, there's one rule for all, here's what the vehicles are, here's what they do. It does become confusing, because once the vehicle is up and running, it then has to abide by the law, but once it's stationary, then it's no longer in breach of any of the conditions which are in this Act. 
It just makes it a bit confusing. I think that it would have been the right thing to do. I know that my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse tried to petition that across through his SOP, so I just want to say that for us it is a bit of a disappointment. We support the bill, but it just seems like a bit of inconsistency here, when we could have actually had the two going together. Why not say that on the Royal assent and implementation, this comes into law immediately, and why the 18 months? It seems quite an arbitrary period of time, which we're not sure about as well. That's important. 
I just want to make a couple of other comments, I suppose just in regards, again, to what the evidence is showing us around the children and some of the impact that it is having on our children as well. I mean, the evidence is clear, and the previous speech that was being made about the impact on our children—so while we make this a law, we know that the most effective thing is actually changing behaviour. A law in itself in legislation doesn't always change behaviour immediately. It becomes, I suppose, a guiding line. It gives us a scope, a direction, about what we should consider, but what actually is important is the programmes, and, again, I look towards the Government in regards to what they're doing in regards to changing some of that behaviour. 
So, for instance, when I was with the Auckland District Health Board, smoking cessation becomes important, and ensuring that we're getting out there, we're educating our community about the importance of how they need to change, and look at other alternatives into that. We know that vaping is now becoming a way. Back in the day, it was people putting on patches or using chewing gum. There were different ways to find a way through, and now vaping has come in as another alternative. So that's in there.
The last thing I just want to put on record is—so, again, we are supporting this bill. Again, I suppose, there's a situation where as part of a political coalition agreement with the Green Party, there's now going to be a referendum that we'll enter into in this country which I believe will start to make people question why there's not one particular focus around a smoke-free New Zealand, and yet we're now heading towards an election period with a referendum that will give people another choice of whether recreational marijuana will be another option for people to choose. So there just seems to be this confusing element that we send in these messages we send into our community. We, as legislators, need to be conscious and careful about the messages that we send, because for us here, words do matter. Actions actually make an impact and send quite a clear signal. 
So I want to say that we support this. Why? Because the original intent is a legacy that's really important. It's about having a smoke-free environment in our country. Cars and vehicles are important to that. We know the impact, and the science and the evidence tells us, but at the same time too, why are we now sending another message into our country that, actually, "We're going to stop smoking, but you could always toke up and have a joint, maybe in a car."—we're not so sure what it will be. 
So I finish with that. Again, though, I want to finish on a positive note: that we do support this bill, the intent of what it is to do to ensure the health and the wellbeing and the safety of all of our children in this nation, as well. So we commend this bill to the House. 





GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou, kia ora. Talofa lava. While we're all sharing our childhood stories in the House tonight, you know, I was raised with smokers as parents and I remember we had an orange Datsun and then a red Ford Escort. And we've got footage of me as a child: Dad's got a cigarette in one hand, ashtray balanced on the knee, and I'm balanced on the other knee. We've all got stories like that, because history is a different place, and, luckily for us, social norms have changed. But, sadly, these stories aren't always just lovely snippets of history. I lost my mum to lung cancer last year, and I have got no doubt that a lifetime of smoking from a very early age was the factor. This is why this is so important tonight, to be another step on that pathway. I tautoko the comments acknowledging the campaigners, including Dame Tariana Turia, on this pathway to get to a smoke-free New Zealand. So I acknowledge the Minister for pushing this through.
Look, we think it's good legislation. We know that early on there were some debates around the size of what the penalty should be. We think $50 is a reasonable amount. Some of the people who will be affected by this—much higher fines would have a much more detrimental impact on them. So we think they've settled on a very reasonable figure. We note the Cabinet paper also talks about the responsibility for warnings, for referral to health authorities, and, of course, we think these are really good suggestions. We're not going to see cops out there dishing fines out willy-nilly. What we are going to see is a pathway towards changing social behaviour in New Zealand for the better. 
I'm aware the most recent stats, in 2012-2013, showed that 5 percent of kids were exposed to cigarette smoke in cars—2.5 percent higher for Māori kids—in New Zealand. That's simply unacceptable. Hopefully, those figures today are slightly smaller, because we have seen the decline of smoking rates in New Zealand. But still, we know the impact of tobacco and we know the impact of second-hand tobacco smoke. 
I do want to pick up on the last comment from the Hon Alfred Ngaro, though, about the—to his mind—apparent contradiction between cannabis legalisation versus the vision for a smoke-free New Zealand. Now, I don't believe they're in conflict at all, because what we know—we've now got decades and decades of experience—is prohibition for cannabis has not worked. Of course, we've tried this experiment in the past when we had prohibition for alcohol. It did not work. In fact, all we simply brought in was a vibrant criminal element and much worse social harms. I challenge the member: if we banned tobacco smoking tomorrow, I think we would have huge problems in this country and huge new criminal elements would prey on vulnerable tobacco smokers. What we know is all this evidence stacks up that prohibition doesn't work. In fact, we've got a hole on the other side of the ledger—voluminous examples internationally, of how regulated health-based safe market approaches actually decline consumption. That's our vision. We do want to see a smoke-free Aotearoa. I don't want to see kids growing up smoking cannabis in New Zealand, but the way we're going about it is totally wrong. So that's why I fully reject those comments. 
But I do want to just quickly return to this bill and acknowledge what a positive step it is for Aotearoa New Zealand. I thank the Health Committee. It's wonderful they really did listen to youth and children's voices in their deliberations. It's a good day to be passing positive legislation. Kia ora koutou.





MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise on behalf of the National Party for the Smoke-free Environments (Prohibiting Smoking in Motor Vehicles Carrying Children) Amendment Bill at its third reading. It's a bill that the National Party will be supporting, although it is our role in Opposition to point out areas where we feel there is room for improvement. And it was disappointing, because I know the Hon Michael Woodhouse did put Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) in that would have made a big difference to this bill, would have given it some real teeth, and, unfortunately, we have got a bill that's big on intent but a lot lighter on delivery. I think if the Government had taken those SOPs on board and put them into this bill, this bill would have come out better for it. Because the bill has improved through the legislative process, and, like other callers tonight, I do want to acknowledge the 120 submitters that we did have. A large number of them were young people and groups of young people, and I must say it feels like young people today take a marked interest in their health and health promotion, more than maybe previous generations, and they are, or seem to be, a lot better informed about the impacts of things like smoking and drinking. It was great to have them along in person in the select committee—in the old days, when we used to have people and do things in person, of course; things have changed a bit since then.
Although, the submission process did actually highlight one concern I think we do have with submitters: understanding any conflict of interest. Because, of course, many who sat on the committee will probably remember one submitter who had the audacity to submit that, in fact, the young person who was breathing in second-hand smoke in a car was not, ultimately, impacted because, over the course of their life, they would regenerate. And it wasn't until later on we found out—I'm not going to call that person an academic, but that submitter—their work was actually funded by the tobacco industry. So I felt that was very disingenuous. But, ultimately, a good submission process.
But we are very concerned we've ended up with a bill where it still allows adults to smoke in a vehicle—yes, it might be used as a dwelling, and yes, it might be stationary, but surely the intent of this bill says that second-hand smoking to young children, as a result of adults in that vehicle, is not good for them. So why, just because the vehicle is stationary or people are living in it, does it make it any different? I think we should have held the line there, and that's why it's disappointing, with the Hon Michael Woodhouse's SOP, that it wasn't accepted, and I think this would have made the bill a lot better.
Secondly, the last speaker, Gareth Hughes, spoke about, you know, we're not really going to see the police going around and enforcing it—maybe he said "willy-nilly", or maybe I might be paraphrasing; it's late at night. But we're not going to, because it's going to take 18 months. I mean, we're setting up an offence but there's going to be 18 months at the very least for any form of enforcement. And that just doesn't seem right. Yes, we understand the approach of an education programme with the Health Promotion Agency to inform people of that, but I've got a suspicion that the people who are going to be committing this offence aren't really going to listen too much to education, and probably what we do need is some enforcement. So waiting 18 months does seem a very long time and potentially has watered this bill down, so to speak. And it's disappointing we're passing a bill tonight that won't have that and that will have an 18-month delay.
Also, one thing I do want to comment on is the real lost opportunity to understand and to enact the issue of vaping with young people. I've got my good friend and colleague the Hon Nicky Wagner, who's spent a lot of time on the vaping issue, put a very good bill on vaping regulations, but, unfortunately, it wasn't picked up by this Government, and now we're in a select committee process with a vaping regulation bill that—well, it'll be interesting. But, let me say, if you're a betting person, I'm not sure you'd say it would be coming out before the end of the 51st Parliament. And we missed a real opportunity to look at vaping in this bill, because, of course, we do say that vaping is less harmful than smoking—some academics would say it's 95 percent less harmful than smoking—but, by definition, it does carry some harm, and this bill won't pick up those adults that are vaping in their vehicles, whether that be stationary or moving, and affecting the young people. Second-hand smoke is serious and it will have, as Dr Shane Reti said, some very serious physical impacts, but we also know young people who have grown up who have been constrained in a vehicle and forced to breathe second-hand smoke also developed psychological issues as a result of that. And, at times, that psychological impact can be as harmful as the physical impacts as well. It would be my assessment that vaping could be equally as harmful—quite often we see those big clouds of vaping smoke coming out of car windows, and you can only imagine, if those windows were rolled up, the amount of vaping that's going on in those cars.
So, overall, I think as the country moves towards 2025, where we are aiming to be smoke-free, this bill goes some way. It's another tool in the tool box, so to speak. It's another small area that we can now tick off, that, ultimately, will support the young people who, previously, were encountering second-hand smoke as a result of adults smoking in vehicles. But, just to finish, I think it is very disappointing when you have someone of the calibre of the Hon Michael Woodhouse making some very serious and credible SOPs—I mean, that is the legislative process, irrespective of what side of the House you're on: at the committee of the whole House, you can make some very credible suggestions as to how this bill would be improved. And you can only guess—I don't know whether it was just politicking for politicking's sake or whether people were under strict orders—on why those credible amendments weren't picked up, because the Hansard will show they would have made a very real difference to this bill. And I personally believe they would have made a very big difference to some of the young people that we heard through the submissions process, who have lived experience of this phenomenon of being in cars and being exposed to second-hand smoke. And so I would like to say I commend this bill but, disappointingly, it could have been better. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call.





ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. It's a real pleasure to stand and take a short call on the Smoke-free Environments (Prohibiting Smoking in Motor Vehicles Carrying Children) Amendment Bill. It's been a couple of months since I stood in this House, so I'd just like to acknowledge the difference that it feels standing here, in an odd space, and the tremendous amount of work that everyone has done to get us here today.
I'd like to acknowledge the Minister Jenny Salesa for this bill. I think it's a really, really great little bill. People may think that this is not earth-shattering; however, the thing that this bill does is it starts to address the social norms of smoking in vehicles. It starts to address, actually, what I think a few of us have talked about when we've sat in cars and there's been smoking. Now, I was really lucky as a child that my parents didn't smoke, but my grandad did and I spent a lot of time with my grandad. So we sat in smoky cars, and smoky houses, and smoky offices, and it was just normal, and it's one of those things that was just normal at that time—just as normal as not wearing a seatbelt at the time. And I think we've seen a change in social norms. I think we've seen a social campaign that has made a huge difference to people wearing seatbelts in this country, and I think that this is exactly what this legislation will be doing.
There's an 18-month window in which, once this becomes law, there will be an education and social norm change. People will be talked to, they will be educated, there will be opportunities to learn, it will be explained if they are driving and they are caught smoking in a car where there are children—and that'll be great. It's understanding that children don't have a choice. They do not have a choice when their parents or other members are smoking around them, and this bill actually gives those children a little bit of a voice. It says that this is the opportunity for their parents or those around them to be educated a little bit more and to think a little bit about our children.
So it's a great little piece of legislation. It's taken quite some time to get its way to the House over this COVID period. I remember the first reading, and I remember sitting on the select committee at the time, on the Health Committee. I then came off the Health Committee, but I do know how much everyone in that room at that time was really committed to seeing the best piece of legislation that they could get. So it is for that reason I commend this bill to the House.





Hon NICKY WAGNER (National): Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. National supports this bill because it is another tool to help deter people from smoking and it is a step towards Smokefree 2025. It's really hard to believe that these days anyone would allow their children to be trapped in a small, confined space filled with smoke and toxins. Yet, that's what people do when they have their children in the car when they smoke with them.
It's been interesting to listen to people reminiscing about their childhood. I'm sure many of us had that feeling of feeling sick in a smoky car as a kid. My dad smoked, and nobody ever thought twice about it. Today, it seems really strange that nobody ever put two and two together. When I think of my two brothers and I in the back seat of the Zephyr, no seatbelts, and occasionally vomiting over the front seat of our parents' shoulders; it wasn't a pleasant experience for any of us. And yet—
Hon Member: Are we there yet?
Hon NICKY WAGNER: —what did we think?—"Are we there yet?" Exactly.
And nowadays, there's absolutely no excuse, because we all know that young people, and children in particular, are at risk from second-hand smoke, and smoke in confined areas can cause serious health issues. Although we should know better, incredibly enough, smoking in cars still does happen and it is harming our children, and so we do need more tools to try and reduce it.
Personally, I don't think this legislation will do as much to keep kids safe as getting drivers to quit smoking. I'd rather see us putting in more time, more energy, and more resource into helping smokers quit—and, of course, the most effective way that we can do that is to encourage smokers to switch to vaping.
New Zealanders have been waiting for legislation to regulate vaping since this Government came to power in 2017. So it's been over 2½ years. I think the time spent on this bill would have been spent far more wisely on vaping regulation. As my colleague Matt Doocey commented, I've had a bill in the ballot, regulating vaping, since 2017, and I did offer it to the Minister—unfortunately, she declined my offer. So, because there has been no regulation about vaping at all, and a huge range—a wave, really—of colourful advertising and attractive vaping products with no quality control, it's lured far too many of our young people into vaping.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry to interrupt the member, but we're actually on a different bill than that.
Hon NICKY WAGNER: I know that.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): If you can connect that to this bill, that would be great.
Hon NICKY WAGNER: I can absolutely connect it to this. We've been waiting a very long time for this legislation, and we will be waiting for a long time for this legislation, because, although it creates a new infringement offence and associated fine, and the police will be able to stop cars if people are smoking with children, it won't come into force for 18 months. So much for this Government's stated commitment to protect children and so much for this Government's stated commitment to Smokefree 2025.
Then, there's the curious issue of stationary cars used as a dwelling. This Government think it's OK to smoke in your car with children if you're living in it. Now, what type of logic is in that? Children, of course, shouldn't have to live in a car, and children certainly shouldn't have to live in a car with someone who smokes there. Does anyone else think it's odd that this legislation says that travelling in a car with a smoker is bad for children's health and must be stopped, but living in a car where somebody smokes is A-OK?
National will support this legislation, but we believe there are far better ways to help smokers quit and thus keep kids safe from second-hand smoke, however they travel and wherever they live.





ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Fa'afetai mo le avanoa i lau Afioga le Fofoga Fetalai. Thank you for this opportunity, honourable Speaker. It is an honour and a privilege to stand here to contribute to the third reading of the Smoke-free Environments (Prohibiting Smoking in Motor Vehicles Carrying Children) Amendment Bill. I just want to take this opportunity to thank the honourable Minister: fa'afetai tele lava Minister Salesa. 
Afioga i le Fofoga Fetalai. I have to respond to the last speaker, Nicky Wagner, criticising the Government for what we're doing, yet the Māori Affairs Committee a decade ago had made a recommendation to that side to change the law, and we're here, 10 years later, talking about it. So it is rich to point fingers. But I want to acknowledge the current Health Committee who brought the voices of children to this House in their report, and I have to read it out, because I want to acknowledge the organisations who support the voices of children to be heard in this House. Quickly, I want to acknowledge the Cancer Society Northland, Wellington Community Justice, Holistic Action Sustainable Health Through All Generations, Hāpai Te Hauora: Māori Public Health, EMPOWER Tāngata Trust, the Office of the Children's Commissioner, Meremere holiday programme, Invercargill City Youth Council, and the students of Wainuiōmata Intermediate School.
It is Samoan Language Week this week, and the theme of the Samoan Language Week is Tapena sou ōso mo lau Malaga, which means in English: "Prepare yourself a gift for your travels." This is a gift that we're preparing for our whānau and for our tamariki, for our rangatahi, for our young people: a smoke-free environment. It is enough tautala here in this House. We've spoken too much about this. I want to commend this bill to the House. Let's give our young people a smoke-free environment. Fa'afetai tele lava.





Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on this, the third reading of the Smoke-free Environments (Prohibiting Smoking in Motor Vehicles Carrying Children) Amendment Bill. A catchy title. Third reading, we've said it all before, we've heard it all before. This was a bill that is a common-sense bill whose time had come long ago. It has taken an inordinate amount of time to come to this House.
One of the more interesting elements that have come up in the overheated comments tonight that we have heard before is what people grew up in in terms of vehicles. We've had orange Datsuns, Minis, Zephyrs, station wagons, and we had a Humber Hawk. Many of us have had these experiences where you're stuck in cars with overflowing cigarettes and an unwise perspective because people didn't realise the harm it does. We realise, we know and understand—we had the Cancer Society, ASH, Beaglehole, so many good people who knew exactly what they were talking about, come and talk to us about the wisdom of this bill and how we could improve it. I, too, am very disappointed that the Hon Michael Woodhouse's Supplementary Order Papers and genuine attempts to improve and strengthen this bill were not taken up, and that is a shame. The Hon Nicky Wagner did have a bill that was in a state of readiness that would have taken us further down the track of fulfilling the goal of smoke-free New Zealand by 2025. How are we going to do it at this glacial progress?
I am part of the Health Committee. We are, in fact, deliberating tomorrow on the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill. This is something that, to my way of thinking, ought to be part and parcel of the bill that we have been spending a lot of time on in select committee and in this House.
These are all very useful measures to try and get people off the cigarettes, away from the gaspers, and into some alternative form, whether it takes the form of vaping or whether it takes the form of sensible regulation to keep people from smoking in vehicles where there are children. If they are living in the vehicles, it just beggars belief to me that they cannot get out of the car for the three or four minutes or however long it takes them to smoke the cigarette and not pollute the vehicle and the poor little children inside it, who are then doubly disadvantaged by living in a car.
It's always interesting, if not a little nauseating sometimes in terms of the medical detail, to listen to Dr Shane Reti talking about this bill, which he has very strong views on and a long association with trying to stop this happening and to bring regulation in that would ban it. He talked about third-hand smoking, which is, of course, another horror story. If you get into a cab or an Uber vehicle, the upholstery contains amounts of traces of smoke and the residue lasts, he was telling us, for many years.
So there are all sorts of very good reasons why smoking in a confined space is not a good idea, and we need to put in some limitations of the carrot and stick variety to make it happen. Across the House and across many pieces of legislation there are, I think, the tools that we need to really make a difference in making people give up smoking and helping them. They've tried and tried. And, as we know with the vaping bill—that is something that, you know, will work for many people, so why not make it as available as possible? I would suggest, though, not to vape in a small car, which is, again, not really covered in this legislation.
So to me, standing back and looking at this piecemeal approach, it would be very helpful to have all of this coming together in a focused strategy to achieve the goal that Dame Tariana Turia set and challenged this House with so long ago to make this country smoke-free, to set a good example to our tamariki, to our young people, never to pick up a gasper, never to smoke. Whatever happens with this cannabis legislation, as others have pointed out, then why would they not smoke a joint or some cannabis in an enclosed space with children in the vehicle? We need to make laws that will be effective and not ridiculous, and this stopped short of being ridiculous, but it also stopped short of being truly effective in trying to achieve the goals I think everyone in this House wants this country to be able to achieve, which is smoke-free New Zealand by 2025.
So I will leave my contribution there, having spoken on this bill on many occasions, and I'll be back, hopefully, depending on my valedictory, to talk about the vaping amendment bill and the other very sensible suite of measures that we all need to look at carefully to achieve the goals we all want to achieve. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a real pleasure to rise and speak on the third and final reading of this bill. I just want to reflect back on the first reading. As I was speaking on the first reading, we were coming into winter and I was reflecting on the thousands of sick babies who came into hospital each year for respiratory infections, and the fact that those hospitalisations were about twice as likely if their parents smoked.
I think back to my previous job where I used to monitor child health, and sometimes I used to sit back, and you do thousands and thousands of graphs—and thinking about what some of those actually meant, and just seeing the huge social gradients in respiratory infections, in cot deaths, and in a whole range of things particularly for babies, and thinking about the effect of the social environment on those babies' lives, and the fact that they didn't have any choice in that matter. So before their first birthday they were seeing huge impacts as a result of the environments in which they were living. 
Thinking through the submissions that we heard from the select committee, the ones that stood out to me were the kids that turned up and said, "We get exposed to smoke in our cars and we don't really want to talk to our parents about that because we just don't want to, but we don't like it." I think what this bill does, it does two things: one of them is it's going to protect kids from being exposed to second-hand smoke in cars, but the other thing is it's going to set the norm that it's actually not OK to smoke in cars with kids. I think both are very, very important.
So what this bill does—I mean, it does allow the police to issue an infringement, and that's $50. It's not a huge amount but it is an infringement. The issue is it's not really about the enforcement, it's about education. Even if you don't pay that infringement and go to court, the maximum fine is $100. So it's not about the money so much as about behaviour change. Police will have the ability to offer a warning or, also, to provide information or to direct people to some smoking cessation services.
The other thing with the bill is it's not going to come into force for 18 months, and that's going to allow the police time just to set up the system so that they can work out and set up how these will be processed and work through their systems. In that time, we're also going to be having a public health campaign. So, basically, a social media campaign, a big public education campaign, because it's about changing the norms.
I think people have talked tonight about being stuck in cars with parents that are smoking. I guess my experience of it was when you're young going out and always going to the pub or somewhere else, and you come home every Saturday night absolutely reeking of cigarette smoke, having to change your clothes. That was just the norm, and we've changed that, and we can change this as well. So this is a really good bill. It'll protect children from second-hand cigarette smoke in cars, and I, therefore, commend this bill to the House.
Bill read a third time.





GAS (INFORMATION DISCLOSURE AND PENALTIES) AMENDMENT BILL
First Reading
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): I move, That the Gas (Information Disclosure and Penalties) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House. It is important that this bill be passed without undue delay, to ensure that any new regulatory requirements are put in place as soon as possible to support New Zealand's security of supply and improve outcomes for energy consumers. I therefore intend to move that the committee has the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, and during any evening on a day in which there has been a sitting of the House, and on the Friday in a week where there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 191, 194(1)(b), and 194(1)(c).
This bill seeks to strengthen the regulation-making powers in the Gas—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry to interrupt the Minister, but when the Minister is moving an instruction or advising the House, she must give the dates.
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: So, in terms of the intent to move that it be reported to the House, that will be for the committee to decide when they report it to the House, Mr Speaker.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): OK, thank you.
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: This bill seeks to strengthen the regulation-making powers in the Gas Act 1992 to provide for enhanced information disclosure requirements for the gas market, and to ensure that settings around enforcement and penalties, particularly for managing critical natural gas shortages, are suitably robust.
In 2019, New Zealand experienced prolonged outages at Pohokura gas field, which provides approximately 40 percent of the natural gas supply. This outage coincided with other outages at gas fields, and in a time of constrained hydro-generation due to dry spring conditions. This led to record natural gas spot market and wholesale electricity prices, which has emphasised the need to ensure that the regulatory settings around the disclosure of important information to the market are fit for purpose. A wide range of parties have highlighted their concerns with the current level of information being disclosed by gas market participants, particularly if this information has significant downstream impacts, including impacts on businesses who may not be involved in the natural gas industry.
The bill expands the scope of regulation-making powers to enable gas governance arrangements to be made that provide for a broad regime for the disclosure of information about matters that may have a significant downstream impact, or may contribute to the risk of critical gas shortages. The bill proposes that in order for these regulations to be made, the Government must first receive a recommendation from the industry co-regulator, the Gas Industry Company. This is consistent with the current co-regulatory approach for the sector. The Gas Industry Company has been undertaking work to investigate improvements to voluntary information disclosure since I wrote to them on the topic in mid-2018. These amendments are complementary to this and provide clear regulatory backing for a potential regulated information disclosure regime.
The bill's transitional provisions ensure that the work the Gas Industry Company is currently undertaking will be considered as part of the process for forming a recommendation for a new gas governance arrangement, should they be needed. The bill also makes several amendments to the penalty regime for industry participants and consumers for breaches of gas governance arrangements. It is important to note that residential consumers are excluded from the penalty regime. The bill amends that penalty regime for industry participants by increasing the maximum pecuniary penalty able to be imposed by the Gas Rulings Panel for breaches of gas governance regulations from $20,000 to $200,000. This addresses concerns about the low level of civil pecuniary penalty able to be currently issued by the Gas Rulings Panel, particularly for situations where a wide range of consumers may be affected by a potential breach, and brings this penalty into alignment with the equivalent legislation under the Electricity Industry Act 2010. This penalty limit will apply across all gas governance regulations. This penalty replaces the current criminal penalty, and it is intended that it will be used to deter breaches of regulations by consumers who are not classified as industry participants, which includes some of the large consumers of natural gas.
The bill also makes a number of supporting changes to enforcement provisions in the acts, and seeks to clarify current practices around these. The bill makes a range of more minor changes relating to the gas regulatory regime—for example, the bill clarifies the existing policy intent that regulations relating to outages and other security of supply contingency may apply across all industry participants and consumers, excluding domestic consumers. The bill represents a step forward in improving how information that may lead to critical gas shortages or significant price impacts is released to the market and for the management of situations where critical gas shortages may apply. I commend this bill to the House.





JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on the Gas (Information Disclosure and Penalties) Amendment Bill. Thank you, Minister, for your introduction of the bill and outlining the issues. We will be supporting this bill to select committee, because I think there are lots of elements to it which I think will improve the regime, as the Minister has stated. 
The issue, of course, was brought to our attention, as the Minister said, in September 2018 when the Pohokura pipeline had some leaks and the operator at that point in time needed to investigate that. As part of that process of a planned outage around that remediation and maintenance, there became a further issue around a shut-off valve which extended the inoperability or the limited operability of that field. As the Minister said, the Pohokura gas field, which is offshore of Taranaki, supplies 42 percent of New Zealand's natural gas, and this became a significant issue that affected not only the spot price of gas, but also the spot price of electricity for an extended period of time, which I'm sure I'm not going to be able to talk about for much longer as we hit 10 o'clock at night.
Debate interrupted.
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.