TUESDAY, 4 AUGUST 2020
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
PRAYERS
SPEAKER: Kia orana. Members, because it's Cook Islands Language Week, I've asked the Hon Alfred Ngaro to say the prayer in Cook Islands Māori.
Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Ka pure tatou ki Te Atua. E Te Atua mana, te akameitaki atu nei matou ia koe no toou takinga meitaki ta'au e riringi mai nei ki runga ia matou. Te akaruke nei matou i to matou tu tangata. Te akama'ara nei matou i Te Ariki Vaine, e te pure nei matou kia arataki koe i ta matou uriuri'anga manako. Kia rave matou i ta matou anga'anga i roto i teia ngutuare na roto i te pakari, te tuatua tika e te aka'aka no te meitaki o to matou basileia i Nu Tireni nei. Na roto i te ingoa o Iesu Mesia amene. Amene.





ORAL QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Prime Minister
1. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government's policies and commitments?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Kia orana, Mr Speaker, and yes. While I know time will not allow me to list all of them, I'd like to highlight just a few, including the most significant investment we have seen in recent times into mental health, rebuilding hospitals, setting up our Cancer Control Agency; changes to make schooling more affordable and make school buildings more modern; cleaning up our rivers, introducing the zero carbon Act; support provided to New Zealanders through the Families Package—which has contributed to child poverty improvements against seven of the nine indicators—building more public houses, banning offshore speculators, lifting the standards of rental homes; and, of course, our economic management, which gave us low unemployment and low Government debt as a springboard to go hard, to go early, and to rebuild after COVID-19.
Hon Judith Collins: Is it correct that her Government built just 101 houses, compared to the 1,000 houses originally promised by her and her then Minister of Housing, the Hon Phil Twyford, for the first year of the flagship KiwiBuild programme?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The most recent figures I have for KiwiBuild is that we have had 589 sold and 1,051 currently under construction. I would say that is 589 more affordable homes that families are living in than that last Government created, and a thousand more under construction than that last Government created. I would also add to that record that this Government is currently building more houses than any Government since the 1970s. Public housing places have increased by 5,103 and we currently have 3,000 public houses under construction. We stand proudly on our housing record.
Hon Judith Collins: Well, then, is it correct that her Government built just 294 houses compared to the 5,000 houses originally promised by her and her then Minister of Housing, the Hon Phil Twyford, for the second year of the flagship KiwiBuild programme?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I have already given the figures for KiwiBuild and the figures for the Government's building programme, and both of those combined, as much as the member may wish to critique our record, stand far in advance of anything that the last Government did. These are numbers which reflect real houses, not the mythical 30,000 that, apparently, National built, which would be closer to reflecting the number that was sold by the last Government. 
Hon Judith Collins: When her Government promised to build 16,000 KiwiBuild homes in the first three years of the KiwiBuild programme, then delivered only 452 houses, as at 30 June 2020, was that a failure to deliver?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member may frame it like that, but that is still more than that Government did in nine years—in nine years. So what that member is criticising us for still far outstrips anything that her Government did. In fact, roughly 6,000 houses sold, stock reduced, left us with a crisis in housing that we are still fixing.
Hon Judith Collins: Well, then, why, under her Government, has the number of people waiting to go into a State house more than trebled from 5,944 in September 2017 to a whopping 17,982 as at May 2020?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Under this Government, we reflect and take on board all need rather than changing the lists and cutting entire sections of the waiting list in order to engineer the numbers. Had that last Government, under National, built houses at the pace that we are currently, we would not have a waiting list for housing.
Hon Judith Collins: Is it correct that her Government's $400 million progressive homeownership scheme has helped not one single person buy a home to date?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We only recently announced the progressive homeownership scheme—again, something that we have created and stand proudly on. Again, I would point out to the member that she's choosing to critique a record that stands far in advance of anything that the last Government did. The largest Government building programme since the 1970s, half a billion dollars into retrofitting State houses to make them healthy homes, a support programme to sustain tenancy, increases in the Housing First policy. Every single part of our programme far outstrips and seeks to remedy a crisis we inherited.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister as to whether her Government has sold social housing or built them?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I've said, the fact that we hold the status of having built more than any Government since the 1970s, and the member is right to reflect that the last Government shed stock—up to 6,000 worth of homes were gotten rid of under that last Government—whereas we have built the housing stock we so desperately need.
Hon Judith Collins: Is it a failure to deliver for her to promise to build a strong economy when economic growth under her Government and before COVID-19 had already halved?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I am happy to reflect on that record, because pre-COVID, our GDP growth averaged 2.3 percent, where it was 2.1 percent under National. Unemployment was 4 percent, whereas it was 4.7 when we took office, and we've had the highest private sector wage growth in a decade. I stand proudly on this Government's economic record, including paying down our debt to put us into a position to weather the storm of COVID relative to what we inherited.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: Does the Prime Minister think it is a success story that we will have the first family moving into a home purchased under the progressive homeownership scheme in November of this year?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, because, as I said—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —it sits alongside sustaining tenants—
SPEAKER: No, Prime Minister, sit down. I know it's the last week, and it's sometimes a bit like school in the last week, and there's a tendency for discipline to get slack. But we're not having members shouted down when they're attempting to answer questions.
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, and that policy sits alongside Housing First, sustaining tenancies, our increase in transitional housing, and, of course, our significant Government building programme where we added another 8,000 public houses just recently as part of our COVID response, recovery, and rebuild.
Hon Judith Collins: Is it correct that, of the $455 million allocated for mental health in Budget 2019, her Government spent only around half of what was allocated for year one, and that the number of front-line mental health sites is behind her Government's target?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If the member actually read the announcements at the time, she'd recognise that we have to rebuild our mental health workforce. At the time we announced it, we anticipated, for the 2019 and 2020 year, an early $40 million worth of investment. I can report that, at this point, $120 million has been distributed. We are having to train a workforce and build front-line mental health services as we go, but we've always known that.
Hon Judith Collins: Why is her Government's billion trees programme only planting trees at half the rate it should to reach its own target?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We consider ourselves to be on track with the billion trees programme. My memory, if it serves, is roughly 149 million trees. And, of course, we expect it to continue to scale up. I would point out to the House that all of these initiatives, all of the progress and environmental challenges on climate change, on mental health, and on housing, are more than that Government ever even thought about putting out or even delivering a press statement on, because they did nothing in any of those areas.
Hon Judith Collins: Does she stand by her commitment to provide university students with free fees when the total number of equivalent full-time domestic students in public tertiary education and training dropped by over 2,000 in 2018?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: When you have a tight labour market and jobs aplenty, that is what happens. Again, we've delivered the first year free, and we've also made sure that those who'll be seeking apprenticeships or vocational training in high-need areas are supported to complete that for free as well. We stand by our investment in skills. 
Hon Judith Collins: Why did her Government not proceed with light rail in Auckland when it promised to?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because the coalition Government could not agree on a policy there. But, again, there have been plenty of other transport initiatives, including plugging the $6 billion gap that Simon Bridges left for the Auckland Transport Alignment Project.
Hon Judith Collins: Is she satisfied that rapid transit solutions in Auckland have stalled over the last three years while her Government struggled to agree on a light rail project?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No. Interesting the member would characterise it in that way when that's not something that her Government at that time, or her party, has supported. But we have, of course, seen progress on the Eastern Busway, State Highway 20B, the Old Māngere Bridge replacement project, ongoing work on the City Rail Link, the Karangahape Road cycleway, and the Constellation bus station, to name a few in Auckland alone.
Hon Judith Collins: Is promising to build light rail from Auckland CBD to Mount Roskill, and then not even starting it, a failure to deliver?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: It's actually called democracy. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order! Order! If the members want their leader to have another question, they will be quiet.
Hon Judith Collins: When will light rail from the Auckland CBD to Mount Roskill be completed?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I'm intrigued the member's taken an interest, given she apparently doesn't support it. But thank you for joining and agreeing with us that rapid transit and public transport in Auckland are necessary. We have sent it back to the Ministry of Transport, and we expect that whoever has the privilege of forming the next Government will be reporting directly to them with further proposals for rapid transit from the city centre to the airport. 




Question No. 2—Finance
2. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy in the context of the global COVID-19 pandemic?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Mr Speaker, kia orana. On Thursday, Xero released small-business employment and revenue data for June, showing many Kiwi small businesses are recovering from the impacts of COVID-19. The data showed that compared to Australia and the United Kingdom, New Zealand has seen the strongest early rebuilding phase so far, despite having the largest drop in small-business revenue when lockdowns were introduced. June 2020 small-business revenue is on par with revenue in June 2019, recovering from significant drops in May and April. In Australia, revenue remains down 8 percent on June last year, and in the UK, it's down 18 percent. At the end of June, the New Zealand small-business sector had 3.6 percent fewer jobs than pre-crisis levels. This compares to 6.8 percent fewer jobs in the Australian small-business sector and 8.5 percent in the UK. While we know that many small businesses are doing it tough right now, this data underscores the benefit of the less restrictive business environment that Kiwi small and medium sized enterprises are now operating in, thanks to the hard work of the team of 5 million. 
Dr Deborah Russell: What reports has he seen on consumer confidence in the New Zealand economy? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On Friday, the ANZ-Roy Morgan consumer confidence survey for July was released, showing consumer confidence remained steady in July after resurgence through May and June. The overall consumer confidence index for July was 104.3 percent, up from a low of 84.8 percent in April. It's encouraging to see a net 31 percent of consumers expect to be better off financially this time next year. While households' views of the next year's economic outlook lifted another four points, it does remain very low. The proportion of households who think it's a good time to buy a major household item did fall as well. We can see that our decision to go hard and early in both our health and economic response to COVID-19 has given Kiwi households confidence coming out of the lockdown, but it's also clear that with the virus raging overseas and many areas reimposing restrictions, there is less certainty in the consumer environment. That's why we're committed to supporting New Zealand firms and workers to adapt to this one-in-100-year shock, and we have made significant investments to back this up. 
Dr Deborah Russell: What actions has the Government taken to help the economy adapt to the impacts of COVID-19? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Mr Speaker, in light of your admonishments to me, I'll try to keep this short. In the face of a one-in-100-year shock to the global economy, we have always acknowledged that we would not be able to save every job or every business, and we have not hidden the fact that this is a global economic crisis that is still going, but the Government is investing to cushion the blow on households and businesses to make sure that we're in the best position to respond, recover, and rebuild. Our decision to extend the wage subsidy scheme was designed to help businesses keep their employees attached while they adapt to this unprecedented economic shock. Likewise, the COVID income relief payment recognises additional assistance is needed to cushion the blow for people who are looking for work or taking time to retrain. As we look ahead, there are a number of areas where the Government's support will continue, including investing in our people through policies to close the skills gap, creating jobs, preparing for the future, supporting small businesses and entrepreneurs, and positioning New Zealand globally to continue to trade with the world. 




Question No. 3—Housing
3. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Housing: Is she confident in the systems at the border and in quarantine and managed isolation?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Yes, I am confident. Our managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) system is working well. This is demonstrated by the fact that 34,768 people have been through managed isolation since 26 March 2020. Since New Zealand returned to level 1, all positive COVID-19 cases have been picked up in our managed isolation and quarantine facilities, and there has been no community transmission of the virus in New Zealand for more than 90 days. We're one of the few countries in the world that is successfully keeping COVID-19 out of our community. While I am confident in the systems, this doesn't mean that human error won't occur from time to time, and we've seen that play out in a handful of isolated incidents—all of which have resulted in improvements to the overall MIQ systems. Finally, while I do not have direct responsibility for systems at the border, I am working closely with my colleagues to ensure all systems are working well to keep New Zealanders safe.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: How does staffing of New Zealand managed isolation facilities differ from those that caused community outbreaks of COVID-19 in Victoria?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Since the middle of June, since Air Commodore Webb and I assumed responsibility for the managed isolation systems, we've been going through a programme of change. What we have is an operational lead at all 32 of our managed isolation facilities from the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF). There are four to six members of NZDF on site at each of our facilities; there is one permanent member of the New Zealand Police force. We also have Aviation Security Service on site, and they are subcontracting private security firms. We also then have staffing of hotel workers that are there, and this is, of course, in addition to the health workforce that is on site at each of the 32 managed isolation facilities. In regard to the staffing levels, we have been carrying out a site security assessment on all of the facilities over the last fortnight, and that is due to report back to us this week. In that report we will be looking at a variety of factors, such as resourcing, the level of services, accreditation of security firms that are providing services, as well as technology that can be deployed in the facilities.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Is there an over-reliance on private security in New Zealand and at managed isolation facilities?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: No. Of the nine managed isolation facilities that I have visited now, we have anywhere between four and seven private security staff operating in those facilities. That is matched by between four and six NZDF personnel, as well as police personnel that are there full time 24/7.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: What steps do private security guards working in managed isolation take to ensure that they don't put their families and the wider community at risk from COVID-19?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: This is an issue that we have been working through for several weeks with those workers and with their representative organisations—that we have rigorous steps in place at our managed isolation facilities to protect all workers, not just our security staff. That is the systems that are in place around the physical distancing that is required within our facilities, the safe operation from a health perspective around disease control within our facilities, and the appropriate use of personal protective equipment when it is required to protect those staff. I think the fact that we have had 34,000 people through our managed isolation facilities and we have not had community outbreak shows New Zealanders that they can feel safe, they can feel secure, and that our managed isolation facilities are offering a strong line of defence in keeping them and the gains they fought for safe.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Has she heard of any instances where people who should not have been permitted to enter a managed isolation facility—such as to make a delivery to a guest—achieved entry because security guards failed to undertake appropriate vetting?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: There are a couple of instances of people trying to get into facilities as well. The reports that I have had and the briefings I have had is that the systems have worked. These people have not got past the common areas, they have not made contact, and this is a sign of the systems working. What I would like to reassure New Zealanders, and not create fear for New Zealanders, is that we have a robust system in place that ensures New Zealanders can be kept safe by the fact that we have a strong line of defence in our managed isolation facilities and that our systems are working in there and stopping people either entering or leaving when they should be.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: What services, including food and beverage services, are provided to guests in managed isolation facilities?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: There are three meals a day, the member might be pleased to know—three meals a day—that are provided, as well as morning and afternoon snacks, from my understanding. These are provided on site at the facilities, and each facility operates—
Hon Grant Robertson: Release the menu!
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: —its own alcohol—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Both those comments are inappropriate, and both members should know better.
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I think I've said enough.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister as to how she would be able to cope, with all the assistance that's needed, if there was, en masse, people coming from China as advocated by the National Party?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: What we are—
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, how can you allow a question that's based on a speculative comment from the Deputy Prime Minister with absolutely no evidence to that effect whatsoever?
SPEAKER: Well, I think I was here in the House when—well, I certainly have a recollection of one of the former leaders of the National Party suggesting that a bubble be formed with Australia and, shortly after that, with China.
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: On this side of the House, this Government is committed to making sure that we are operating our borders in a managed way that protects New Zealanders from COVID but, importantly, also protects the gains that we collectively made as a team of 5 million. We will do this in a methodical, planned, and managed way to ensure we are not putting all of that at risk.




Question No. 4—Finance
4. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: How many of the 452,425 people receiving the wage subsidy extension does he expect will become unemployed when the wage subsidy expires, and what is the Government's plan if the majority of those New Zealanders lose their jobs?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): In Budget 2020 the wage subsidy was extended to give businesses certainty and time to make decisions and plan for the future as the economic recovery got under way. Decisions about the 470,391 jobs currently covered by the wage subsidy extension, when the scheme expires, are for each individual business to make, not the Government. Treasury forecasts net employment and unemployment levels across the economy, not individual projections for various schemes. At the Budget, Treasury forecast employment to be 2.463 million in the June quarter, 2.477 million in the September quarter, and 2.523 million in the December quarter. For the number of people classified as unemployed, Treasury forecast 222,000 people in the June quarter, 268,000 people in the September quarter, and 246,000 people in the December quarter.
In response to the second part of the question, I reject the premise of it, but, regardless, our post-COVID economic plan focuses on five key priorities: investing in our people; creating jobs and improving productivity; preparing for the future through digital transformation, decarbonisation, and research and development; supporting small businesses and entrepreneurs; and positioning New Zealand globally as a place to trade with and invest in, and, hopefully, eventually visit again. If the member likes the sound of all of that, he has the opportunity to back our recovery and rebuild by voting for that plan when the Budget 2020 legislation is debated in Parliament this evening.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I'm just not quite sure how a Minister can reject the premise of a question when the question is "if the majority"—there's no premise if you're saying "if the majority of those people lose their jobs".
SPEAKER: Well, he's rejecting the possibility of that occurring. He can do it quite easily.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: How was he so sure when he told Q+A on Sunday that the vast bulk of those Kiwis on the wage subsidy would be keeping employed?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, as I've just answered, I gave Treasury's projections for what they expect to happen. The member will be able to work out how many people are out of work at the moment based on the statistics that are released every week. If you take that away from the number that Treasury projected, you'll see that the vast bulk of people who are currently on the scheme are expected to be able to stay in work.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he saying that he's not receiving weekly advice from Treasury as to exactly what's happening on the ground right now in terms of an extraordinary situation where hundreds of thousands of Kiwis—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Come to a question, please.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Well, thank you, Mr Speaker. I've heard some very long questions from other members of the House that you haven't stopped.
SPEAKER: All right. The member will resume his seat.




Question No. 5—Regional Economic Development
MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. To the Minister—
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. How is that decision to terminate Mr Goldsmith's questioning even slightly reasonable, given that we've sat here and listened to exceptionally long answers today from Government Ministers, presumably positioning ahead of an event later next month? It seems unreasonable when there's only more one day of questions—
SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. I indicated to the member that he should stop. His question wasn't terminated because his question was too long; it was because he argued with me afterwards on his feet without even taking a point of order. I mean, he knows that he's not allowed to do that.
5. MARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: Is the Provincial Growth Fund on track to meet the target of creating 10,000 jobs?
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): We have outstripped the target. The Provincial Development Unit has undertaken a robust and comprehensive stocktake: 13,000 people have worked on Provincial Growth Fund (PGF) projects up and down the country; an additional 11,000 have enrolled also on skills and employment programmes—many of them have gone on to additional training, and a host gone on to work.
Mark Patterson: How else can the success of the PGF be evaluated?
Hon SHANE JONES: The actual applicants to the Provincial Growth Fund have reported they expect a further 15,000 people to work on projects. That gets us to 28,000 people in total. I would also say a key tenet of the PGF was to address low productivity outcomes and also bring the Māori community and the ongoing problems of training, land, and other resources—and a New Zealand Institute of Economic Research report evaluated that the Provincial Growth Fund's investment has led to an increase of GDP by $250 million per year, and the creation of 1,257 jobs just in those isolated provincial Māori communities.
Mark Patterson: What are some of the highlights of the PGF since it was launched in early 2018?
Hon SHANE JONES: Our Government believes in water storage. We know that in this post-COVID time it's important that the productivity and the potential of land is expanded and enhanced so we can cope with droughts, floods. We've continued to invest in marine and coastal assets. Some, I must say, were projects initiated in terms of the last regime but funded by this Government. We've actually gone into the very difficult areas of the employee community and delivered meth addiction responses at the request of employers in our provinces. For fear of protracting the answer, it's all on the website.




Question No. 6—Social Development
6. PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: What recent announcements has she made about supporting communities in the COVID-19 recovery?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): On Friday just gone, Minister Williams and I announced that applications were opening for our new Community Capability and Resilience Fund. This is a $36 million community fund available from 1 August for community groups seeking funding for initiatives that support the rebuild and recovery from COVID-19 over the next two years. Our community groups have done a great job at supporting New Zealanders and keeping communities safe and resilient over time as we respond and recover from COVID-19. The Community Capability and Resilience Fund will enable groups to build on this work and implement locally led solutions in their communities.
Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What impact have community grants had so far in the COVID-19 response?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The Community Capability and Resilience Fund builds on the success of the Community Awareness and Preparedness Grant fund, which was established by this Government to provide immediate support to communities during the COVID-19 lockdown. This fund was exhausted with over 900 groups supported. Communities were able to apply and receive funding quickly for innovative solutions and ideas that made an immediate positive impact for communities. We want to continue to encourage this through this new fund. Through the community awareness and preparedness fund, we supported community groups to share information, help people overcome the digital and technology challenges, provide essential goods, and check in to make sure that those isolated and living alone were supported.
Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Why is the Community Capability and Resilience Fund important?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The Community Capability and Resilience Fund is for community groups who are often different to traditional providers. They are made up of a cross-section of the local community and public or population-based interest groups. The fund will have a focus on community-led initiatives such as building and improving the provision of services, developing and implementing locally determined COVID-19 recovery plans. This Government is committed to supporting the wellbeing of our people, our whānau and communities, and this fund can help us achieve this in new and innovative ways, with initiatives led by our people, for our people.




Question No. 7—Health
7. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Health: How does he explain recent outbound air travellers who tested positive when they arrived in Australia, and how does this relate to community surveillance testing numbers over the past three months?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Health): I'm advised that of the three recent cases that tested positive on arrival in Australia, two had been in transit through Auckland Airport and never entered the community here in New Zealand. The other positive test is believed to relate to a far earlier infection during the lockdown period, and that individual is not thought to be currently infectious. As a precaution, however, contact tracing and testing is being conducted for these cases. So far, all related tests have come back negative. In answer to the second part of the question, testing numbers have fluctuated but I have been clear that I want to see more testing. I was encouraged to see an increase in community testing numbers over the last week, and higher numbers over the weekend compared to previous weekends. I'm also pleased to report that a pop-up testing site set up today in Queenstown had so far collected 600 samples by 2 p.m., after only a few hours of operation.
Dr Shane Reti: How many contact traces have been undertaken on these recent cases?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don't have the numbers for those specific cases with regard to the exact number, but with regard to the first two cases I mentioned, where they had transited through Auckland, CCTV footage so far has revealed that they had no close contacts while in New Zealand. They were literally here for a matter of hours and did not come into close contact with anybody. With regard to the case who tested positive after leaving New Zealand, my understanding is that the immediate household has been tested, and all have come back negative. There were a handful of other close contacts that have been tested and have come back negative, but that contact tracing, of course, will not be closed until all of those contacts have been contacted.
Dr Shane Reti: How does he explain the following statement from ministry officials regarding the person who flew from Auckland to Sydney on 6 July and then tested positive, "It appears the person may have been a previously unconfirmed case from March and this is responsible for the positive test result,", and was that person then positive in New Zealand from March to July?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No, what it's a sign of is that people can test positive for COVID-19 long after they have recovered from the virus. That's a well-established fact within the scientific and health community. There will be people in New Zealand who did not get tested during the lockdown who did have COVID-19 during that time, and who recovered. In some cases, people did not seek a test. They did exactly what we suggested, which was they stayed home and they got better. In other cases they may have sought a test and not had one, because—in some cases—I'm aware of people who went to get a test but were put off by the fact that there were long queues outside the testing stations. So there will be people who were positive for COVID-19 previously, who have had the virus, who have subsequently recovered, but who would still test positive if tested today.
Dr Shane Reti: What is the average time frame for people who have tested positive to test negative?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don't think that there's a specific—I don't have that information around the overall time frame. Some people have previously tested positive and then some months later have tested negative. Others have tested positive and then some months later, after they have well and truly recovered, have still tested positive, even though they had well and truly recovered. So I don't know. I can find out if there is an average time, but I'm not sure that that would necessarily tell us much.
Dr Shane Reti: Is it correct that the first that New Zealand health authorities knew about the positive 26 July Australian test was when she called the New Zealand health hotline from Australia, and what is the average time between a positive border test from a New Zealand flight arriving in Australia and notification to New Zealand authorities?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It would depend on the notification regime of the country that the person arrives in. Some countries are faster than others at notifying New Zealand about a positive test result. In some cases, people have contacted Healthline from overseas and it's turned out to be that the information that they supplied to Healthline hasn't been correct. There are reports—fairly regularly—of some of these cases that require investigation which are based on hearsay. So they're based on New Zealanders thinking that they know of someone who's tested positive overseas when, after it's subsequently been chased down, that has proven to not be the case. 




Question No. 8—Housing (Public Housing)
8. PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Associate Minister of Housing: What recent announcements has he made about improving the quality of State housing?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. Last week, at Sinclair Grove in Naenae, the Government announced a $500 million boost to our State house retrofit programme. This will see around 1,500 older State homes in 30 towns and cities across New Zealand upgraded and renewed over the next 2½ years. This shows our Government following through on our commitment to not only add thousands of homes to the public housing stock but also improve the quality of public housing available to New Zealanders and their whānau.
Paul Eagle: What will the retrofit programme mean for tenants?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Tenants will be living in warmer, drier, and healthier homes. Their homes will be improved by the installation of wall, ceiling, and floor insulation, double-glazing of windows, improvements to ventilation and air tightness, new heating, and making these homes more accessible. I'm advised that tenants who live in homes that were part of a pilot are already enjoying the health benefits of homes that have already been retrofitted. For example, we've heard from one tenant in the Hutt Valley whose son had a respiratory condition which has improved since moving back into the retrofitted home, and this means fewer visits to their doctor and more days at school.
Paul Eagle: How will the retrofit programme support regional economies?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: As well as being a significant investment in the health of New Zealand's public housing supply, this $500 million is also a major investment in the regional economies where this retrofitting work will happen. Kāinga Ora will look to use contractors of all sizes to carry out this work, creating more opportunities for a range of companies in the regions. Many of these companies will be experiencing the economic effects of COVID-19, and the Government recognises how important programmes like this are to give local contractors certainty over their project pipeline.




Question No. 9—Tourism
9. Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) to the Minister of Tourism: Why was AJ Hackett given a $5.1 million grant by the Government but outbound tourism operators such as travel agents were given no support in the recently announced $311 million COVID aid package?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister of Tourism): AJ Hackett and over 120 other tourism businesses all met the strategic asset criteria, they applied, and were approved to receive financial support. No outbound operators, like travel agents, applied to the strategic asset fund—that is why no support was given.
Hon Todd McClay: Is he aware that travel agents continue to assist clients with refunds, without remuneration, and, if so, does he think the Government should support them as they have AJ Hackett?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Well, first of all, they received the wage subsidy scheme, but I've heard varying levels of support that the outbound tourism operators want. First of all, it was a billion dollars that they wanted support from the Government, then it was $180 million, then it was $30 million. Look, if they need support from the Government, then they need to come to us with a coherent package of the support that they need, not just plucking figures out of the air.
Hon Todd McClay: Has he requested any information on the number of jobs that would be lost in the outbound tourism sector when the wage subsidy ends, compared to the 20 jobs saved at AJ Hackett by his Government's $5.1 million grant?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Specifically to that question, no, I haven't asked about job losses in the outbound tourism sector, but I know that the $400 million package that we've announced—16 times bigger than the $25 million package a year that the Opposition are offering the tourism industry—will save 3,000 jobs directly, 7,000 jobs if all of those businesses post-COVID are able to ramp up, and then the positive spillover effects into businesses around them will mean thousands more jobs will be saved because of the wonderful $400 million package that this Government has put together for the tourism industry.
Rino Tirikatene: What reports has he seen in response to the support given to AJ Hackett?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Queenstown Lakes Mayor Jim Boult said the money would benefit the whole of Queenstown—"It is one of those businesses that is Queenstown and if somebody out of town was conjuring up a vision of Queenstown, AJ Hackett Bungy would certainly be there alongside other businesses." He said restaurants, bars, hotels, and other operators all gain from bungy surviving.
Rino Tirikatene: What further announcements has he made regarding the tourism recovery package?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The tourism recovery package that I announced on Saturday includes over $230 million in grants and loans for 126 strategic tourism businesses that could help protect the jobs of around 3,000 people directly employed in the industry, $50 million for a regional events fund, $20 million for the inbound tour operator loan scheme, and $10 million to lift digital capability in the sector.
Barbara Kuriger: What similarities does the criteria use for assessing the AJ Hackett grant have to the criteria used to grant funding to Tourism Holdings Ltd in Waitomo sooner than small-tourism operators, such as Waitomo Adventures, Footwhistle Glowworm Cave, and local travel agents?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: We moved quickly to support strategic tourism businesses that needed urgent help. At the time these decisions were made, the Strategic Tourism Assets Protection Programme (STAPP) was going to follow a similar path and process. However, the economic conditions and reality have changed, and we had to adapt the support we're providing other businesses. This was the only way we were able to support a broad range of tourism businesses in a sustainable way that made sense. The Tourism Recovery Ministers Group has a mandate that it can decide on urgent investments which are outside the application round, and it has done so on these occasions.
Hon Todd McClay: Is the Minister aware that the outbound tourism operators support thousands and thousands of jobs around the country, which are now at risk without direct Government support, and why has he prioritised businesses like AJ Hackett and those 20 workers over travel agents?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I'm not sure that the member understands that outbound tourism operators are trying to lure New Zealanders out of New Zealand into overseas markets, when our job is to lure overseas people into New Zealand to support our tourism industry. The fact of the matter, though, is that the borders are closed and there is no inbound or outbound tourism happening at the moment.
Hon Stuart Nash: Has the Minister heard reports that the $500,000 granted to Napier's Art Deco Trust over two years will save their iconic festival, which was probably going to have to be cancelled without this announcement, will save lots of jobs, and contribute greatly to Napier's economic recovery?
SPEAKER: Right. Order! The member may answer any two of those four questions.
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: We've heard reports from all around the country, from the tourism industry, about what wonderful support STAPP has been. As we've said, 7,000 jobs, and 3,000 jobs directly, will be saved if those businesses can amp up, as well as the positive spillover effects into other businesses around, because of the STAPP and the whole tourism package. I have to remind everybody: our $400 million we've invested this year is 16 times bigger than the package that the Opposition are offering to the tourism industry.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: In respect of tourism ventures, in the criteria is there the judgment which runs something like this: "It's not likely to create an envy factor when looked at in the big picture."?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Our criteria were well-thought-out, and, as I said, the tourism operators, the 126 that got it met the criteria, unlike the outbound tourism operators who didn't even apply. So they couldn't meet the criteria, with no application.
Hon Todd McClay: Does the Minister think it's good enough that he's saying to the thousands and thousands of people that work for tourism businesses, to travel agents around the country who are about to lose their jobs, that it's their fault that nobody applied, and he hasn't even bothered to ask how many would lose their job, or sought to meet with them?
SPEAKER: Order! Order! The other questions the member asked had some relevance to the responsibilities of the Minister of Tourism; the Minister of Tourism is not responsible for outbound operators.




Question No. 10—Regional Economic Development
10. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: Does he stand by his statement that the Provincial Growth Fund will "create sustainable jobs in the regions", and how many new permanent roles have been created that did not exist prior to Provincial Growth Fund funding being allocated to those projects?
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): Yes, and I would point out to the House that we've always included part-time, full-time, and contractors in our jobs data collection because it reflects the number of people who have come into the labour work, especially in those sectors that rely on contractors. A job is a job. However, on the question of the number of permanent new roles, until such time as the full impact and roll-out of the fund is completed, it's not possible to answer that question.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well, how, therefore, can his press release this morning say that the number of jobs created by the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF) outstripped the 10,000 target, when the questions asked by the Provincial Development Unit (PDU) didn't actually include a question on how many jobs were created?
Hon SHANE JONES: The member is slightly incorrect there. The compilation of the data was carried out by officials who got in contact by both phone call and email in terms of how many people had been employed at various points in the journey on different projects. The difficulty with the full accounting of jobs lies in the fact that a number of the projects have yet to kick off, such as the breakwaters at the mouth of the Whanganui River or, indeed, the iconic port, wharf, and harbour development at Ōpōtiki.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Given that answer and the answer to his primary question, how could he so boldly say that 13,217 jobs had been created by the PGF?
Hon SHANE JONES: That is a well-proportioned figure. It reflects an exercise undertaken, and COVID has had such an impact on the operations of this area of Government. As a consequence of the officials being asked to go back and re-engage, it's actually given me the confidence to say that the figure will actually be 28,000 as the projects roll out. I need to repeat again: a sum of $700 million has actually been handed out in the form of pūtea—cash—into the accounts, into the pockets, of the employees, and I would invite the member to divide 13,000 into $700 million.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he think "sustainable growth" has been achieved when 6,648 of the 13,000 jobs no longer exist after just 2½ years?
Hon SHANE JONES: Therein lies a problem in the member's logic. This fund has invested in infrastructure. As infrastructure is completed, tertiary and secondary investors with their own money follow up, whether it's an improvement to rail, whether it's an improvement in maritime infrastructure, whether it's improvement in water storage. Many jobs will flow, but you don't employ people permanently after an infrastructure project has been completed. Then you allow the genius of the market to come to play.
Hon Simon Bridges: Is he aware of a putative Provincial Growth Fund project at the University of Waikato marine centre in Tauranga that the Minister of Conservation has just declined despite its clear purpose of environmental research, and does he know why?
Hon SHANE JONES: A matter of that detail requires a very serious answer, and I invite the member to put that in writing. I am not aware that the outcomes that are contained in our coalition agreement to do with aquaculture are being frustrated at all.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is the reason he didn't announce the result of the question by the PDU on how many jobs were saved when they otherwise might've been lost because the answer was not many, if any?
Hon SHANE JONES: I shall endeavour to address that riddle. I repeat again: the allocation of $700 million has given us a figure of 13,000 workers being engaged in the delivery of projects to date. Now, the jobs will most certainly flow when the initiatives are fully rolled out, and that's why we take a great deal of diligence as we move forward in the allocation of the remainder of the fund.




Question No. 11—Health (Māori Health)
11. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Health (Māori Health): How is the Government supporting Māori health and wellbeing?
Hon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister of Health (Māori Health)): Last week, I was pleased to announce Whakamaua, the Government's Māori Health Action Plan. This plan sets out the pathway towards achieving greater health equity for Māori over the next five years and demonstrates the Government's commitment to improving Māori health and wellbeing. 
Willow-Jean Prime: What specific outcomes are Whakamaua seeking to achieve? 
Hon PEENI HENARE: Whakamaua has four high-level outcomes: firstly, that iwi, hapū, whānau, and Māori communities are exercising their authority to improve their health and wellbeing; second, ensuring the health and disability system is fair and sustainable and delivers more equitable outcomes for Māori; thirdly, it seeks to address racism and discrimination in all its forms within our health system; and, lastly, the plan protects mātauranga Māori throughout the health and disability system. 
Willow-Jean Prime: Why do we need a Māori health action plan? 
Hon PEENI HENARE: We know the health and disability system is failing Māori and, as a result, there are significant inequities between Māori and tauiwi. Whakamaua provides clear direction on how we can fix that. Many of the actions listed within the plan will help counter the influence of implicit bias and systemic racism in the system. I'm pleased to say that some of these actions have already begun, including streamlining patient pathways for whānau Māori, providing virtual consults, and a more inclusive approach to telehealth. 




Question No. 12—Prime Minister
12. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: What are some of her Government's policy achievements?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Thank you for the use of the word "some"; I wouldn't want to wish to keep the House longer than I am able. We've rolled out Mana Ake, a mental health support programme for kids in schools in Canterbury and Kaikōura; extended school-based health services; reduced the cost of going to the doctor for more than half a million New Zealanders; set up our Cancer Control Agency and the suicide prevention office; boosted funding for Pharmac; and replaced 12 radiation machines to take the pressure off DHBs. We're rebuilding our health workforce, with 1,400 more nurses, 580 more doctors, 530 more allied health workers. We're addressing major infrastructure issues at Auckland City Hospital, Greenlane, Middlemore, obviously Dunedin, just to name a few. I have a long list. I've just started on health; I'm not sure if you'll oblige me to allow to continue with housing, education, and a range of others. Perhaps I'll leave it to the member's supplementary. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order! All right, I'm going to remind people in the galleries that they are not allowed to get involved in this question period. As someone who knows the consequences of becoming involved from the galleries, I strongly recommend that people in the galleries don't.
David Seymour: Why did the Prime Minister perhaps forget to mention KiwiBuild, the public house waiting list, Auckland light rail—
SPEAKER: Order! The member has asked two supplementaries.
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because the primary didn't allow me to get past the first part of health, let alone get into transport, housing, and a number of other areas where I am very proud of our record.
David Seymour: Why didn't the Prime Minister mention that after her intervention at Ihumātao, there are more houses cancelled that would have been built there than KiwiBuild managed to build in three years?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I actually reject the premise of that question. If the member would like to give me another platform to talk about this Government's record of building more houses than any other Government since the 1970s, of retrofitting our State houses to give them another 50 years of life through $50 billion—
David Seymour: Point of order.
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Please sit down, I'm not finished. 
SPEAKER: Order! I'm anticipating a point of order, and I think that the Prime Minister has gone beyond what was asked of her.
David Seymour: Why did the Prime Minister perhaps forget to mention that her Government inherited a $6 billion surplus for 2020 and turned it into a billion-dollar deficit even before the COVID crisis hit?
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You surely, very close to the end of this session, will realise that there is a rule where you cannot ask the Government member a patsy question and have that member attack the Opposition. 
SPEAKER: I think the member has a history of not being helpful with his points of order. The one point that I'll give him is this: consistency through this Parliament. David Seymour, ask it again.
David Seymour: Thank you, Mr Speaker. To the Prime Minister, why did she perhaps forget to mention that her Government inherited a forecast $6 billion surplus for 2020, but by the end of last year, Treasury forecast a $1 billion deficit for this year, even before COVID hit?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because I only got to health. Let's do the economy. I'm happy, of course, to stand on our record of delivering GDP growth close to an average of 2.3 percent, which was higher than the 2.1 of the last Government. We delivered $13 billion worth of surpluses and got our net debt relative to GDP under 20 percent. Were it not for that positioning, we would be in a much worse position going into COVID-19. As it stands, relative to many other OECD nations, our debt will be lower—even after our spending on things like the wage subsidy—because of the preliminary work we did and the position we put us in.
Hon Stuart Nash: Why did the Prime Minister forget to mention that over 2,250 more police have graduated out into our communities when we became the Government?
SPEAKER: No, no, no. I've had enough of those patsies.
David Seymour: Why did the Prime Minister perhaps forget to mention her Government's total failure to make any tangible progress on the highly confused Dominion Road light rail project, which runs right along the border of her electorate?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because I didn't get to transport, where I'm happy, of course, to report that over 2,000 kilometres of safety improvements have been made, and the $6 billion needed for the Auckland Transport Alignment Project to make sure that we're delivering a range of modes for Aucklanders and reduce congestion. When it comes to the issue of light rail, which I don't believe either that member or that member supported, but who seems very interested in it now, yes, we didn't get agreement across parties, but that has not stopped other progress in the area of transport. [Seymour stands]
SPEAKER: No—no.
David Seymour: Why is it—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member has had four supplementaries already.
David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I just clarify—are you counting my repeat of a question—
SPEAKER: Well, in that case, I apologise to the member. It just feels like a lot.
David Seymour: Well, people might have to get used to it. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order! Order! All members will settle down. I think all of us know that in the next three months there is going to be a bit of a turnover, and we won't be focusing too much on it.
David Seymour: Why is it so difficult just to answer a question and accept that some of the things the Prime Minister—
SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. He knows that's not a question.
Hon David Parker: Can the Prime Minister confirm the recent endorsement by David Seymour of the proposed repeal and replacement of the Resource Management Act, including Mr Seymour's kind acceptance that this is more than the prior Government achieved over the prior nine years?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I expect that that was the supplementary the member was going to ask, given that he's given me so many opportunities this question time.
David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to ask an additional supplementary question at the expense of the Labour Party.
SPEAKER: Order! Order! I hear some objection. I will put it to the House, but I think it's fair to say that not long after the member completed it, I got an indication from his sparring partner that he wouldn't get permission. Is there any objection? There appears to be objection.
 





IMPREST SUPPLY (SECOND FOR 2020/21) BILL
First Reading
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I move, That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2020/21) Bill be now read a first time.
Bill read a first time.





APPROPRIATION (2020/21 ESTIMATES) BILL
Third Reading
IMPREST SUPPLY (SECOND FOR 2020/21) BILL
Second Reading
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I move, That the Appropriation (2020/21 Estimates) Bill be now read a third time and the Imprest Supply (Second for 2020/21) Bill be now read a second time.
The third reading of the Appropriation (2020/21 Estimates) Bill is the final stage in Parliament for passing the 2020 wellbeing Budget, by appropriating the various appropriations set out in the schedules to the bill and in the 2020-21 Estimates. I will have more to say about the 2020 wellbeing Budget in a minute.
The Imprest Supply (Second for 2020/21) Bill provides interim parliamentary authority for expenditure decisions made or to be made by the Government through to April 2021 that are additional to the amounts in the 2020-21 Estimates. In normal circumstances, the second imprest supply bill for a financial year provides for any operating or capital spending decisions, such as against the between-Budget contingency or pre-commitments against future Budget allowances. It also provides for fiscally neutral adjustments that increase the amount of one appropriation but decrease the amount of another, but because of COVID-19, this is a larger than normal amount. Any increases in demand-driven appropriations are also included, drawdowns into appropriations from contingencies that were set aside in the Budget fiscal forecasts, and any risks that may materialise—for example, matters covered in the "Risks to the Fiscal Forecasts" chapter of the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update.
In this extraordinary year, the second imprest supply bill also needs to provide for expenditure in 2020-21 from the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund that was included in the Budget 2020 fiscal forecasts but not in the detailed appropriations in the Estimates, and it also includes a larger than usual contingency buffer to account for the economic circumstances and potential for significant changes in policy that have appropriation impacts when, even if fiscally neutral, they would require imprest supply authority. I can assure the House that all expenditure incurred under the interim authority of this imprest supply bill will need to be appropriated by Parliament, as it always is, before the end, in this case, of the 2020-21 financial year. This will be done in the Appropriation (2020/21 Supplementary Estimates) Bill, to be introduced on Budget day 2021.
I want to start my contribution reflecting on this year's Budget, by thanking all members of select committees who have been a part of the Budget process. It is an intensive process, and it's one that committees completed this year with alacrity, and the debate that we had in the House as we went through the committee stage of the bill, I thought, was a good example of the new approach to the committee stage working well, with Ministers answering questions as they were raised by members and exploring some matters of detail that perhaps had not been able to be done in the various select committee processes. So I thank all members of the House for that.
This was an extraordinary Budget delivered in extraordinary times. When we put together the beginning stages of Budget 2020, it was in the pre-COVID era. We were very conscious of the fact that, while the New Zealand economy continued to do well, we had seen slow-downs across the rest of the world. We prepared a Budget that was for its time. It was one that was going to keep up our investment in core services and expand our work in a number of priority areas that the Government had laid out in the Budget Policy Statement.
I am very proud that, even in the extraordinary circumstances, we continued that work of funding the core services of Government. That includes the largest ever increase in health spending that New Zealand has ever seen, and in particular for our district health boards, seeing them around about $980 million a year better off as a result of the investment in this Budget. What used to be called the standstill figure for Budgets, the amount that was needed to make sure that we kept up with inflation and population growth, has been significantly exceeded in the investment in this Budget, making it the largest ever investment that we have seen, along with continued investment in education, in transport, in health, in housing, and in all of the areas that are the core of the Government's job. That investment continued.
I have heard, over recent weeks, people saying that investment in core services is optional. It's not.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Who said that?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It's the very thing that got us—Mr Goldsmith did indeed say that. That is the very thing that got this country in trouble and what we had to rescue it from when we came into Government—long-term underfunding of core services—and the proposal that Mr Goldsmith has would strip out around $80 billion from Budgets over the next decade. That is the operations that take place in our hospital; that is the pay for our teachers; those are the services that are delivered through our Ministry of Social Development and other agencies—all at risk from an austerity plan from the other side of the House.
But what obviously occurred here was a Budget that then had to be delivered in the shadow of COVID-19. I am proud of a Budget that took the efforts of previous Governments to save for a rainy day and put the umbrella up to support our people. We had got debt down to under 20 percent of GDP. We were in a strong position, with a strong balance sheet, to be able to borrow and still, at the end of that borrowing, have a level of debt lower than almost all advanced economies around the world. That is the strong fiscal position that we had put ourselves in, and this Government inherited net core Crown debt at 21.7 percent of GDP, and we brought it down to under 20 percent. So now we borrow to put up the umbrella to protect and support New Zealanders.
It is that borrowing that has enabled us to do the wage subsidy scheme, to help keep those 1.7 million New Zealanders attached to their employer, to make sure that there are jobs there for them when they go back. It's what's enabled us to support small businesses through the Small Business Cashflow (Loan) Scheme—over 100,000 businesses now being supported through that scheme. That is what it means to look after our people. This is a one-in-100-year economic shock, and it required a proportional response. We will work with New Zealanders to grow our economy, to be able to reduce down that level of debt, but for now the responsible thing to do, the thing to look after New Zealanders with, is to put that umbrella up and protect them.
What the Budget does is outline the actions we will take to grow the economy sustainably and to support New Zealanders to recover and rebuild. We do that, firstly, by investing in our people—a record $1.6 billion investment in skills: free apprenticeships; free trades training in critical areas, ranging from community and mental health right through to construction and infrastructure, the biggest boost we have seen for apprenticeships. We've seen the numbers already, where the number of apprenticeships in June has dropped to just slightly below the level last year. That is an extraordinary achievement when we compare it to the global financial crisis, when we saw apprenticeships lose their roles significantly. We are supporting businesses to keep their apprentices on and supporting more trainees.
The Budget is full of opportunities for job creation and job growth, through infrastructure, through the building of 8,000 new public houses, through our support for the Jobs for Nature programme. All of these things are about making sure more New Zealanders are in work, and the Budget will see, over the forecast period, around 300,000 jobs created. Then there is our support for small and medium enterprises (SMEs). As I said, the Small Business Cashflow (Loan) Scheme and the wage subsidy extension have all been part of making sure that SMEs get through, and the proof is in the pudding. We have seen from Xero just last week, and as I said in question time today, that the New Zealand small and medium enterprise sector has bounced back far quicker than those in Australia and in the UK. We know there are still tough times ahead for our SMEs, but they know that we have backed them through this crisis, and we will continue to back them as they recover and rebuild.
But this Budget is not just about the immediate response and recovery from COVID19; it's about futureproofing our economy. It's about making sure we truly invest in sustainable energy systems and making sure that we invest in all of our populations being able to be part of digital transformation, of further support for research and development, the things that will add higher-wage jobs to our economy. Those issues that New Zealanders had around productivity and not being able to produce those higher jobs are still there, and it's the investment in skills and in infrastructure and in R & D that will get us through.
Finally, the Budget continues to make sure New Zealand looks out to the world. Our exporters have done us proud during COVID-19. We have been able to lift exports in some areas—in horticulture. We've kept up in dairy and meat and wine. We are continuing to export to the world, and we have provided further support for that—over $200 million to New Zealand Trade and Enterprise—and we've launched our free-trade negotiations with the UK.
I am immensely proud of this Budget. This has been a difficult time for New Zealand and New Zealanders, but this Budget is part of our commitment as a Government to ensure that we support New Zealanders' lives and livelihoods. The best economic response to COVID-19 was a strong health response. We now build on that to give New Zealanders confidence into the future.





Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to talk in this grave time for the country in terms of its economy and what we're dealing with under the issues that are put forward in this Budget. We all know that COVID-19 is wreaking havoc with not just economies but people's lives all around the world. Anybody tuning in to this debate will be fully aware, looking at their TV screens and reading the news around the world, of the impact that this is having in the US, in the UK, in Europe, and in Australia, and our good friends in Victoria are really struggling at the moment. 
So we're very conscious that this is a time for extraordinary measures, and that's why National has been broadly supportive of the very significant increase in Government spending outlined in this Budget and the need to go further into debt. There's no question about that, and I don't for a moment acknowledge or respect the Minister of Finance for talking about some people calling for austerity measures. That is a falsehood and is completely wrong. Nobody in this country, right here, right now, is saying, "Oh, we should not be spending anything and we should be going back to austerity." Nobody is saying that, and for the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister to keep repeating it is outrageous and wrong and inaccurate and sneaky, and it is trying to avoid focus on what they are now not doing, which is actually providing a coherent plan to get us back on track and to get people back into work. The Prime Minister is so arrogant about the state of her support that she thinks she doesn't need to come up with any policies in this Government, and then she is quite happy to come up with complete falsehoods on the way that National is talking about trying to get this country back into a reasonable position on debt. 
So I want to talk about three things in relation to this Budget. I want to talk about jobs, I want to talk about taxes and debt, and I want to talk about infrastructure, and they're all critical parts of this Budget. On jobs, there's no question that New Zealanders are losing their jobs right now. Tens of thousands of New Zealanders have lost their jobs because of the lockdown and the following economic disruption. We've got about 452,000 New Zealanders currently in receipt of the wage subsidy, and that's ending in the next few weeks. There is a big question about how many of those people will, in fact, lose their jobs. This will have an enormous impact on them, their families, and their ability to look after their families, and it will have a real impact on their broader, extended family over a period of time. 
So the critical question is: where do we get the new jobs to replace the ones that are being lost? How do we get people back into work? The story that we've had from this Government—the primary response that they have got—is that the Government will borrow lots of money and will go out and buy jobs. So there's going to be $1.1 billion spent on paying people to go out and hunt possums and to plant flax bushes and to build pools in provincial towns and to do various other bits and pieces, and that's all very useful and it's good. At a critical time like this, Government spending can create a few jobs—temporary jobs. But we all know that it is actually the tens of thousands of business owners in this country—businesses large and small—actually choosing to expand their business and hire somebody and advance that creates sustainable jobs. 
The big difference between Governments is the spenders versus the enablers. We in the National Party are focused on enabling that private sector growth to create genuine jobs to employ New Zealanders, like we did in the last two years of the National Government, where this country was generating 10,000 new jobs a month, and if we can return to that level of progress, we'll be making great gains. So that's why I'm disappointed not to see in this Budget things like what National's been talking about, which is allowing people who have been made redundant and they're having a big pay-out and they're getting taxed on that pay-out—why don't we, as National is proposing, allow that tax payment to be used as a tax credit for them in setting up a new business, throw in a bit of KiwiSaver savings and enable those people to get started in a new entrepreneurial scheme and create opportunities, and if they want to hire an extra person, we'll give them a $10,000 JobStart payment as well, to encourage them to take on an extra person. That's how you enable and create opportunities for the private sector to invest. 
Then, the recipe for success in private sector hasn't changed. It's about keeping taxes low, it's about pushing back the tide of regulation, and, throughout this difficult, difficult economic time, this Government has carried on and said, "Nothing's changed." It just keeps on piling on new costs for businesses—every day, every week, new costs to business. Last week, it was higher waste levies; a couple of weeks before, it was higher road-user charges; and right on 1 April, when businesses were absolutely locked down and had zero revenue, they still put up the minimum wage. They have no concept of the difficulty that businesses experience in trying to stay in business, and they keep on adding those costs. So not adding taxes, not adding regulations, being consistent about the rules, and allowing investment to flow both domestically and offshore are the key to getting private sector investment. 
The second question is around tax and debt. We had the Minister of Finance banging on, as he always does, about the National Party having this horrendous goal of trying to get New Zealand's debt level—having a plan to get its debt level—under control over the next decade or so. Well, how terrible is that? What a terrible thing—the idea that a party in this Government might be so responsible that they might think that it makes sense to have a plan to get debt under control. Every day, every speech that Mr Robertson starts off with is about how New Zealand's in a great position to spend, spend, spend during this crisis because we came into it with low levels of debt. Well, why did we come into it with low levels of debt? Only because previous Governments have been disciplined with their spending and had got on top of the debt. The previous National Government had to borrow $50 billion to get through the global financial crisis and the Canterbury earthquakes. We did that because we wanted to support New Zealanders. Then we continued to be disciplined with our spending and got on top of it, and we can do it again. 
This Government's only experience prior to COVID was to come in, inherit massive surpluses of many billions and billions of dollars, and what did they do? Within two years, they had squandered all those surpluses so that the Budget that we are talking about today, prior to COVID happening, was projected to be in deficit. So they inherited massive surpluses and, within two years, they were already projecting a deficit before we had the COVID situation. Now, after COVID, we've massively increased spending and massively increased the debt, and my worry is, and the worry of many New Zealanders, when they look around and they see all the spending from Shane Jones and all the different projects that are being lined up and all the Ministers trooping up in their high-vis for the latest shovel-ready announcement—we support getting those jobs in, but they're delaying them an extra few weeks so that they can sort of line up the Prime Minister's photographers and get the media all organised and get the hard hat on and get it all properly stage-managed. 
All those announcements, and people are wondering, "Well, hang on a moment, how's this going to work?" Is it the case that they'll spend whatever it takes to put off the economic pain to 20 September, and then, on 20 September, if they're successful, the smiles will drop and New Zealanders will be presented with the invoice? The invoice is higher taxes, and the Greens, at least, are honest about it, because they love higher taxes. They love taxes—"tax is love", according to the Greens—and they want more of it. They can't get enough of it, and so they want to have a wealth tax and they want to have higher-income taxes. They desperately wanted a capital gains tax and they missed out on that, but they want more tax. 
Labour have been very cute. They're hiding. They're keeping their heads down. The Prime Minister doesn't want to talk about new policies but just wants to sort of keep her head down and cruise to victory. Well, that's not going to happen, because New Zealanders want to know what the tax policy is from this Government. They want to know how much they're going to have to pay, because New Zealanders are struggling to get through the week and pay their bills, and they don't want to be paying more tax to a Government that can't control its spending. I'm sure there's no question that Labour will come out and say, "Oh well, we'll only tax higher-income earners." Well, I can give you this prediction: a Government that can't control its spending will eventually come after you—not just the higher-income earners but everybody—because if you can't control your spending, you need more and more and more and more. 
The third area, around infrastructure—well, we've heard all about it today in the light-rail down Dominion Road not happening. Big announcements but very little actually happening on infrastructure, whereas the National Party is determined to unlock the potential of this country by connecting, for example, the 2.5 million New Zealanders between Whangārei, Hamilton, and Tauranga in a visionary scheme to connect that region to become one of the most dynamic and exciting areas of Australasia, and unlocking the potential of that great Waikato region, connecting it properly with the great city of Auckland and the ports of Tauranga, and opening up that northern Auckland—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! I'm sorry, but the member's time has expired. 





Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): It is a pleasure for me to take a call in this debate. Budget 2020 is a Budget unlike any other that we have seen in recent years. We all know that it was set against the backdrop of the greatest health and economic global crisis of our time and the fact that we were able to deliver this Budget in a level 2 world is a testament to the team of 5 million who sacrificed to get us into the position where we are today.
We said at the outset that the best economic response to COVID-19 was a strong health response. Our strategy was to go hard and to go early, and, in doing this, we now find ourselves in a position that very few countries are in. Our children are back at school, we are able to have mass gatherings, we have crowds at our sports games, we have people at concerts watching live music and live theatre, but, most importantly, we have COVID contained at the border, and this has put us in a very strong position to bounce back. This Budget is the first step in our recovery, and our first priority is jobs, jobs, and more jobs.
I would like to take a moment of this speech to acknowledge the work of the Hon Grant Robertson for putting together this Budget. This was a Budget where he had to rip up the work that Governments start doing in the previous calendar year to put together a Budget to deliver in May. Clearly, that had to be thrown out the window as we entered into a period of history like no other that we had seen together. He did work tirelessly through that period of lockdown to ensure that, as a Government, we were in a position to deliver a Budget for New Zealanders that would take us on the road to recovery. It would be a Budget that could help us begin that very important task of rebuilding. The fact that this Budget was titled Rebuilding Together talks about the kind of thinking that lay behind the work that he put together to get us on that road to recovery. So I think it is important that we acknowledge that work, because it is a Budget that outlines our Government's plans to create new jobs, to build roads and houses, to develop our hospitals, and to protect and enhance our environment. This is about us investing in infrastructure.
We are also, in this Budget, helping people to get the skills they need for the jobs that we need to rebuild New Zealand through free trades training and apprenticeships. We are investing in our people through this Budget. We are investing in our future through this Budget. We extended the hugely successful wage subsidy in a targeted way and made interest-free loans available to small businesses. We ensured the support was there for our businesses. This is how we get on with the plan to rebuild our economy together. As the Minister of Housing, I was incredibly proud of the Budget that we presented, to be part of a Government that is committed to delivering an extra 8,000 new public and transitional homes through Budget 2020, and this, of course, will be part of a programme of work to stimulate the residential construction sector, create jobs, and reduce housing shortages. As a Government, we are committed to a range of measures to ensure we do not see what happened to the residential construction centre post the global financial crisis—that being the collapse of the building of affordable housing. We are committed to working with our residential construction sector to make sure they have a secure pipeline of work, they can continue to build, and, importantly, from our perspective, they continue to build affordable homes.
Through Budget 2020, we funded a total of $670 million in Income Related Rent Subsidy, which means not only have we made a commitment to the number of homes that will be built as public and transitional houses but there will be families who have access to the subsidies required to move into those homes. Too often we have seen the announcement of houses saying "X number of houses are going to be built" without the appropriate appropriations for that Income Related Rent Subsidy, and I was proud that we put all of that into Budget 2020, because this will bring the total number of public and transitional builds in the pipeline or completed by this Government to 18,350 homes, and that is something we can be proud of. That is more houses than any Government has built in a generation. It is something that we stand with pride and talk about. I am proud of that record of delivery on public houses. We are building them; we are not selling them. We see that as the job of our Government.
We also provided, through Budget 2020, a $56 million boost to Warmer Kiwi Homes, our Government's insulation and heating programme. We're increasing the grant proportion available to low-income households from 67 percent to 90 percent of the costs to deliver an estimated 9,000 additional retrofits of homes. Insulation and heating helps to prevent respiratory illness, and the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme protects the most vulnerable people in our communities. We are a Government that started three years ago with a commitment to warmer, drier homes for New Zealanders, and that is what we have delivered.
I also recently announced the work that we will start on the business case for investigating pumped hydro storage options for New Zealand. This is a critical issue that a Government needs to show leadership of. This is the critical issue of dry-year storage and how we overcome it as we move on the pathway to 100 percent renewable electricity. If this business case stacks up, pumped hydro will be a game-changer for securing sustainable, cheaper, low-emissions electricity for the long term for our future. This could be and would be a truly transformational project. It would be a significant step to delivering on that 100 percent renewable electricity generation target.
As the research, science, and innovation Minister, this Budget also provided much needed support to our Crown research institutes. Critical scientific capability was an integral part of our response to COVID-19 and New Zealand's economic recovery. I am proud, as a Government in the tough times, we didn't do what we all too often see, and that is people look to the research budget and slash it. We invested in our science. We invested in our innovation to the tune of around $400 million through Budget 2020.One of the many things that we have learnt in recent months is the importance of clear and coherent science communications in a world of disinformation. We have seen the very best of our scientific capability on display. I want to pay tribute to those scientists in New Zealand who have stood with us and explained things to us throughout this year, and we are proud to be backing those scientists. This funding will also assist in attracting and retaining world-class talent in high priority areas such as sustainable forestry science, health research, resilience to natural physical hazards, and primary sector innovation for sustainable productivity.
We could not take it for granted the fortunate position we find ourselves in today. Many countries are still dealing with the immediate effects of COVID-19 on their communities. Budget 2020 is an important first step. Now we have an incredible opportunity to recover from COVID-19, and we are firmly focused on the opportunities in front of us. I am grateful that we have a leadership in our Government that chose to put the umbrella up when the tough times came, as the Minister of Finance explains it. Although the Opposition spokesperson on finance took umbrage at the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister calling out his call to return to deep, deep within 30 percent of GDP within a decade, as saying that austerity wasn't on the table under the thinking from the Opposition, that was the language we heard very clearly from the speech he delivered. As the Minister of Finance has described it, $80 billion less borrowing means some of the harshest public service cuts we will have seen in decades. We are a Government that are proud that we have invested in our future, and Budget 2020 does that because we are backing New Zealand.





Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to start by a fake news alert from the other side, quoting outrageous figures. I'm proud of the fact that I'm part of a party that believes in fiscal responsibility, believes in setting debt targets, so that we can actually make sure as a country that we get back on track. Everybody knows in New Zealand the number of crises that our country has faced in the last decade. We need to ensure that the books are in a strong enough position to withstand the next crisis. So this side of the House is very clear about the fact that fiscal responsibility is critical, that the ability to spend money is only at the willingness of the taxpayer to accept the Government of the day can spend it better than they can, and that if debt is taken on there is a clear plan to get that debt back under control. That's what households do. That's why New Zealanders trust National with the economy, because we understand that, if you borrow money, you need to have a plan to pay it back. So I absolutely and totally refute the fake news, the disturbing fake news that we've seen repeated by the Government benches today.
I want to start my Budget appropriation speech by just providing a bit of context in terms of looking at where we were as a country earlier this year, because I think it is important, and we recognise the significant impact of COVID, but we must not shy away from what the state of play was before COVID. So let's just have a look at some of that. So the jobseeker benefit, which most would understand as "the dole"—we had 30,000 additional New Zealanders on the jobseeker benefit since this Government came into office. Emergency housing grants: now this is a really interesting one, because this is from a Government who said that every dollar—when they were in Opposition—on emergency housing grants was a waste of money and they would fix it with their comprehensive housing plan. Well, guess what? Guess what? In the quarter before COVID, there was $79 million in emergency housing grants—three times as many as when they came in; four times as much money being spent on emergency housing grants; over 18,000 people on the social housing register. That's more than three times the number two years earlier. And do you know what's worse, in terms of housing? This is a Government who said, in Opposition, that they would fix the housing crisis—they would fix it; they had a comprehensive housing plan—over 200 days someone is waiting if they're on the social housing register.
Now, the other thing that the person before me claimed was the Government's record on their amazing State house build programme: 3,000. Guess what? Fifteen hundred of those, half of them, were planned, started, consented under National. So thanks, National—thanks, National. 
Kiritapu Allan: Sold down the State houses.
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Oh, selling State houses. Great, because Labour said they would not sell State houses. Let me look at the number: 146 State houses sold under Labour. "Oh, but we're stopping the sell-off of State houses"—$30 million brought in—$30 million. So, when National sells a State house and puts three in its place, that's not allowed. Oh, but when they do it, it's completely acceptable!
This is the party that was solving every element with their comprehensive housing plan! So what have we got? We've got what? Three hundred and eighty KiwiBuild houses, and we're expecting what? Sixteen thousand—16,000 were promised. So KiwiBuild's gone. Emergency housing grants were meant to be gone, but actually we're now spending more than ever before. And this is before COVID—I'm talking before COVID. So it's quite interesting that that side of the House likes to paint their own kind of picture of what they've done, but what we're seeing is a very common thread. I think New Zealand needs to really pay attention to this, because what they are going to do, what they are trying to do, is blame everything on COVID. Well, I've just given you a bunch of examples of how things, particularly in the social policy space, were going backwards chronically under this Government. 
Here's another one: child poverty. So the Prime Minister herself took on the responsibility of child poverty reduction. She promised to reduce it by 20,000—reduce the number of children living in poverty by 20,000 by 2021. Do you know what? We have 11,000 more children living in material hardship, which is the worst type, pre-COVID—pre-COVID. So any time that side of the House talks about COVID having an impact on everything, I would just encourage New Zealanders to look back at their record before the health crisis hit, because as a country we were not in good shape pre-COVID. I accept now the economic and unemployment crisis is absolutely dire: 212,000 people currently on unemployment benefits. Oh, that's right. The Minister of Finance pretends that those getting the COVID payment, the 20,000 of them, aren't unemployed. No, no, no. I'm not allowed to call them "on the unemployment benefit" even though they're out of work and—guess what—they're getting a benefit.
So the challenge for the Government, my challenge to them, is to face facts. Don't bury your head in the sand when you're talking about the size of the economic crisis and when talking about jobs. We hear them talking about jobs—where are they? Where are the jobs? Jobs aren't in an announcement. Jobs aren't when you announce something. In terms of the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF), let's look at the record of that. Are we at 1,400 jobs? Ten thousand were promised. Oh, but no, Shane Jones has been ringing around his mates to try and make sure there's a few more jobs created out of the PGF. Created and employed and existing are not the same thing. 
So, when this side of the House talks about creating jobs, let's look at some of the jobs that were created through infrastructure projects, for example. The Cambridge section of the Waikato Expressway: 300 jobs; 30 of those were people on benefit who weren't in jobs prior. So that's what National means. When we talk about the ability through infrastructure, through a strong economic plan to create jobs, we know we can deliver. If I look at the people in my electorate who are in work because of initiatives we put in place, they struggled through the global financial crisis, but 10,000 jobs a month were created. They were real jobs, real jobs for real people, and I really worry—I really worry—about the next couple of months, particularly when we see the wage subsidy lift. I accept it was a great initiative and great to see money out the door, but there are now 452,000 people on the wage subsidy. Their banks won't lend them money, because they say anybody supported by the wage subsidy is in a vulnerable job.
So what's going to happen when that ends? They'll go on to the COVID payment, many of them. Oh, but that's not unemployment benefit. Yeah right! They've lost their job, and for every person who loses their job, that's a family unable to provide for themselves. That's why, unashamedly, this side of the House focuses on the absolute critical importance of real jobs, because real people, in real need, need the ability to earn an income. That's why, in terms of our plan, it's a strong economic plan, it's based on fact, it's based on reality, and it's based on our ability to deliver for New Zealanders.
I want to finish on this, because, unfortunately, the Government has completely misunderstood what social investment is. Social investment is actually being able to change the lives of the most vulnerable New Zealanders. Unfortunately, we're going to see a growing number. This side of the House doesn't believe that purely throwing money at things solves people's difficulties. We must completely rework the way that we deliver services to those who need us most so we can change the lives of New Zealand's most vulnerable. That is why I don't support this Budget and I love this National Party.





Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): The Minister of Finance has opened up this opportunity for us to talk a wee bit about why debt has grown on the Crown balance sheet, the nature of the challenges that our economy faces, and the contrasting approaches being deployed by this side of the House, and what may come from other political parties.
First, I want to say that the member who's just resumed her seat, Louise Upston, is identifying the fact that too many people have been in receipt of the wage subsidy, without dwelling on the fact that, of all of the options before any Government, this is the one that we were advised to take with great vigour. So why did the Government decide to use this approach and rack up $13 billion to $14 billion worth of debt? Because to have done anything else would have been to imperil not only the community and societal institutions but to have totally wrecked the economy. The team of 5 million followed the lead of the Prime Minister, moved into a type of social cocooning, parts of the economy were enabled to continue—called "essential services"—but there was absolutely no credible alternative other than to keep people connected with their place of work, to give them a sense of hope, confidence, and reassurance irrespective of how deep the fangs of COVID would bite.
This was a Government that was willing to move from the historical Calvinistic approach to fiscal management into pouring money into the economy. Yes, a lot of it has gone into short-term consumption; that's because many New Zealanders do not have surplus savings to live weeks on end without regular income. I think why that is important is that, once we leave this House at the end of this week and go out and speak to Kiwis, they're going to want to know, "Yes, but what exactly are you going to do?" How precisely are you going to replenish confidence in the economy or, indeed—because the economy is just people. The economy is not quadratic equations; it's consumers, it's investors, it's NGOs, it's firms, it's institutions.
Now, I'd like to talk about what the Minister of Finance has opened up in terms of the opportunities. Successive Governments have talked a big game about productivity. I think it's fair to say none of us, as parliamentarians—those of us who stretch back a few years—have seen the growth of productivity outcomes that we've always hoped to achieve. In the last 12 years, it's taken off a bit at the moment, but historically we relied on migrant labour and large volumes of it, whether it came through international education or genuine visa applications, to plug the gaps in industries where they were either unwilling to train a suitably large number of Kiwis or they were unable to invest in more capital-intensive technologies and tools of the trade. The days of unfettered access to those pools of international labour are over. Whilst there may be 300,000 people in our country holding visas of some description, and it is important that they continue to enjoy a level of confidence, as has been the case with the extension, and it is important that we encourage and enable them to move around Aotearoa freely so they can take up roles while we transition ourselves out, the economic model where we outsource a lot of the responsibilities to international pools of labour, or to labour hire firms—those days are over.
Secondly, in order for us to really make productivity gains, let's take two simple answers—simple remedies. I actually believed in quite a lot of what the old regime was doing in terms of irrigation. However, I accepted, when we formed the Government, that a number of those schemes had led to societal outcomes that were repugnant in many respects, because of the localised and intensive negative effect on the environment when you married irrigation to poor farming practices. But, unless we continue to invest in water networks, water storage, water resilience, we are not—in the post-COVID environment—going to capture enough economic surplus to plug the gap of $20 billion worth of foreign exchange earnings that have disappeared. Now, it hasn't really disappeared at that volume, because Kiwis aren't going overseas and buying foreign exchange; so the wedge is smaller. But we are going to have to look back to these legacy industries. So, for those reasons, the work that we've been able to roll out with water storage—not on the grand scale of the Waimea Dam, and I hope there's a solution to that very, very shortly—is something that all parties are going to have to grapple with.
Thirdly, are we going to sit by and watch, over the next few years, legacy industries hollowed out of New Zealand? I, personally, am deeply concerned about that. I'm very persuaded by the notion that, if we're going to have a transition in a post-COVID environment from legacy industrial investments, whether it's the refinery near where I hail from, whether it's the aluminium smelter in Murihiku, whether it's the steel mill, there's quite frankly an almost existential question about the character and the nature of our economy. If we're not going to support, encourage, or maintain those industries, what is going to replace them? And, not unlike the fact that I grew up in a rural environment in the Far North, I look not only to technology; I look at the endowments that surround us in terms of what Mother Nature's got on offer, which is why, if we are going transition out of these carbon-rich industries, it's important that we do not end up in a position where we're exporting jobs and importing carbon. This is going to be a challenge irrespective of who the Government is in the future.
So, for those reasons, if, for example, one of those industries is aquaculture, the leadership of Murihiku, of Southland, told Mr Patterson, myself, the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister, and I presume the Deputy Prime Minister has been told as well, that unless we put money aside to help underwrite the risk—and that's an incredibly vital role for the Crown. Now, the other side may pooh-pooh that; they may say you're endangering, you're imperilling the Crown balance sheet, but, as with all major transitions in the past, the Crown does pick up the pieces, either through the welfare system or through retraining. The view that I've been pushing through the Provincial Growth Fund stewardship role that I've been privileged to hold is that, if we are going to transition, the Crown has to move and blend its efforts with the private sector so we de-risk the cost, we de-risk the challenges of the transition. And, as I said, if it is aquaculture, society has to ensure that it gets a return for its entitlement, its ownership interest in the commons. So we have a situation where, if we're going to create a new multibillion-dollar industry—which I'm very enthusiastic about—in terms of ocean ranching, ocean farming, that we stop, as the last regime learnt, promising these things without making the hard decisions to reform the statutory processes and reform the actual regulatory frameworks.
For those reasons, the things that have been raised by Minister Grant Robertson are actually very accurate. He has set aside some pūtea, $14 billion to $15 billion, and a future Government can dedicate some of that pūtea to this de-risking exercise, because there is no way that we are going to transition without the Crown either being actively involved, helping to de-risk it, or indeed in some cases leading it in provincial New Zealand, which is what we have done. Which is why the Provincial Growth Fund—and it was only ever going to be around for three years, and it's actually not $3 billion, it's $3.3 billion; it actually grew under my stewardship. The point that I'm making, though, is that that is an incredibly active and valuable example of how the Crown can take a role of enablement and empowerment. It's been widely acclaimed in the provinces, it is occasionally subject to shrewish behaviour from members on the other side of the House, but I assure you, whenever there's an opening, wherever there's an announcement, they elbow me out of the way to arrive and celebrate the occasion with my good self. Thank you very much.





Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to speak to this Budget and appropriations bill. I want to speak to some of the points that the Minister of Finance, the Hon Grant Robertson, has raised, particularly around the increase in the Vote Health Budget and the appropriation and the pre- and post-coronavirus situation, which he also described in some detail, particularly the contribution to the coronavirus response. 
I want to set this, first of all, in a big-item summary of where we are with health: with burgeoning DHB deficits, $2 billion over three years; I think we've got more Crown monitors now, as we're concluding this Parliament, than before the Parliament started; and we've got areas of contention around the health system, such as the Christchurch rebuild, which is making very small progress, and, I believe, was in an urgent meeting last night.
Now, the Minister has talked about the Budget appropriation for health and he's talked about the appropriation for coronavirus. I want to talk to why the figure is so large in the Budget and in the appropriation, because it's a consequence of previous decisions or, more specifically, it's a consequence of us not learning as a country. We had three opportunities, three sets of infectious disease that we could have learnt from, that would make this Budget and this appropriation significantly different; we squandered that experience. We squandered the learning from those three episodes, which I'll describe here now, that make this Budget and appropriation what it is—the Government did not learn from those.
Let me go through them. First, we had a meningitis outbreak, a Third World disease. Six children died. Unfortunately, it was in Matt's and my electorate—a meningitis outbreak; Third World disease. There were some experiences which we could have learnt from that would have affected this appropriation. It would have been less, I would contend, if we'd have carried that experience forward, and I'll tie it into coronavirus and the coronavirus appropriation as well, and I'll tell you what those are. 
First of all, we could have modelled the outbreak better. Again, I'll tie that back into how that would have been useful for other outbreaks. Vaccine supply became an issue—we had a single supplier and, as you'll recall, Pharmac kept 20,000 secret. Contact tracing for meningitis: really important. We had a training run with an infectious disease on contact tracing, vaccine supply, and modelling, before coronavirus hit us. We could have learnt from that and done better; this appropriation could be different.
Then, about six to eight months later, we had a measles outbreak. A different sort of disease but getting close to what coronavirus looks like, certainly from an airborne situation, and, again, having an impact on this appropriation. There were some things we could have learnt from this second infectious disease that would have affected this and the coronavirus budget that the Minister was talking about that he's put on the Table, that we're voting through here today.
It's very interestingly the same three things that we could have learnt from meningitis: modelling and predicting the outbreak—again, I'll come to coronavirus and tie this in also; vaccine supply, we ran out of measles vaccines; and contact tracing—really important parts to our coronavirus response. This was our second testing run. This was our second training run here in New Zealand. We had that information. It was our living laboratory, if you like. We had the opportunity to learn from our second infectious disease for this Government and look at those important aspects of modelling, vaccine supply, and contact tracing.
We knew that we needed to do better with contact tracing, because we had the backpacker who developed measles in the Bay of Plenty, who then hopped on Cathay Pacific after doing Air New Zealand, I think it was, to Auckland and then Cathay Pacific back to Germany, infectious all the way. Did we call Cathay Pacific? No. Did we call Air New Zealand? No. Our contact tracing was appalling. We knew that back then, and yet we didn't seem to learn from it. That would have made a substantial difference to this Budget that's being put on the Table here today. We did not learn from it. Did officials even call backpackers around New Zealand, saying, "Look, you're in a high-risk environment for this disease."? No, we did not.
I think the fourth thing that's interesting is: modelling, vaccine, contact tracing, personal protective equipment (PPE). We didn't have the right PPE for measles. We were late with PPE for coronavirus, and that had a huge financial impact on this appropriation that we're now signing through.
We could have learnt from those two episodes. But, do you know what? We actually had a third run as well, because the flu vaccine 2019 also ran short of supply. Another infectious disease—our third one in the hands of this Government, all in this Government, our third opportunity to learn and do better; we didn't know that coronavirus was coming. Our third opportunity to do better, and what happened? We ran out of flu vaccines again—the third infectious disease. It also showed us how poor our modelling store was, now 18 months later. It also created perverse behaviours and incentives, some of which I'm not very happy with, which we also saw during coronavirus.
For example, when the paediatric flu vaccine ran out—this is the one that you can pay for privately as a parent—what did big pharma do? Try and get more vaccines? No, they increased the price—they increased the price to manage their inventory. There's something very wrong with that, and that's only discoverable through an Official Information Act (OIA) request—with Pharmac, actually. There's something very wrong with that—that, as the paediatric flu vaccine was running out, big pharma, the sole supplier, increased their price to maintain their inventory. They didn't manage the children; they managed their inventory. Surely, our mission is to vaccinate more children. Their greater task was to get more vaccines in, not to increase the price—as Pharmac said in the OIA, they successfully managed their inventory by increasing the price. That's a perverse behaviour; that's not a good behaviour. I'm very uncomfortable with that, and I suspect we've seen parts of that through coronavirus as well.
Now, let's move to the post-coronavirus situation, which the Minister talked about and said he had allocated a significant amount as part of this recovery. Again, no more than four or five months ago, we were running out of flu vaccines. What is it with flu vaccines and this Government? Why can't they model? Why can't we get this right? Why can't we figure this out so that we have a logistics chain that meets the needs, so that we've modelled what the needs are? I accept that we used more vaccines because, by intention, we asked people to come in earlier, and so we gave more of them. That was the correct thing to do. But we must have had some robustness of the logistics chain behind that so that we didn't run out like we did.
The solution? Well, the solution has been—and this is what part of the Budget will pay for—to get 400,000 flu vaccines from the Northern Hemisphere. That might seem reasonable, except here's the problem: New Zealand experts at the beginning of the year—in fact, last year—said there are four strains that we're going to need in New Zealand this winter: four strains in winter 2020. We run out of flu vaccines, what does Pharmac do? They buy the rejects from the Northern Hemisphere—400,000 of them; the problem is that they only cover two of the strains. The four strains that we were told we need—that, if you had your flu vaccine probably up to about June, you got—you do not get today. You get two of the four; you are 50 percent covered. Oh, by the way, I'm wondering if you're consented for that and if, when you're getting the flu vac, they say, "Hey, look, I need to tell you, we're actually only vaccinating you for half of the effectiveness that you should have. Oh, and by the way, I'm actually consenting to give you two strains that will give you no benefit." Oh, that's going to raise interesting ACC and adverse reaction sort of questions. Knowingly injecting people with vaccines that won't work—that's going to be an interesting dilemma coming down the pipeline if we get problems.
But what it talks to is that we haven't learnt from three instances of infectious diseases that brings us here today, that brings this appropriation to the size, figure, and type that it is. We squandered the learning we could have had that would have changed this. I'm not saying that it might have changed our overall coronavirus uptake, if you like—I'm not saying that at all, but our response could have been better. This Budget and this appropriation could have been better as well.
I think what I want to summarise, then, is to say that I think it's been a challenging time for this Government in Government. I think, if we look at their infrastructure, I do quite like the inventory that they've done, and I acknowledge there's work to be done there. It's not clear to me in this appropriation where infrastructure—the purported $14 billion that needs to be applied into Vote Health to pick up infrastructure—I'm not seeing too much here in this appropriation that's talking to that. So, yep, identified the problem, maybe, but then what's your solution? We know that it was $598 million, I think, in the last Budget for capital improvements; I'm not seeing anything of late as a top up or any sort of notices. Maybe it will come down the trail somewhere in the next few weeks, but I just wanted to point that out: fine to identify the problem, but come with solutions as well. 
That's what you'll see from our health manifesto somewhere in the next couple of weeks. You'll see the problem well identified, well discovered, well authenticated, with solutions that make sense, that New Zealanders will get, and we'll proudly stand behind that manifesto and we'll do a more efficient job than this Budget. Thank you, Madam Speaker.





MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Kia orana. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, as everyone in this House has been saying today, we, as a country—as a world—have come through a time. So I stand to give the Greens' support for the Appropriation (2020/21 Estimates) Bill.
Yes, while we have come through COVID, while COVID did absolutely shine a massive light on existing crises and problems and challenges that we have long had, we also recognise that this Government's Budget 2020 was also a response to some of the new challenges that we have been made aware of, that we have a responsibility to confront face on, head on. So, in my summary of the appropriation bill today, I wanted to remind the House that we have been hearing from the people, from the world, from movements around the whole planet, and certainly here in Aotearoa, that we need to recognise now more than ever that actually right now is the latest possible time that we can recognise taking all action towards having a stable climate, making sure that we have a thriving environment, and making sure that everyone has what they need to live decent lives. So the Greens were pleased and worked hard with Ministers and as Ministers across Government to see some of the outcomes and some of the appropriations that we saw in Budget 2020.
I also did want to recognise and acknowledge that, as a global pandemic came upon us and came to our shores, a lot of quick work was done to pull this Budget back together. There was a lot of going right back to the drawing board that very urgently many of us, and across our parties, had been working on for a year at least—plus—and had been carefully planning all sorts of ideas about how we were going to make good spends with the people's money. Then very quickly we had to change tack quite a bit. We had to step up very quickly; we had to respond. We also realised that, due to the global pandemic, we were spending up to 10 times more than what we normally would in any one Budget. So this was mammoth work—this was mammoth work.
For example, I was really proud of the quick work that the Greens were able to work with Government Ministers to announce the $1.1 billion appropriation for Jobs for Nature. I just would like to mention that I heard a bit of pooh-poohing going on from across the Opposition benches of the House tonight just now about these important jobs. So I just wanted to talk a little bit more about what these jobs and what this appropriation actually entails. It will make sure that we are restoring our wetlands and improving—they are the lungs of our earth as well—the health of rivers and estuaries and waterways.
The Jobs for Nature fund: that also works and supports councils, tourism, businesses, iwi and hapū, and communities to provide these nature-based jobs. It included an appropriation for enhancing nature and indigenous biodiversity, something that the world has been tracking downwards on, and the amount of indigenous species and the amount of biodiversity that our world has been destroying for decades at an alarming rate. We have to celebrate $154.3 million towards restoring and enhancing indigenous biodiversity. Really pleased to see $147.5 million for pest control and eradication, including advancing the Predator Free NZ vision.
What is not important about all of this work? That is crucial, not just as momentary jobs and employment—especially in the face of COVID-19 job losses—but it actually sets up our country for generations to come. That actually is able to provide decent jobs, to provide people with the ability to look after their families and feel like they are in control of deciding what they want to reach from their own lives and their own communities. At the same time, making sure we are protecting the most valuable asset that our country has ever had, which is our whenua, our waters, our soil, our ngahere, our place.
That wasn't all. It includes $100 million for extensive wilding conifer control, something which for years many good people in our communities around the country have been battling, and not always successfully in light of the massive challenge. So putting more support towards doing that work—$40 million for pest and weed control on Crown land as well, and $27.5 million to get the ballooning populations of wallabies in the Bay of Plenty, Waikato, Canterbury, and Otago under control.
I did want to spend a bit of time in my reply on this Budget appropriations bill speech because we cannot underestimate the infrastructure that these types of jobs are providing, including in our regions, where, yes, for some decades, if not centuries, we have neglected to see the potential for how our regions and our rural communities—which I have had the privilege of growing up in and belonging to—could actually be leading a modern response, a modern economy, a response to be able to help us all to confront the massive crises of climate change, environmental degradation, and inequality. It can absolutely come from the leadership and the enduring solutions that our people in our regions and our rural communities have long understood and know best about what their places are able to offer.
It didn't stop there. In this appropriations bill, we also saw a focus put on housing to make sure that we in this House understand housing to be a core public good and a fundamental human right, and not simply just a tradable commodity to increase the wealth for those already wealthy while the majority of this country are finding it hard to put roots down in an affordable, warm, healthy, secure home where they can keep their families and their children connected and forming relationships in their own communities, because people can feel stable and secure in the place that they live. So I was very pleased to see $570 million set aside to support the delivery of 8,000 new homes—6,000 of which will be public housing, and 2,000 which will be transitional homes—and making sure that we are responding to those families and those people who at this moment are unable to find affordable and permanent housing.
We also made sure that there was significant investment in making sure that everyone has warm, healthy homes. So we put $56 million towards the Government's insulation and heating programme. We know that around 600,000 households are unacceptably damp and cold, that that should not be a reality in this country, that we have enough to make sure this isn't a reality. So I wanted to highlight, just briefly there, a couple of the initiatives that we were very proud to have worked on and supported this Government to be able to deliver.
I also will mention the extra funding boost for family violence services, led by our amazing MP Jan Logie, and how we will continue to support the Government to work towards its commitment to end family and sexual violence in Aotearoa in a way that works with people, that collaborates across agencies, business communities, NGOs, whānau, Māori, tangata whenua. This is a world-first way of working from a Government perspective. So I wanted to acknowledge the extra funding and the massive injection of that funding to support the essential family violence services, those at the front line who have been doing so well for a long time with barely enough at all.
So the Greens are very proud to have supported these initiatives coming through Budget 2020. We also know that there is a lot more to be done. So our first idea and plan out the door was our Poverty Action Plan, which provides a guaranteed minimum income so that everyone in this country not in full-time paid work has an income that they can rely on, and that we have what we need to be able to provide this security for everyone. It just simply needs to be shared better. Thank you, Madam Speaker.





Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a great pleasure to speak on this and, as is customary, really to offer a few thoughts about the Budget—about, actually, the, I suppose you'd call it, "special" Budget that followed, where $52 billion - odd was spent by the Government—and thoughts from me and, I'm sure, Opposition colleagues about the issues they present. If I can offer a defence of my unsuccessful time as leader: when I gave speeches at both the Budget and on the $52 billion spend following that, I made a number of criticisms and critiques of the Government, and I think actually they've aged well. Those criticisms have been proven right. Where I made clear that the wage subsidy was defective, quite quickly after, actually, Grant Robertson, to his credit, made changes to the policies, and the Opposition, in that regard, made what the Government has done stronger, better, more fit for purpose. If there's a theme, for me, on what we've seen over these three years and in the appropriations estimates through the Budget process, it really is simply this: this Government ultimately, after the kind words, the good words, the decent words are finished, doesn't have serious policies and plans that they can implement for New Zealand.
We see that very starkly throughout this process. When we think about the economy that Grant Robertson talks about, we see a situation where, ultimately, the Labour Party, the New Zealand First Party, and the Green Party in Government are going to saddle this country with much more debt than is required. I'm not advocating—no one on this side; it's scaremongering, frankly, from the Prime Minister to say so—for austerity. We're just not making that point. We know, on this side of the House, because we did it—the global financial crisis and the earthquakes, borrowing some $50 billion more—what is required in these sorts of circumstances. But to borrow, as we've seen in the Budget and post-Budget decisions and announcements from this Government, $140 billion more is excessive, is bad for future generations, who will pay the bill, and, inevitably, and, I think, inevitably in the next term, will result in more taxes on ordinary, decent, hard-working New Zealanders who play by the rules.
That debt—I suppose there's at least two points we should make there. The first one is this: if the spending we saw here was basically all, or even mostly all, good stuff, going on real things in the ground that made a difference for productivity, that helped Kiwi families, we might say, "Great." But I have been flabbergasted by the way we've seen announcement after announcement from Minister Jones, from Minister Twyford, from Minister Woods, and from other Ministers on that side of the House—literally every day; $20 million here, $47 million there, $58 million here, $73 million there—with no business cases, with no sense of prioritisation, with no sense of the value of a dollar that has to be earned by Kiwis and paid in taxes for this Government to spend it. There's just been no sense of that value of taxpayers' hard-earned money through the Budget and the appropriations, and so on—lots of spend-ups, lazy spend-ups, that I don't believe are good for New Zealand or are delivering good value for money. And so we say: you know what, on this side of the House, we would be more careful with taxpayers' money.
It doesn't mean austerity. It means more investment in health, more investment in education, more investment in infrastructure—
Hon Aupito William Sio: Come on!
Hon SIMON BRIDGES: And yes, William, sir, more investment in roads, maybe even in your electorate, because we know the value and the productivity that comes with those things. They haven't delivered any roads in my electorate, but I would in theirs—that's all I'm saying. So we haven't seen that.
The second point I would make about debt, in addition to the laziness of this spend, the wastefulness of this spend, and the lack of delivery in real terms and real outcomes from this spend, is just to dwell once again on that quantity of it: $140 billion. We've seen nothing like that before in the history of this nation, and we may never see anything, in real terms, like that again. I mean, Bill English, in his best Budgets from that side of the House, when he had new additional spending, we never got much past a bill' or two, and yet here we've got $140 billion over four years. And, by the way, that works out, broadly speaking, at $80,000 a household. So, for a mum and dad or a young couple who don't have a mortgage, this gives them one. If they're renting, they've already got a mortgage without the property. For that couple that does have a mortgage, this Government is giving them a second mortgage, and I say that's not good enough. That will result in more taxes, and you mark my words, Madam Speaker: a year after the election, Budget 2021, if there's a Labour-led Government, there will be more wealth and other taxes coming on New Zealanders. They say, "Well, no, but this person won't have to pay." Ultimately, someone does have to pay, and that is ordinary, good, decent, hard-working Kiwis who play by the rules.
I don't see a plan for jobs, and we know, and we'll see later this week, the latest job figures. What they will show, those employment and unemployment figures, is—there's just no question about it—they're going up. By the way, we know that at the end of this year it will be much, much worse—tens of thousands of Kiwis who were in work who now aren't in work and no plan for that. 
And that leads me, really, in the remaining couple of minutes, to just this fundamental point—I started on it, I alluded to it, and I want to come back to it—about the Budget, about the plans economically and the appropriations and estimates that we've seen in this House over the last two to three years: there just isn't a sense of policy development or plans for the future. We really don't have, in the last days of this Parliament, any sense of what another term of a Labour-led Government will look like. It's effectively a Government that is cynically relying on the feel-good factor, the health sense of COVID-19, without any real sense of the problems coming. I give credit for where we've got to on health. Look, I am deeply grateful that we are not in a COVID19 situation like Victoria, Australia, but I do say on the future issues: if you go by the track record of the last two to three years, Budget 2020, Budget 2019 and so on, and the decisions that have been made in spending, the debt that's been piled on, the taxes that, sure as eggs, are coming on New Zealanders, so far we are very light on real policies and plans for the future of Aotearoa New Zealand. Our country, this election, deserves that real contest, and they haven't seen from the Labour Party benches any sense of what they're bringing to it thus far.





TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
Hon Willie Jackson: Negative, negative.
TĀMATI COFFEY: Yes, very negative from that side of the House—very negative; too negative, in fact—which is why they're going to be sitting in Opposition for another three years. Look, we're here to talk about Budget 2020 and the investment that this Government has put into the people of New Zealand. We've gone through COVID-19, we had a strong health response led by this side of the House—led by this side of the House because we knew that the right thing to do was to go hard, to go early. We knew that we'd have to sort out the economic response as well. We are doing that, and when the member opposite, the member for Tauranga, stands there and says, "There is no plan for jobs", he must have been living in a cave, because there has been so much investment into jobs. 
When we talk about the investment, we're talking about all kinds of things. The wage subsidy scheme: that's an investment into the people, the many people that found themselves, through no fault of their own, without a job. We extended the wage subsidy scheme; that's gone and helped a few more people to be able to get back on their feet. The cash-flow loan scheme was also a big help to small businesses that chose to take it up, really favourable conditions on that, and I know plenty—and have spoken with plenty—of businesses that have seen that and said, "Thank you to the Government for actually being able to stand here and help us to get through this incredibly tough time." 
When we're talking about the Māori spend, there's nothing that warms my heart more than knowing that we boosted support for Whānau Ora. Whānau Ora, which, during COVID-19, actually helped our people to be able to get through, reached out into small rural communities, Māori communities, and actually delivered for them the basics—the things like kai, things like hygiene packs, things like masks—to be able to give them some reassurance that actually the Government was on their side. Two hundred million dollars was appropriated in a Māori employment package, and that's what the member for Tauranga needs to hear. He Poutama Rangatahi, Mana in Mahi, Māori cadetships and apprenticeships—all of these, when they're layered together, are an attempt by this Government to be able to transition people who might find themselves without jobs. Whether or not that happened before COVID or after COVID, we still need to make sure that we're graduating our people into good, worthwhile jobs, and that's what we've gone and done. 
But, I would like to briefly talk about the impact on tourism and the investment that this Government has put in: $400 million. We were pleased at Whakarewarewa, over the weekend, to have the Minister of Tourism there to be able to talk about the significant investment—$400 million—into our tourism sector, to be able to ensure that jobs were kept and people were looked after. This is a great Budget, and this side of the House is relentlessly positive.
Debate interrupted.





VALEDICTORY STATEMENTS
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I suspect that when I look back on my life, it will divide into two periods: before 2020 and after 2020. The year 2020 has been an extraordinary year for all of us. Can anyone really believe that it is still only August and not, in fact, 2025? For my family and me, it hasn't just been about the incredible effort of responding to COVID-19 and the lockdown; there was the near end of our marriage, the death of my father, and now the end of my political career. We even had to put the dog to sleep a few weeks ago. It's been a rough year. Just two weeks ago, I was not preparing to deliver my valedictory speech, but here I am, ready and happy to say goodbye.
I am leaving Parliament because I can no longer serve as a Minister, and I can no longer serve as a Minister because some of my actions have not been congruent with the expectations we should all have of Ministers or anyone in a position of power or leadership. As Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety and as a leader in my office, it was not appropriate to have a private relationship with a staff member in a department that reported to me and who worked directly with my office. We must recognise not only the imbalance of power involved but also the impact such a relationship can have on a workplace. That's why I have to go. Anyone who thinks otherwise hasn't been paying attention. Just because it was tolerated in the past doesn't mean it ought to be in 2020.
I apologise to my family. The trauma they have experienced has been excruciating. First, there was the trauma of our own private business. Then there was the dehumanising trauma of being used for headlines and clickbait by an industry that somehow thought it was appropriate to publish images of their house when they were at their most vulnerable. Every attack, every thoughtless and uninformed commentary, cuts at the hearts of political families. We at least get to put our case; our families don't.
I am sorry for the hurt and humiliation I have inflicted on my family and for the direct impact of my actions on so many others. My family is incredible. They are tough cookies, overflowing with resilience, and we will come out of this stronger together. My pride in each of them is boundless. Clare is a profoundly impressive schoolteacher, taking to her new career with gusto while exuding all the skills and knowledge of a seasoned pro. Laila is smashing NCEA level 1, with a string of merits and excellences. Last week, she won her school singing competition. Flynn is a leader at his school, and his football team is in an arm-wrestle to be the top junior team in Palmerston North. Scarlett is excelling at her new school and working hard to prepare for her upcoming dance competition.
A politician's loved ones are vital to their career, and I thank them deeply for the many sacrifices they have made over the years. Also vital is an army of supporters and volunteers. I can't name all the people who have contributed to my political work, but I do want to place on record the names of those who have committed considerable time and energy over the years. From the Labour Party in Palmerston North: Lorna and Craig Johnson, Mark Andrew, John Shennan, Liam Rutherford, Shane Field, Finda Hope, Therese McCrea, David and Katherine Chisholm, Ros and Russell Hallam, Zulfiqar Butt, and Frank Bolton. My parliamentary staff, both in Palmerston North and here: the late Graham Keenan, Joyce Squire, Helen Toner, Mark Johnson, Kerry Holden, Robyn Barnett, and Sonya Holm. And in my ministerial office: Jeff Sissons, Haidee Hemsley, Joy Gribben, Marie McCafferty, Lisa Kinloch, Phil Reed, and Semi Kuresa.
Thanks also to the stakeholders in my portfolios—in particular, the Council of Trade Unions and Business New Zealand. We have had a very constructive and genuinely tripartite relationship that has served us well as we navigated an abundance of unexpected challenges during this term. Of course, we didn't always agree, but agree or not, it was always a friendly, respectful relationship that helped us get a lot done.
This term of Parliament will be remembered for the strength, kindness, and compassion of New Zealanders and the leadership of Jacinda Ardern in the face of three extraordinary events: the horrific terrorist attack in Christchurch, the eruption of Whakaari / White Island, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Each of those events demanded an extraordinary response in my portfolios. I pay tribute to Immigration New Zealand, WorkSafe, ACC, and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment for the exceptional way they responded to those events, for supporting and caring for people directly affected, and for the support they provided me as we made difficult decisions that had a profound impact on people's lives at a speed that would ordinarily terrify public servants. At the beginning of the term, I would never have guessed that I would be the immigration Minister who closed the border. I mean, I knew we were going into coalition with New Zealand First, but it still never crossed my mind.
Even with those tragedies, we were able to achieve a lot this term. I was lucky enough to introduce this Government's first piece of legislation: the extension of paid parental leave to 26 weeks. [Members applaud] Thanks to Sue Moroney, who should be getting the applause, for a ready-made bill, and because of that it was a relatively straightforward exercise.
The Equal Pay Amendment Bill was a different story. We inherited legislation that did not have the support of the working women it was meant to help, so we went back to the drawing board, gained a new consensus, and introduced fresh legislation. That bill went to select committee and came back with sensible amendments. At that point, key stakeholders who had submitted at select committee threw out the drawing board and demanded significant changes. I'm not going to follow the Hon Nikki Kaye's lead and repeat my response word for word, but let's just say it was brought to you by the letters "W", "T", and "F". But given the importance of getting the framework right, we got to work. It took over a year of pain and patience on all sides to get the bill passed. The fact that the phrase "Minister, we'd just like to raise one more thing." causes me to break out in a cold sweat is just an amusing side effect. More importantly, we now have a bargaining framework that should see thousands of working women get the pay they deserve.
If stakeholder relationships can be hard to manage, they've got nothing on coalition relationships. My first foray into coalition territory was the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. Labour and New Zealand First agree that the lowest-paid and most vulnerable workers need to get greater protection, but we clearly have distinct views on how to achieve that. Even so, we have restored workers' rights to rest and meal breaks. Vulnerable workforces are better protected by Part 6A of the Act. Workers are now in a stronger bargaining position when negotiating employment agreements, and the fire-at-will, 90-day trials now only apply to 29 percent of workers.
It's no secret that immigration has been a point of difference across all three parties in Government. Despite that, we got a lot done. We increased the refugee quota to 1,500, and we got rid of the unjustifiable discrimination that meant almost no refugees from Africa and the Middle East were able to resettle in New Zealand. We also made significant changes to the way temporary work visas will be issued in the future. A poorly functioning system created too many opportunities for exploitation and undermined efforts to improve wages, domestic skill levels, and working conditions. Over the next 18 months, our changes mean the temporary visa system will become easier to navigate for both migrants and employers, will reduce the risk of exploitation, and will assist in Labour's ambition to build a more productive, more sustainable, and more inclusive economy—Grant Robertson.
We have also just invested $50 million to prevent exploitation, protect migrants, and strengthen enforcement action against exploiters. We must not tolerate the abuse of workers. The recent conviction for slavery in Hawke's Bay demonstrates that the most extreme exploitation does occur in New Zealand and that we were right to prioritise tackling it. That work must continue. I agree with the call last week from Walk Free that New Zealand should pass modern slavery legislation akin to that in the UK and Australia. Immigration sector agreements will play a part in building good workplaces. They will allow bespoke immigration settings in return for agreed improvements to wages, training opportunities, and workforce planning so that migrant workers and New Zealanders will benefit. When we are able to reopen the border, these changes will serve us well. One thing I was determined to do as immigration Minister was reopen the parent category. It took time to get consensus and the income thresholds are far too high, but we got the category reopened and that is a good start.
Twelve years of advocating for Palmerston North constituents has been one of the most rewarding parts of the job. There are literally thousands of stories of the people who have come to us for help. I would like to relay just one.
Early in my first term a woman came to see us because the medication on which she relied was no longer funded. It was an unusual case where the medication was being used outside its normal purpose and therefore not funded by Pharmac, but because it was working for her the DHB had provided it. But under pressure from the new health Minister to cut costs, the DHB decided to stop. To protect her privacy, I won't go into the details, but the effect of losing that medication had a disastrous physical and psychological impact on my constituent. Her first disclosure of contemplating suicide was to be—long story short, we got the DHB to see sense and the funding for her medication was restored. When she came in to thank us, she wept on my shoulder for a full five minutes. We had changed and possibly saved her life. That's why we all do this job.
Serving just one term as a Minister, there is naturally a little bit of unfinished business. Top of the list is fair pay agreements. While our labour market works well for many people, far too many people continue to miss out on the benefits of a well-managed economy. We are unusual amongst OECD nations for not having some form of sector level collective bargaining, and that contributes to unnecessary inequality. 
I had the privilege of meeting some of our lowest paid workers while we were consulting on fair pay agreements, people working two or three jobs or working 60 hours a week who still couldn't always pay the basic bills to keep a roof over their heads, food on the table, and clothes on their kids. These are our supermarket workers, our cleaners, our security guards—the very people who were looking after us as essential workers during the COVID-19 lockdown, the very people we relied on every day. This must change and I challenge this House to take every opportunity to build a society where we value everyone's work, pay them enough to live on, and treat them with respect. 
We have worked hard to get the fair pay agreements policy in good shape, and with a little more work early next term and a Government made up of parties unequivocally in favour, it can be turned into legislation and implemented. We all know the Holidays Act needs reform. Previous Ministers shied away from what is an exceptionally difficult policy area, but with the support of both Business New Zealand and the Combined Trade Unions we decided to tackle it, and we now have a good plan that's ready to implement next term.
One of my great disappointments is that it was not possible to get consensus around a coherent and fair way forward on issues relating to residency visas during this term of Government. However, I am confident that this can be addressed in the near future with a plan that will satisfy our migrant and business communities.
Some thoughts from someone with the luxury of not seeking re-election: ACC is a taonga and we don't know how lucky we are to have it. But we politicians have decided that ACC should be limited to covering injury, whereas illness is covered by the health system. I will never forget meeting a constituent—the Hon Ruth Dyson may have more to say about this shortly. I will never forget meeting with a constituent who lost three limbs to meningitis, who rightly pointed out that if she had lost those same limbs in a car accident, she would have been considerably better off financially and would have received superior treatment and support. That is impossible to justify. Health should also be run as a social insurance scheme, and New Zealanders should expect the same support whether they are injured or they fall ill. Speaking of social insurance schemes, we should have one for unemployment insurance, a proper one, not the miserly scheme offered up by the ACT Party.
And, finally—colleagues, hold on—our universal superannuation entitlement is unsustainable. People just live longer. It's true, though, that abandoning universality or just increasing the age of entitlement are both likely to hit the people who need the most support the hardest. So here's a thought: a means-tested entitlement from age 60 and a universal entitlement from age 70. As I said, I don't have to get re-elected, but I'll leave that one with you. 
A lot has been said recently about the culture of this place. It is a hard place to work and not somewhere that I actually plan to stay much longer. But the work is incredibly rewarding. Making a real difference in people's lives, whether it's at an individual level or as a local MP, or for thousands of people as a Minister implementing policy, that's what drives us all, no matter what party we're from, and that's why we keep coming back even though it often feels like madness. So while I'm happy to be going, I'm also incredibly happy to have been here. And whatever the future holds, I wish every member of this House happiness and success.
The last two weeks have shown me who my true friends are, and a lot of them are here in this Chamber. I will miss working with you, especially my good mates Carmel Sepuloni and Deborah Russell. I look forward to spending more time with you away from here, far away from here, with my other friends as well, and with my family, who I have definitely not prioritised enough over the last 12 years. And on that note, I've got to get home. See you.
[Applause]





RAYMOND HUO (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you for calling me by my name. Raymond is, of course, my English name. My Chinese name is 建 强—J-i-a-n-q-i-a-n-g. I learnt a long time ago from you guys that trying to get it pronounced correctly could be painful. I can't Anglicise my last name, my family name, 霍—H-u-o. Many people get it confused and call me "Mr Hyo", "Mr Hao", "Mr Who", and French people may certainly call me "Mr 'Uo", because "h" is silent in French. Let me borrow the wisdom of the American-Chinese comedian Dr Joe Wong: "If my last name does get pronounced 'Who', that may well be my campaign slogan—'Who cares'." 
Unlike the usual valedictory speeches about achievements, etc., I'd like first of all to reflect on what I have not achieved. I used to be Labour's spokesperson for building and construction, and I had a good debate with the Government Minister about the building law review. I even accused him of taking a piecemeal approach. I chanted along with the sector that "CCC" is not a "CCC", and a code compliance certificate should not be replaced with consent completion certificate without having other quality-assurance measures in place. 
As recently as last week, I found out that if the clauses concerning CCC had not been implemented, although the initial time line for this change was later in 2012. Perhaps what we insisted on then was right, but I couldn't convince the Minister, could I? 
I sponsored at least four member's bills. None of them were drawn from the ballot. 
Hon Ruth Dyson: Seek leave. 
RAYMOND HUO: Thank you, the Hon Ruth Dyson. The bill on export education was designed to give the New Zealand Qualifications Authority more powers to tighten rules about the lower end of the private training establishments having international or national titles in their business names. In China, Japan, Korea, and other Asian countries, such names are only reserved for reputable institutes matching their national or international status. It's important for us to protect our international education industry, which contributes about $6 billion every year to our local economy, and it is our fifth-largest export industry. I have full confidence that post-COVID-19, we will be doing better at competing against Australia, the UK, and the US. 
The latest one is still in the ballot, and it's about the rather unusual dual system in our insolvency law. Personal insolvency is called bankruptcy, while corporate insolvency is called liquidation. The anomaly of that is that individual specialists can be appointed to liquidate a company, but only official assignees, who are salaried public officials, can be appointed to manage bankruptcy. The Law Commission issued a paper in 2001, calling it a statutory monopoly. 
Currently, about 34 official assignees employed by the Government administered less than 1,500 cases a year, operating on a budget of $17 million. Proposed changes under my bill would help save taxpayers' money and would promote business efficacy and efficiency. 
I thank the National Business Review for its report on "Aussie-style change proposes privatising bankruptcy practice", and I thank my former law partner Kalev Crossland and the Office of the Clerk, especially Linda McIver and researcher Tessa Vincent for their input into this complex issue. 
On the bright side, though, in 2010, as Labour's spokesperson for ethnic communities, I initiated the idea of New Zealand Chinese Language Week Charitable Trust, and I spent more than three years talking to relevant stakeholders nationwide, gaining consensus and support. In 2014, at the annual conference of the New Zealand China Friendship Society, I launched the language week jointly with David Bromwich, Pat English, and the Chinese Ambassador, Wang Lutong. 
The New Zealand Chinese Language Week is a Kiwi-driven initiative designed to increase the awareness of Chinese culture and language. The first of its kind in any Western country, it has become a popular event in our national calendar. I want to acknowledge Jo Coughlan, the chair, and thank her for her confidence in me and for her contribution in promoting Chinese-language learning in New Zealand. 
According to an earlier survey by the New Zealand China Council, for every $1 million of global economic activity, there are 63 school students learning French, 31 Spanish, 17 German, and 10 Japanese, but only two are studying Chinese, and China has become our largest trading partner. 
I also want to acknowledge Professor Neil Quigley, Ambassador Tony Browne, Professor Paul Spoonley, Sarah Thomson, and all the other past and present trustees. 
I want to thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me and joining me to mark the occasion with a prayer in Chinese in Parliament. 
As a list MP, I've given the job my all, and I've enjoyed my role, in particular, as the chair of the very busy Justice Committee. As a lawyer turned MP, I feel privileged to get involved in the reforms of some of the most important laws in New Zealand, such as the Trusts Bill, the Privacy Bill, and other bills such as the Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences) Bill. I acknowledge the Hon Amy Adams for the very bill she introduced as the Minister of Justice under the previous National Government. I had the privilege of having her as my deputy chair, but following her departure, things got bumpy. 
There is a book called Do You Think You're Clever?: The Oxford and Cambridge Questions. On page 73, there is a question: "Smith sees Jones walking towards a cliff. Smith knows Jones is blind, but doesn't like him, so allows him to walk off the edge. Is this murder?" 
Our initial reaction is that Smith's deliberate silence is shocking—he must be guilty. He's not—if we reframe the story that the reason Smith doesn't like Jones is because Jones is a murderer who likes to kill for pleasure. Then, Smith begins to look more like a hero than a villain. Of course, if it is Smith who is the murderer and Jones the saint trying to stop him, it all looks very different again. The point from the story is that we must have real, not circumstantial, evidence to judge someone, and why we must be extremely careful not to imagine motivations. 
Applying the story to what happened to the Justice Committee last year, should that good professor have not been critical of China but full of praise for China, would that have affected the way we voted procedurally? The answer is no, because the submissions had been closed some six months ago, and the rules should not be bent or overtaken by other political factors. To be fair to that National member, if he moved a motion to reopen the submissions to invite the professor in and I voted against it, then feel free to hold me to account. He didn't do that. Instead, he leaked a story to the media, and the rest is history. 
Surely, allegations were made that I—along with almost all active Chinese community leaders—was featured in that professor's paper. One of the reasons why I was featured was because I translated Labour's 2017 campaign slogan "Let's do this" into "撸 起 袖 子 加 油 干". It is a combination of two well-known Chinese phrases meaning "Roll up your sleeves" and "Work hard". The only problem is that it happened to be used by China's President at some stage. Therefore, I was accused of promoting their agenda—how bizarre. The story did not stop here. According to a New Zealand Herald report dated 20 September 2017, the professor also suggested a creative interpretation of the phrases, implying that it had undertones of sexual innuendo.
Much has been said about the importance of the good relationship between New Zealand and China, but this is not to deny real differences in our values and political systems. That's why we need a quality and independent debate about our differences, challenges, and any issues concerning foreign interference. The Chinese community is supporting it. But if we allow the sweeping generalisation to sink to that level, the value of the debate, if any, would be diminished, and opportunities to look at real issues would be lost. 
One such issue concerns the local Chinese-language media in New Zealand, and I have long been calling on them to adapt more to New Zealand standards and values to fulfil their role. The Chinese media plays a very important role, as a significant number of Chinese migrants rely on translated information to understand what's going on in our society. Under our Privacy Act, news media is largely exempted from the privacy principles to enable them to undertake news activities, subject to certain conditions. I'd be surprised if any of the Chinese media entities meets the criteria for the exemption. Other allegations made against them include self-censorship, journalism of opinion, and partisanship, and those factors would make the Chinese-language media in New Zealand susceptible to external influences, including foreign interference. At some stage, the two regulatory bodies—the Broadcasting Standards Authority and the New Zealand Media Council—may consider establishing a separate arm for ethnic media. Civics education and regular induction programmes for new migrants are also long overdue. But that has nothing to do with scaremongering or conspiracy theories. I support what Professor Paul Clark said in the New Zealand Herald that "we need to work across borders, not put up walls". 
The anti-China narrative is an easy story to tell, but, as Stephen Jacobi cautioned, it may, however, "unintentionally tap into a prejudice against Chinese people which has raised its head several times in our history, including in the form of a poll tax once applied to Chinese immigrants". Many Kiwi-Chinese people have made New Zealand their whānau. They're not even interested in geopolitics. So please leave them alone. To protect them from the sweeping generalisation, I have deliberately skipped all the Chinese names—as you can tell from the gallery, none of them were invited. But I do want to thank them, thank my family, thank my team, and thank the Chinese community, and especially those business leaders who over the last four terms have given—using their own words—their party votes to Labour "against their conscience". 
I owe my presence here to many people whom I consider to be my friends and mentors. To name names may unfairly omit others, but I do want to acknowledge Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and the Minister of Finance, Grant Robertson. Our health and economic responses to the COVID-19 pandemic are greatly successful. New Zealand is one of the safest countries in the world, thanks to the team of 5 million.
I'm a proud Kiwi-Chinese. Sometimes "Made in China" or "Originated from China" may not be that scary. Instead, it can be benefiting, productive, and healthy—just look at kiwifruit. 
Kia kaha. Thank you, 谢 谢 ! And goodbye 再 见 !
[Applause]





GARETH HUGHES (Green): I've started almost every single speech in this house in Te Reo Māori, and, for a last time, kia ora, ngā mihi nui, ki a koutou katoa.
Hon Members: Kia ora.
GARETH HUGHES: Kia ora. It's been such a privilege to serve here. Growing up in Gisborne, politics seemed distant. I never ever would have dreamt that I'd be an MP one day, let alone be one here for more than a decade. I arrived here dead broke. I'd been living on an NGO salary and I even had to borrow money off Jeanette Fitzsimons to buy my first suit. Embarrassingly, I could tie knots to climb tall buildings but I didn't know how to tie a tie. I entered at the age of 28, taking Jacinda Ardern's place as the baby of the House. The next year, Jacinda and I shared the award of the New Zealand Herald's backbencher of the year. If politics was a race, though, I think she's lapped me a couple of dozen times since then. I am so proud, though, as a New Zealander at such a time of global uncertainty, that she is the one leading us and inspiring the world.
I love our country, our beaches, our rivers, our forests, and our mountains, and protecting our beautiful but fragile planet has motivated my life's work. Coming from the activist world, I described my previous career at Greenpeace as banging on the outside of this place. I like to think I've spent the last 10 years banging on about the environment from the inside. In my maiden speech, I was a little bit critical about the previous Labour Government's environmental track record—I acknowledge you, Helen Clark and Michael Cullen—and I actually remember there was a member, Trevor Mallard, who actually walked out in the middle of it with a loud "Harrumph!". Mr Speaker, I hope you'll stay for this one. Can I thank you, can I thank the presiding officers like Ruth Dyson, the Parliamentary Service, the cleaners, the security, and the Clerk's Office for their amazing support. But I'd like to especially single out the Parliamentary Library. I consider their research the greatest perk a politician can have.
Sir Geoffrey Palmer once said that being a member of Parliament was the best education you could have into your country, and it's true. I've been welcomed into people's schools, farms, factories. I've learnt about people's lives, their struggles, sitting around their kitchen tables. Thank you very much for this education. Across my career, I've been party spokesperson for and thrown myself into researching energy and resources; climate change; transport; housing; tertiary education; economic development; ICT; oceans; fishing; animal welfare; biosecurity; agriculture; forestry; food; commerce and consumer affairs; broadcasting; tourism; building and construction; science, research, and development—sorry, it goes on—libraries and archives; and Wellington issues. It feels like I've studied multiple degrees. I didn't come here just to eat my lunch. The Parliamentary Library advises me I've asked 512 oral questions; thank God only a few of them were patsies.
To try and show the Greens weren't anti-rugby at the time of the 2011 Rugby World Cup, I even played on the parliamentary rugby team. In my first game, I cracked a rib. In my second game, I broke my nose. There wasn't a third. As part of my campaigns, I've swum with sharks, designed and launched a video game, crowd-sourced internet rights legislation, worked with an artist to paint a two storey - high mural, sent thousands of citizen-made origami whales to Japan to oppose their whaling, and organised rallies at Parliament and protests at the Russian Embassy. I scuba dived to launch an election policy, and protested under water. I even, rather ambitiously, once put in a formal bid for all 189,000 square kilometres of oil permits on offer with 14,000 supporters. Simon Bridges didn't give them to me. I remember passing the Red Peak bill in all stages under urgency, then literally after my speech hopping on a plane bound for the hipster capital of the world, Portland, Oregon. I've tenpin bowled in the White House basement when Obama wasn't home as part of a young political leaders programme and danced off against Kawarau's hip hop dance champion; I lost. I've had a blast, and I leave here with a treasure trove of memories, but, most importantly, my values intact. I've stuck to my principles, I've spoken my mind, and I can look at myself in the mirror knowing I haven't sold out.
Something I've tried hard to do here is always play the ball, not the person. I came here to protect the environment, not to play petty politics. I've given speeches that have gone viral, but I'm proud I've never resorted to name calling or cheap blows or insults. For 20 years now, I've campaigned for climate action, because this danger is the greatest challenge of our age. I focused here on keeping fossil fuels in the ground and encouraging clean energy. My proudest achievement was, after years of work, being part of the historic ban on offshore oil exploration. I helped negotiate the ends of tens of millions of dollars in fossil fuel subsidies, and, alongside who I call New Zealand's Erin Brockovich—Taranaki farmer Sarah Roberts—we uncovered scandalously light-handed fracking rules, and bringing that to the light of day led to serious improvements.
In our confidence and supply agreement, I've had responsibility for working on the massive sustainable farming fund, school energy project, and home insulation scheme. Achieving the 100 percent renewable electricity goal by 2035 was deeply satisfying and sets us up for a cleaner, cheaper, smarter energy future. After 16 years, it was great to finally pass Sue and Steffan's country of origin food labelling Act. Something new I learnt this term was the power of drafting amendments and, rather than waving them about, sending them privately to the Minister saying I was soon going to be waving them about. It's because of this and the mahi of others we got climate change in the Resource Management Act and interest rate caps in law.
I love our oceans, I love to scuba dive, and I love to sail. Protecting marine mammals and stopping seabed mining have been priorities for me. In opposition, I led the campaign that ended shark finning in New Zealand, I persuaded the previous Government to become a party to the successful International Court of Justice illegal whaling case, and, working with Pew, I launched the campaign to create the Kermadec Marine Reserve—but that one's still a work in progress.
History is a passion of mine, and I remember one day sitting in here sort of daydreaming and listening to some dreary debate. I was looking around the walls at the 33 memorials to famous battles where New Zealanders have fought. I noticed, though, that one was missing—our foundational conflict: the New Zealand Wars. I researched, I wrote, I lobbied and worked through committees, and I'm so glad that one now sits in pride of place above the main door. It's part of the movement to redress our collective amnesia and, for me, remind us that sovereignty wasn't ceded in a treaty; it was taken at the point of a musket. So, in terms of my impact on this place, history will judge if I've left a mark, but at least I can tell my kids I left a plaque.
Any credit I have is shared with an amazing team. I'd like to thank my executive assistants Holly Donald, Jessie Dennis, Simon Tapp, Jeremy Short, Gina Lockyer, Jonathan Martin, as well as key advisers Babs Lake, Robin Campbell, Hamish Clark, and—hey, Clint. You've got to be around here a while to know that one. I want to thank party members for their support. I've tried to repay their confidence with hard work and scrapping for every win. I joined the party in the year 2000 as an 18-year-old inspired by the breath of fresh air represented by MPs like Nandor Tanczos. Sue Kedgley, in particular, is a wonderful person, and I wouldn't be here without her. They say you shouldn't meet your heroes, but I was lucky enough to work up close with mine, Jeanette Fitzsimons, and she became a true friend. My parting message to the Green Party is: constantly ask, are we inspiring a new generation with a bold vision? Are our ambitions and work matching the scale of the environmental crisis? And are we following Jeanette's courageous example to challenge sacred cows like capitalism, colonialism, and, well, frankly, too many cows. Marama, James, "JAG", Eugenie, Jan, Chlöe, and Golriz, I'm so proud of what us eight have achieved this term.
It was a hard decision to leave now, when I believe we will be back in Government pushing further and faster next term. But I'm going because all I want to do is spend time with my family and be closer to nature. I lost my mum and my brother-in-law Stephen Nicholls last year. They were both big supports and having loved ones pass makes one re-evaluate your life. As a family, we have moved to Kamau Taurua / Quarantine Island. In the midst of a global pandemic, Quarantine Island does sound pretty appealing. It's a taonga in the middle of the Otago Harbour, and we're the only permanent residents there on this amazing ecological reserve. I plan to do some research, some writing, and take a more hands-on approach to environmental protection.
My beautiful wife, Meghan, is the new island keeper and my new boss. We've been together 20 years, and I'm so glad I get to share my life with her, now on an island far, far away from this place. She's been such a support, a rock, a counsellor, a speech writer, a critic. Thank you for stopping me from sending so many bad tweets over the years. Kids, I love you so much and I am so proud of you. Thank you, Dad, Jill, Mark, and Kerry. Arlo and Zoe have spent their entire lives only knowing Dad as an MP, always working, often travelling, and, if I'm honest, invariably distracted. Whenever I'd leave home before they were awake or came home when they were asleep, my heart broke another little piece. We had our fun times too, though. I used to have inflatable little pool toys in my office to play with the kids in the parliamentary pool. I remember, once, Barry Soper walking in while I was riding an inflatable killer whale with my son, Arlo. He just walked in and he just walked out.
Another time I arrived at work with my office surrounded by security guards investigating what looked like a break-in. There was stuff all over the floor, files scattered everywhere, paper all over the show. No, it wasn't a modern day Bowen House - gate; it was a few minutes of a toddler unsupervised. It's funny, though, because hardly anyone ever has asked me what it's like to be a father and an MP. I never saw parenthood or domestic duties as my wife's job. We purposely moved to Wellington when I was elected and I often took the kids to school and I tried to go home every night that I could to help put them to bed. I used to put a smile on and pretend that being an equal parent made me a better MP. But in all honesty, it's been hard to balance fatherhood and politics, and it's gotten even harder as I've gotten older. This job is all-consuming, especially for our partners who don't get any of the kudos. I hope this place can seriously consider how we can make it more family-friendly.
For most of my time here, I've been the Green Party musterer—"whip" is too much of a violent term for the Greens. I loved being part of the inner workings of Parliament and supporting my team. I've worked hard across numerous committees to try and modernise Parliament and improve democratic engagement. Nikki Kaye, Clare Curran, and I, we worked together on a trial of live streaming of select committees. I'm glad that it's just business as usual now. People no longer have to fly to Wellington to attend hearings. The public can see MPs working outside the theatre of the Chamber. As we saw over the lockdown, we had the technology to continue functioning.
This term I've enjoyed chairing the Social Services and Community Committee. I thank the members and the staff. I think we've had an amazing atmosphere. After so many long, long, long Green Party meetings trying to find consensus, I think it helped me a little bit to be a fair and constructive chair. I am disappointed, though, that we couldn't get the numbers for a full inquiry into forced adoption. I believe New Zealand's lack of an inquiry and apology and counselling support for the tens of thousands of mothers and children does slow the healing.
Across my career, I've had failures and setbacks along the way, but I've always tried to approach this job positively, energetically, ethically, while always focusing on the issues. I now honestly reflect after two decades campaigning for progressive change that a lot of this has been diligently fighting the symptoms, not the source. I've protested, petitioned, organised, and lobbied. I've got myself arrested and got myself elected and sometimes I've won and changed a policy or law. But after 20 years of campaigning, it feels like I've been fighting the Hydra. Often in this House, we spend our time debating if it should be a State-run, a corporate, or an electric ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. We need to think deeper into the systemic reasons behind growing homelessness, child poverty, the mental health crisis, plastic oceans, vanishing species, and unswimmable rivers. I believe these things aren't designed bugs; they're actually designed features arising from the neo-liberal operating system installed in the 1980s.
My challenge to the country, the Greens, and the wider progressive movement is that if we aren't focusing on transformational change, we are simply arranging deckchairs on the Titanic. Our wealth, health, and survival are imperilled if we continue with a system that encourages greed, corporate power, and excessive consumption. Fortunately for us in Aotearoa, we have an alternative value system focused on collective wellbeing, long-term thinking, and a strong connection to nature in mātauranga Māori. I believe if we truly became a Te Tiriti o Waitangi - respecting nation, we could escape the fatal embrace of short-term, individualistic, environmentally damaging thinking that has dominated our politics.
I'm optimistic about our future. I believe we can restore our environment, heal our society, and grow a richer Aotearoa. Kia ora koutou.
[Applause]
SPEAKER: Order! While this process is occurring, can I ask the supporters of Gareth Hughes to move out of the galleries moving to your right to allow for the supporters of Clare Curran to take your places. Thank you.
Waiata





Hon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): It is with pain and relief that I stand to give my final speech. It's also with a continued sense of wonder and awareness at the sheer privilege of having had this opportunity. For that, I thank from the bottom of my heart the people of Dunedin South, who continued to put their trust in me as their representative for the last 12 years.
The Dunedin South Labour Party has been my ballast; you have stuck with me through all the triumphs and disasters. Mine has not been an easy ride. Audrey Young once referred to me as a "Trouble magnet". I don't disagree, though it wasn't intentional. I was part of a group of new MPs in 2008—called the "class of '08"—determined to do politics differently, with fresh ideas and perspectives. I helped start a blog for Labour MPs, which had never been done before. "Red Alert" was truly innovative and groundbreaking, as well as a bit wacky and controversial. It also provided fresh meat for that emerging subterranean species we now call right-wing—and some left-wing—trolls. After five years, it ceased, but it provided a genuine platform for open discussion between elected politicians and actual people about priorities, new policy thinking, and ways of engaging with voters. 
Over 12 years, I've been promoted and demoted too many times to count. I fiercely represented my constituents and their issues, which sometimes put me at odds with powerful forces. I had ideas, I had passion, and I was utterly committed to changing the existing political paradigm. I tried to progress some of those ideas in Opposition for nine years, and as a Cabinet Minister—and I'm truly grateful for that opportunity. In caucus, I sometimes used my voice at critical times. I spoke my mind. Sometimes, I spoke out of turn and, occasionally, I spoke wrongly and harshly. For that, I am truly sorry. 
I made a public spectacle of myself in this House, which was portrayed in a way that is the stuff of our worst nightmares. I made mistakes. I paid a price. I was targeted. I've discussed the impact that this had on me. And, yes, there was a moment when I counted the number of sleeping pills I had. Thankfully, I sought help instead. I've recently called out the behaviour in our Parliament and described our political culture as toxic, for our political system is sick, and we all know it. More on that later. 
I was ejected from the House three times by three different Speakers: for wearing a Highlander's jersey, which was a badge of honour; for standing up for victims of sexual violence, a badge of honour; the third time, I don't really know what it was about. 
The Labour Party has been my tribe, my religion, for half my life. The union movement has been my greatest love since my first cleaning job, when I paid my first union dues at age 15. All of us who make our way to this place bring a set of values. Most take them seriously. The values that most resonate with me are compassion, justice, and plain old fairness. Giving people a voice and empowering them to live their best lives—that's what the Labour Party stands for. In Opposition, as spokesperson, and in Government, as digital Minister, my priorities were to ensure access for all to new technologies and to put fair frameworks around them. There's much work to be done inside Government to stimulate digital innovation with a common set of standards and services across Government. We continue to be stuck in the 20th century on this. It's not rocket science but it requires breaking through the silos of Government departments and agencies. I tried—I championed openness from open-source software, open standards, open procurement, open government, digital equity, transparent algorithms, and for ICT to be New Zealand's second-largest contributor to GDP by 2025.
The COVID-19 lockdown highlighted some stark digital inequality in our country as we rushed to ensure that children had the tools to continue to learn from home and that older New Zealanders who did not use internet banking could stay home and yet still pay for their groceries and medicines. Access to technology is a social necessity as well as a social good. Yet tech and digital is still seen as a portfolio on the edges worth around $10 billion to the economy, with $2 billion in exports in 2019. There are some one-off successes: the massive replacement of the IRD system, ordering a new passport online, and registering a business. But where are the initiatives that grow innovation within Government? We have burgeoning agtech, biotech, and fintech sectors. Where's our govtech—the methodologies and applications that enable fast, agile, adaptive solutions to our most pressing social and economic issues? Why aren't we building scale from our own IT talent through leveraging our $4 billion Government IT spend locally and embedding better practices within and across Government? 
I acknowledge Don Christie, NZRise; Brenda Wallace and Pia Waugh, who led the Service Innovation Lab and government; and Kate MacDonald and Professor Colin Gavaghan for their work on digital rights and algorithmic transparency. I also acknowledge Nat Torkington for his championing of tech and his peculiar way of drawing together people from different backgrounds to address the pressing issues of our time. And Fabiana Kubke, you're awesome. There's too many to name, but special mention of Julian Carver and Chris O'Connell, both who died in recent years and provided me with friendship, mentoring, and ideas. There are just a few members of Parliament who understand and champion the tech sector. After this week, there are two fewer. I acknowledge Gareth Hughes and the work he put in over 12 years.
As I said, Government procurement is a powerful lever to shift local industry development. For years, Labour has championed the importance of using its considerable spending power to leverage the flow-on effect to our local economy. We can do better. Jim Kelly helped take that fight to the National Government for rail engineering at Dunedin's Hillside Rail Workshops, alongside Dave Kearns, Stu Johnson, and Wayne Butson, the Rail and Maritime Transport Union's general secretary. Don't give up that fight; it's too important. And, Jim, I wish you were here today, but I know you're watching at home with Liz, and she won't mind if I blow you a kiss.
I want to turn to the role of media, which is powerful for a reason. In non-democratic countries, it's a propaganda tool to create and maintain a narrative that suits the Government or regime. In democratic countries, a free, independent, and vigorous media keeps democracy clean and safe. Therefore our media is precious. Edmund Burke recognised, in 1787, that the press played a key role in political processes, acting as a civic watchdog to maintain the relationship between the State and civil society. He said, "There [were] three estates in Parliament but in the reporters' gallery yonder there [sat] a fourth estate more important far than they all." Declining trust in our fourth estate is a fact and cuts to the essence of our political system, our way of life, our democracy. It's time to have a serious discussion about how we practise politics in this country and how politics is reported.
Is the adversarial, centuries-old Westminster system fit for purpose in Aotearoa? I don't believe it is. For a progressive country, highly respected in the world, we practise this system, in my view, in an immature and destructive way. Politicians and the news media focus on conflict, perceived or real slip-ups, rather than substance and the quality of ideas. The objective is to catch people out and take them down, rather than providing a platform of discussion for and against the best improvements to the lives of New Zealanders. Politicians should be held accountable, but we are not prey. The accountability lacks perspective—if you don't believe me, go ask the public.
I address our news media today, particularly those in the press gallery. You are not unaccountable, though you act as though you are. Your mandate derives from the citizens of this country. Please use it wisely and maturely. You are neither judge nor jury. Remember that your power, and the notion of media freedom that you protect so fiercely, rests on a promise of service to the democratic public—you are accountable to them. To be credible, you must turn the mirror on yourselves. There is good journalism in this country. There are emerging green shoots that provide hope. State-funded media not controlled by but at arm's length from Governments remains essential so that accurate news analysis and information is provided to citizens to maintain the social contract. The UK has the BBC; Australia, the ABC. We have a much smaller entity, RNZ, which I fear has lost its way in holding all media to a higher standard.
The declining state of our media is well known, but successive Governments have either ignored it or partially and unsuccessfully attempted to address the decline and the causes. In our first term of Government, some progress has been made, but it is again on hold due to what are considered greater priorities. Until public good media reform becomes core policy, our democracy continues to be at risk and our toxic political and media culture will worsen.
There are many who have travelled this journey with me. First, Parliament staff: you serve us, you put up with us, you clean up after us—security, VIP drivers, cleaners, messengers, the Clerk's Office, the Parliamentary Counsel Office, the library, the Cabinet Office, Parliamentary Service, even IT. Jane McKenzie, you are a treasure.
I don't know whether to curse or thank David Parker for putting the idea in my head to stick up my hand for Parliament. At the time I was elected, my boys were eight. I used to duck out of the Chamber in the evening into that little meeting room over there and read them a story each over the phone. Captain Underpants featured a lot, and Alex Rider books. It was bloody hard being a mum and a politician. I know you all relate to that, especially when your relationship breaks up and you have to make parenting work. By 2014, I was the primary caregiver. I simply could not have done it without my best friend and right-hand woman, Helen Lob, who cared for my kids when I wasn't there, campaign-managed me, and ran most of the local Labour Party. Your fierce loyalty to me has kept me going through many difficult times.
I thank the Dunedin South Labour Electorate Committee, well served by chairs Richard Good, Don Pryde, Jim Kelly, Rebecca Williams, and now Simon Wilson; the Dunedin South branch; the women's branch, Beryl Maultby, Lindsay Rackley, Linda Smilie, Carol Jess, Pamela Gordon, and Ros McCreadie; Ruth Chapman in the Region Six hub; Daryl Carran in the Meat Workers and Related Trades Union; E tū, my union; the Dairy Workers Union; and the Council of Trade Unions here today. Kevin Hale moved heaven and earth to get me from home to the airport and back for 12 years. One morning, so determined to pick me up, he and his car ended up hanging over the cliff at Broad Bay, on the Otago Peninsula, due to ice under the snow. A cow literally ran in front of his car and totalled it after he left me at the airport one morning, putting him briefly in hospital. Then there was the large hay bale that fell off the truck on to his car on the motorway. Note I wasn't in the car for any of those incidents. I'm amazed you're still with us, Cuddy; you're a legend with the biggest heart.
I've had, and continue to have, incredible staff, both in Dunedin and Wellington. In my Dunedin South electorate office, Gemma Sattherwaite, Lauren Hourigan, Simone Hourigan, Judy Firestone, Hazel Davies, Georgina O'Reilly, Jessie Manning, Larissa McStay, Nadine Simpson, and Warren Chambers, who now run my office with humour and compassion, and who I depend on for everything. In Wellington, Gareth Hancock, Sarah Austen-Smith, Lauren Hourigan, Andrew Robinson, Sue Piper, Rebecca Brierton, Jessie Manning, and now the faithful Josh Livingstone. Helen Clark and Michael Cullen, you have always encouraged me. Thank you.
Despite my short time as a Minister, I tried to do a lot and was blessed with amazing private secretaries. Kate MacDonald, Bruce Donaldson, Meghan Bray, and Leigh Huffine, thank you for your service, the bonds we formed, and your embracing of my ideas. My colleagues: Chris Hipkins, who does understand what I was trying to achieve in opening up Government to be more transparent to the public. The proactive release of Cabinet papers and key policy documents is just the beginning. You lead the way with public sector reform. Please keep going on that open Government strategy and ensure our Official Information Act is applied properly across Government. The journalists are right on that—and, Jade, thank you for you friendship at a critical time.
Andrew Little, lots of respect to you. Please keep on with the electoral reform, and if we could achieve State funding for elections, our democracy would be so much healthier. Trevor Mallard, full marks for your work on how citizens can better engage with their Parliament—could do better on practising kindness and consistency. Grant Robertson, whether it's the introduction of the wellbeing lens for economic performance, your strategic focus on planning now for the jobs of the future, or steering us through the most difficult period in our history post-war, you are values-driven, immensely capable, and with seemingly endless energy and enthusiasm for your huge job—and sport. Jacinda Ardern, you once said to me that I wore my heart on my sleeve and had more courage than you to speak my mind. I say that to you—that you have the courage of a warrior, the heart of a woman, and the soul of our nation within you. You are a leader like no other, and our country is so lucky to have you.
To my caucus family, thank you. Respect to you. Stick together. Look after each other. You're all good people. I believe in you.
My family: Shirley Curran, my mum, who has stood beside me and stood up for me countless times. You couldn't come today because it's too painful, but you are watching at home. My dad, Kinney Curran, died eight years ago today. Dad, I continue to try to do the right thing. Judith and Katherine Curran, sisters and supporters: I know I've tested that support at times—thank you. You are strong, intelligent women. Callum and Riley, you probably don't remember much about life with mum before politics. Well, that's over now. I'm immensely proud of both of you.
From 2009 till 2012, I fought to keep the Hillside Rail Workshops open. I never gave up. Today, they are being refurbished, apprentices are back, and staff numbers are growing. In 2015, I filled sandbags alongside others to fight back a terrible flood in South Dunedin, sparking an intense debate about how climate change affects a densely populated, low-income, low-lying community. Things are better now. There's a lot of focus on South Dunedin's future, and a body of scientific evidence building. Be vigilant and strong, though.
In July 2017, I took a tent to the Octagon in winter and camped to force attention to the terrible attitudes of Work and Income to people in precarious living conditions. Everyone deserves a home. Work and Income is much kinder and more responsive now. Thank you, Carmel Sepuloni. To all the people of Dunedin South, now the Taieri electorate, my people: you will be in strong, capable, caring hands with Ingrid Leary should you elect her. I gave you my life for 12 years, and now it's time to pass the baton. Ngā mihi nui. That's a wrap.
[Applause]
Waiata
SPEAKER: Could I now ask Clare Curran's supporters to leave, preferably by coming this way, in order to make room for the family and close supporters of Ruth Dyson.





Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I had thought about beginning with remarking on the fact that I'm standing between a lot of my friends and a party, and I was going to seek leave to table my speech. But I heard from very reliable sources that it would be denied.
Rau rangatira mā, tēnei te mihi ki a koutou i runga i te kaupapa o te rā. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.
[Distinguished guests. Greetings to you gathered here for this purpose today. Greetings once, twice, three times to you all.]
[Uses New Zealand Sign Language] This is my last time speaking in Parliament, and I thank everyone who is sharing this moment with me. I want to especially acknowledge the deaf community for the support they have given me. I am proud to have been involved in achieving New Zealand Sign Language as an official language in New Zealand. [Uses New Zealand Sign Language]—and that's a bit of an in-joke with people who think the South Island's above the North Island.
E le tuua fa'apo evaga le tatou mafutaga. Oute le sola foi fa'atama o le po. E ao ona momoli atu se matou fa'afetai i tagata Pasefika o Kalaisetete. Fa'afetai mo le tou tapuaiga. Fa'afetai mo lo outou alolofa. Fa'afetai mo la outou lagolago mai ia te a'u i tausaga e tele. Fa'afetai, fa'afetai, fa'afetai tele lava. Malo 'aupito. Metaki maata. Fakaue lahi. I shall not depart like a thief in the night, nor shall I simply disappear into the shadows. I am moved to express my heartfelt gratitude to the Pacific people of Christchurch. Thank you for your spirit of solidarity. Thank you for your love and compassion for me. Thank you for your support for me over many years. Thank you.
I was elected to this House in the last first-past-the-post election in November 1993 as only the 37th woman to ever enter our Parliament. I gave my maiden speech in March 1994, three months before Chlöe Swarbrick was born. In that speech, I talked about the dignity of employment and a secure home, my personal experience of domestic violence, and my concern about the growing inequality in New Zealand. I came into this House as a community political activist, and I hope I leave as one.
I thanked our party team in Lyttelton and those who supported me to come to this place, and I want to do that again this evening. I would not be here if it was not for the extraordinary level of organisation in the Lyttelton / Banks Peninsula / Port Hills Labour team, plus the confidence that my constituents have placed in me, and the fantastic work of my parliamentary and electorate office staff over the last nearly 27 years—I wish you'd had the election in November so I could have done that 27 years. Marie Davis started in Parliament with me on day one and only left my office last year but—thank goodness—is still working in the building. Marie, thanks for heaps of stuff you've done. You are the best. And to all the staff who have worked with and for me over many years, thank you.
I want to acknowledge my buddy MP and long-time friend Lianne Dalziel, who supported me as a candidate and continues to do so. My love goes to you, Lianne, and to Robbie. To two other long-term friends, Fran Wilde and Annette King, both Dames, who have been amazing cajolers and supporters, thank you. And to all the council and community board members with whom I have worked, there has never been a time when I couldn't pick up the phone or email or text with information or requests for help or support. It has been a great partnership.
To my Astoria buddies, Mark, Mark, Steve, Pete and Trevor: we set ourselves some big challenges and we achieved them. Thanks for your enduring friendship through some really hard times. To Michael Cullen, one of my colleagues who's always had the deepest understanding and commitment to change which made a long-term difference to the benefit of people, the legacy of his many policies and laws will remain, including such fundamental shifts in people's financial security and wellbeing such as KiwiSaver, the more often talked about creation of the portfolio investment entity tax regime—I liked it—and the establishment of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. To Helen Clark, one of the two amazing Prime Ministers I've had the privilege to serve with, thank you for your vision, your leadership, and your support.
Thanks to my family, who have always been such consistent supporters, including my sister and brother-in-law, who are here this evening.
My biggest thanks goes to my husband and campaign organiser, Martin, who has supported me throughout this time. Since I entered Parliament, we've got married, when I inherited two adult stepchildren, who have gone on to give us amazing partners and five wonderful grandchildren, the oldest of whom started university this year—that's very ageing. Some people have described Martin as my rock, but I'm a water person, and I always think of rocks as sinking. He has just the opposite effect—he's more like my massive helium balloon. Thanks for everything.
I came in here at the start of the Labour revival, following the devastation of the 1990 election, when Labour had just 29 MPs out of a Parliament of 97. There were a lot of new MPs in our 1993 caucus. During the 1993-96 term, the number of parties in Parliament went from four to eight, in preparation for MMP. 
My maiden speech opened in Te Reo and Samoan, acknowledging our first-nation language and the election at the same time as me of the first ever Pasifika member of Parliament in New Zealand. The diversity of our representation has improved significantly.
We're surrounded by crests, representing wars in which New Zealanders fought and died so that we could enjoy the peace and democracy we value so greatly. I want to acknowledge the work of Gareth Hughes in his determined campaign to have a crest for New Zealand Wars added and also, alongside our Government's decision, to again teach New Zealand history in our schools. Both these initiatives will make our country better educated and stronger.
When I first arrived, I was interested in the advocacy portfolios and how they worked alongside the primary portfolios. I noticed we had a Minister for women, for senior citizens, for youth, for Māori, for Pasifika, and, of course, for racing, but there was no voice for disabled people. So, with the encouragement of Helen Clark and Michael Cullen, I became the first disability issues spokesperson in our Parliament and went on to become the first Minister for Disability Issues. I've been pleased to see that all parties now regard this as a vital part of their line-up. 
New Zealand is seen as having played a leading role in the development of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It was the fastest-ever UN convention to be developed—I'm sure because of our leadership. We ensured that disabled people were always included as part of our delegation that I led, and that became the benchmark for other countries to follow, and they did. So the UN changed to be a more inclusive place, and I was very proud to play my part in that change. 
Passing legislation to make New Zealand Sign Language an official language was also a significant achievement—literally world leading, in fact—but I regret that it wasn't more prescriptive in its implementation, because its roll-out has been slower than it could have been. That should be fixed.
New Zealand was awarded the prestigious Franklin D Roosevelt award in 2007 for our leadership on disability issues, and the award remains on display on the reception desk on the tiles.
I enjoyed working on the Working for Families package, the most significant change to our social welfare system for decades, and also the It's Not OK campaign, an important part of ridding our country of family violence. I spent eight years improving our ACC legislation, including moving private insurers out of the scheme after Murray McCully's disastrous attempt to privatise it, and—the best—changing the absurd Bill Birch medical misadventure, medical mishap regime to a fair treatment injury regime which also contributes to healthcare improvement. Fortunately, Nick Smith as Minister didn't get to unravel all my improvements during his time as Minister, but he certainly did his best.
As Minister for Senior Citizens, I recall making an offer to the executive of Grey Power that I would attend any branch meeting to which I was invited. To be honest, I didn't know at the time that there were 77 Grey Power branches, but I did get to 74 of them.
I was the Minister responsible for introducing paid parental leave for self-employed new parents for the first time in New Zealand—not available in many other countries. I won funding to completely eliminate the adult cochlear implant waiting list, introduced caregiver qualifications which were matched with wage increases, developed a new model of aged care which was driven by quality of life rather than cleanliness of floors, moved disabled people from institutions into homes in their community and from sheltered workshops into fairly paid work, and—thank you, Michael—I won funding to increase the contract level for all essential social services to 100 percent rather than the 60 or 80 percent they were getting. Unfortunately, that money had only just started being put into contacts when the Government changed, and Bill English and Paula Bennett reversed the policy and left the services at less than full funding.
In my time here, I have been privileged to hold a wide range of positions, both in Government and in Opposition, including being a Minister of quite a few portfolios—about 13—and being the chief whip and now Assistant Speaker. I haven't been the Speaker of our Parliament—yet. I've chaired several select committees and have enjoyed all my roles. I'm proud of the work I've done on behalf of my constituents and New Zealanders. Chairing the marriage equality committee and the abortion reform committee have been a huge privilege. Seeing significant law change such as these two pieces of law and the End of Life Choice Bill pass have been very satisfying, as will the two successful votes on the drug law reform and end of life choice referendums in September.
Thank you to the many chief executives and public servants who have worked with me on my portfolios. We properly challenged each other and ourselves. Your work has been extraordinary, and I thank you for your service. I also thank all the many others who make our jobs possible: our cleaners, our messengers, our clerks, our parliamentary staff team, our travel office, library, VIP drivers, and especially the team at Copperfields—everyone who works so that our Parliament can function.
I've been in Parliament for 9,768 days, more or less, and I haven't yet had a day's sick leave. I thought that sick days were able to be accumulated, until quite recently. Elizabeth McCombs, the first woman MP—elected to represent the same electorate that I was elected to represent—was the first "out" vegetarian woman in our Parliament. I was the second. When she died after only 15 months in this place, her vegetarianism was speculated as contributing to her early death. I hope I have restored the balance in consideration now!
I've been kicked out of the Chamber only once during my time here, which I think is extraordinary given my inability to be quiet. It was for interjecting on a point of order from the Hon Dr Nick Smith, and the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt was the Speaker. Do I hold a grudge? Yes! I have been sent to the Privileges Committee only once, for criticising then Speaker Rt Hon David Carter. Mr Carter kicked Marama Davidson out of the House when it felt like she had only been elected five minutes before. I thought it was unfair. A media commentator—Russell Brown, I think—asked on Twitter, "What is it about David Carter?" I replied: "Incompetent. Biased. Doesn't like the job. Lazy. Sexist. Doesn't give a toss." I remember Gerry Brownlee thundering about how outrageous it was that I'd called him biased.
Our lives in Canterbury have been very different since September 2010, when our series of earthquakes started. In our electorate, the worst started on 22 February 2011, when we lost so many lives, homes, and jobs. Our worlds were turned upside down. Our communities reached out to each other and offered so much support and hope to people who were left in deeply distressing situations. My two volunteer fire brigades, Lyttelton and Sumner, alongside the Woolston crew, did extraordinary things and won respect for ever as a result. They left their own wrecked homes, not knowing where their families were, to help others. Nothing could make me prouder than our response and their response.
When we debated the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill in the House, giving wartime powers to Gerry Brownlee, I asked for three things. I asked that the voice of our communities be heard and that people in our community be the drivers of our recovery. I asked for the process to be open and transparent, and I asked for the recovery to be at a good pace. Sadly, my requests were not agreed, and we ended up with a disempowerment and frustration that remains with many even today. In August 2020, we still have inadequately or unrepaired homes. 
But for me, the worst inaction by the then Minister was to deny people support to build rockfall protections for their homes. Because of a political decision, people had their perfectly good homes demolished. They didn't need a wrecking ball; they needed rockfall protection, and then they could have continued living in their home safely. I admire those who stayed and wouldn't leave their home, and they were rewarded by the Christchurch City Council, who finally gave them the support they needed. The council's decision to support rockfall protection saved money and saved homes, but more than that, it respected the local residents. Then, because this massive series of earthquakes wasn't enough, we had significant flooding, on more than one occasion, on the banks of the Heathcote. Again, the council stepped in to offer retreat to some residents, who gratefully but sadly took the money and moved.
A near tragedy was a human-induced one: the proposed closure of Redcliffs School. After all we'd been through, the then Minister of Education decided to make this announcement to the stunned community. As one senior school student said, "We thought the earthquakes were bad enough, but then along came something much worse." It was Hekia Parata. But her proposal generated a call to action, a sense of unity and pride, and a flurry of prolonged and relentless activity from a community which knew that our school was at the heart of our community and it was going to stay there. Just six weeks ago, Prime Minister Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern opened the brand new school in Redcliffs. It was a magnificent celebration of the strength of the broader school community, and the best day ever.
Then there were the Port Hills fires in February 2017. I have never witnessed before, and hope to never again, the raging power of wildfires such as we saw then. Despite heroic efforts of firefighters on the ground and in helicopters, 11 homes were lost, and tragically we lost the life of Steve Askin, fighting the fire from a helicopter. Then, of course, there was the unbelievable terrorist attack that stunned our city and our country. Once again, our response was so telling and so powerful.
It's a bit of a tradition in valedictory speeches to do a list for future MPs to implement, and I wouldn't want to walk away from that tradition. I know that Chris Hipkins would be devastated if I didn't give further "advice"! Here's a few, Jacinda, for you and the next Government to get your teeth stuck into after 19 September. I hope that you're joined by the Labour candidate for Banks Peninsula, Tracey McLellan, as part of an even stronger Labour team in this House. But before I give the House my list, can I say that it's been a massive honour to work alongside Jacinda Ardern, who leads our country with integrity, determination, and empathy. She lives and breathes unshakeable values, and we are very fortunate to have her as our Prime Minister. Long may that continue.
OK, so let's do this: extend the ACC scheme to how it was originally intended—Iain's mentioned that—to cover impairments regardless of cause; ensure our social security system is fit for the current century by moving to individual entitlement rather than people being financially disadvantaged because they planned badly and got married; end the farce of the independence of select committees or ensure they are genuinely independent; seriously and continuously promote the value of disabled people as part of the paid workforce and as contributing members of our community. Ensure that all members—all members—can get home to their families on a Thursday of an ordinary sitting week by granting additional travel leave for this purpose to those who can't get a plane home after close of play. The agreed early closure on a Thursday is a step in the right direction, but it's not enough. Mr Faafoi, have every movie in our theatres captioned and put a true value on the worth of unpaid work.
No, that's not my complete list, but it's just a start.
Can I end with a final tip. I'm a big fan of Samuel Parnell, who pioneered the eight-hour day in New Zealand. Can I recommend that members take a hint from the name of the "dinner break" and not always fill it with meetings. When I first came to this place, I developed a habit of walking for an hour during the dinner break. I've kept it up on Tuesday and Wednesday nights, with colleagues. We later formalised our walking group and have steadily developed helpful rules like no jogging—it's so undignified—and no talking work. It's fun and it's something we all need as we navigate this institution we inhabit, away from homes and our families and for long hours. I recommend it. Jan Tinetti, Willow-Jean Prime, and Kris Faafoi are coordinating the walks from now on. If you don't like walking, follow Kris. I hope you join them. It leaves at 10 past 6 from the Bowen House foyer.
When I first came to this place, I felt the responsibilities of representation and I have continued to feel those responsibilities. I promised then to work hard, to lead, to listen to, and to learn from the people I represent and to get stuff done. I believe I've done justice to that ambition. It has been an absolute privilege and I really love the role; I will miss it. But I leave you now to carry on the work of our Parliament. Be bold. Be brave. Leave a legacy. And go well. Thank you.
[Applause]
Waiata
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.





APPROPRIATION (2020/21 ESTIMATES) BILL
Third Reading
IMPREST SUPPLY (SECOND FOR 2020/21) BILL
Second Reading
Debate resumed.
Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a call on this Budget 2020—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Five minutes.
Hon MARK MITCHELL: Five minutes, thank you, Madam Speaker. [Interruption] It is. The first thing I would say is that I recognise without a doubt that as a nation, we responded and we've managed to put ourselves in a very strong position in terms of how we've dealt with COVID-19. There's no doubt about that at all. And I want to acknowledge, you know, the Government for the response around their health response. But now we're moving into an even more critical phase, and that is the economic recovery. We keep talking about the economy, but actually the economic recovery is what's going to drive our social wellbeing. It's what's going to drive our mental health issues in this country for the next two or three years, and it's all going to come down to how well the incoming Government is able to deliver a plan—a plan that needs to be clearly laid out and articulated for the country in the coming campaign. 
I can't believe—I find it extraordinary—that the governing party at the moment, the Labour Party, has come out and told the country that they will not be bringing any serious policy forward during this election. So they're basically either waving the white flag and realising that it's just too much and it's beyond them, or they're going to sit back, at best, and be complacent about our health response—which, by the way, was a team of 5 million; it was the whole country that put us in this position—or, at worst, it's a very arrogant way to treat the country, to say that during the upcoming campaign—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just remind the member that we are actually on the Estimates.
Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes, thank you, Madam Speaker, which brings me back to the Estimates. It is that Budget 2020—it brings me back to the point that I was making. Where is the plan—where is the plan? Where is the investment going? Because I can tell you right now, in both my portfolios—the first one being defence, and I want to acknowledge our defence forces. I want to acknowledge the work that they've done both overseas in advancing our international interests and protecting those—but especially back home. When the chips are down, it's often our New Zealand Defence Force that we call on to step up and take a leadership role. And they had to do it this time as well, because we saw very clearly that our protection at the border was not working.
The budget for defence forces was OK. It's what I'd call a zero budget. They've adopted our plan, which was the Defence Capability Plan, and I want to acknowledge the Hon Ron Mark, because fundamentally—at the start of this term, I said if he can stick to that and you can keep the investment funnel going in terms of our personnel, our equipment, and our property, then we will support that. And fundamentally, they have been able to do that, with a couple of little slip-ups. I notice that they're just starting to renege a little bit on investment into defence property, and that's one of the priorities in terms of defence and where the investment and where the spend has to go.
In terms of sport and recreation—and I want to come back to this Budget and say there's been promises made, there's been money allocated, but there's no detail around it. Sports clubs don't know where the money is going. We know that they're suffering. We know that COVID has actually had a massive negative impact on our local clubs and our grassroots sports. They need to have some clarity. They need to have some certainty in terms of what they can do, in terms of what they can deliver, in terms of getting our kids back out on the sports field. I come back to the fact that without a clear plan, in terms of what we're going to do now as a country in the next three years, without, you know—
Greg O'Connor: Did you sleep in on Saturday morning?
Hon MARK MITCHELL: Greg seems to think that it's not important to have—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Full names.
Hon MARK MITCHELL: Mr O'Connor seems to think that it's not important to have a plan. If he's got a plan, stand up and articulate it for the House. Tell the country what it is, because we sure as hell don't know what the plan is. There is no plan. So the Government—it's incumbent upon them in the upcoming campaign to actually stand up and lay out a plan in terms of Budget 2020 and how that actually translates into where the investment is going, who can expect to get the investment, where it's going to be best spent, because I can tell you one thing: the party opposite has got a very proud tradition of splashing money everywhere. It's never targeted. They never actually can show an asset or a result for it. And actually, as a country, when we've borrowed as much money—
Greg O'Connor: Sports fields are full of kids.
Hon MARK MITCHELL: —as we are, Mr O'Connor, you actually need to be able to articulate a clear plan in terms of where that investment's going. So I would challenge one of the members opposite—maybe Mr O'Connor—to stand and take a call and outline for us in detail what their plan 2020 means for New Zealand in the coming general election. Thank you, Madam Speaker.





Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): On this side of the House, we've said that the best economic response is based on a strong and excellent health response to the COVID-19 crisis. We went hard and we went early; we locked down tight for four weeks and nearly as tight for another three weeks. It was a huge shock to all of us and a huge shock to our economy, but it worked—it worked. Our health response was perhaps the strongest in the world at the time in terms of the lockdown. Other countries didn't go as hard, didn't go so strict, and we've, sadly, seen some of the outcome of that across the Tasman, and, like all of us, we really feel for our Australian whānau, for the people who are now locked down again. But it's not just people returning to their homes again there; there is an economic consequence as well, with businesses shut down again, with the economy faltering. That is why the best economic response was indeed driven by a strong, strong health response. 
Nevertheless, when we shut our economy down—shut it virtually all the way down for four weeks—we knew that it would have a strong economic impact. During those four weeks of the lockdown, the Budget was rewritten to respond to the COVID crisis, to give a strong economic response. We can see that strong economic response in action now. We can see that economic activity is picking up. We can see that the rural sector, which kept us all going, is coming back strongly through exports, that the shops are open, that buildings are going up, that friends can gather at cafes and at pubs, and that we can stand and watch sports games. Our economic response is coming off that strong health response.
But there is, nevertheless, still a strong economic response, and as we have said many times, now is the rainy day, the time to respond. So the Budget does have the core Budget response, as we always have, to health, to welfare, to education, but it also has a strong economic response to the COVID crisis in a five-point plan, which is embedded in this Budget—a five-point plan where we are investing in our people.
The wage subsidy kept people in touch with their jobs. The wage subsidy means that people still had money coming in. We responded to beneficiaries and we doubled the winter energy payment. Why? Because it enabled people to survive that intense COVID crisis. We are investing in our people by making all apprenticeships and trades training free so that we are training people for the trades that we need as we recover. We have extended the wage subsidy to ensure that businesses can get through this tough time. The whole point of that wage subsidy and the wage subsidy extension is to give businesses time to rethink, to regather, and to decide what they will do in the future. That's the first step: investing in our people.
The second point of our plan was: protecting and creating jobs. That's what the wage subsidy did: it protected jobs. But we also have the shovel-ready projects, which will create jobs in construction. In my own electorate is the North-Western busway and the Whau walkway, which will bring jobs and economic activity to West Auckland. We've got 11,000 new environmental jobs in this Budget, responding to the needs of our economy and ensuring that people stay in employment and that the employment they stay in builds New Zealand. So that's the second part of our five-point economic plan.
The third point is: preparing for a post-COVID future and tackling our long-term challenges in housing and in climate change. So we are providing 8,000 new places in public and transitional housing. We are building, building, building State houses—about 300 dwellings going up in my electorate, and that is repeated across Auckland and throughout the country. We are starting to deal with our waste better as part of an environmental response to COVID, and we're investing in our hospitals. So that's the third point: preparing for a post-COVID future.
The fourth point of our plan is: backing small business. That's what the wage subsidy does. We've provided interest-free and low-interest loans—a minimum of $10,000 for a business and up to $100,000, depending on how many employees each business has. That's an extraordinary thing to do. The whole objective of that interest-free or low-interest loan is to give businesses the cash to tide them over. We know that cash is king, that getting cash in the door really matters to a business. This low-interest and no-interest loan provides that cash that a business needs. Sitting in here is a strategy around tax refunds, where instead of having to carry a tax loss forward and set it off against future profits, as a one-off temporary measure, businesses could pick up a tax loss and carry it back and write it against previous years' profits. It's a timing difference only, but the effect is to get cash into businesses faster, to help them survive. So we are backing small business by doing that, by making sure they get the cash they need.
And our fifth point: we are positioning ourselves globally. We've had a brilliant health response here in New Zealand, a health response that means that people are interested in New Zealand and that our exports are growing because our reputation has been enhanced by our response to COVID-19. We are backing those exports with further funding to New Zealand Trade and Enterprise, giving practical support to our exporters so that they can access markets and grow markets. We are negotiating trade agreements with the UK and with the European Union, and the work continues.
So there it is—the five-point plan: (1) investing in our people, (2) protecting and creating jobs, (3) preparing for a post-COVID future, (4) backing small business, and (5) positioning ourselves globally. These are the things that we are doing as part of the economic response to COVID-19. It's great work.
What do I hear from the Opposition? Carping and complaining and digging out the old bogeyman attacks. And they say, "Well, we've had to borrow to respond to the COVID crisis, and how are we going to repay it?" Let me just give the Opposition a little bit of an education on how debt works and why we need to engage in debt and how we will repay it. Now, when the previous National Government came into power, debt was at 6 percent of GDP, thanks to the judicious stewardship of Dr Michael Cullen. But the Opposition, the then Government, was quite quickly hit with the global financial crisis, and properly—quite properly—they borrowed to get through the global financial crisis. In fact, under the former National Government, debt rocketed up to about 26 percent of GDP—a 20-point increase in debt. That was the proper response. Over time, it worked down gradually, until we'd managed to pay off some of that debt, until in 2017, debt was down to about 22 percent of GDP, and this year, before the COVID crisis, under this Government and under Grant Robertson's stewardship, we had worked it down to about 19 percent of GDP. That's what happened to debt: rocketed up, along came down, and it was the right thing to do. We are borrowing again in a crisis.
We anticipate, as is set out in this Budget, that, in fact, debt will reach about 54 percent of GDP. But how does that compare? Well, it compares very well indeed—it compares very well indeed. The OECD average of debt as an extension of GDP, it's sitting at around about 86 percent—this is before the COVID crisis. In the UK, it's about 80 percent of GDP. In Australia, before the COVID crisis, about 45 percent of GDP. In Germany, about 60 percent of GDP. That is before the COVID crisis. So you can see that our borrowing after the COVID crisis is well within reasonable bounds and well within bounds that can be repaid.
But here's the interesting bit. During the years when the former National Government borrowed money and then repaid it, tax hovered at around about 25 percent of GDP. In 2006, it was about 32 percent of GDP, but the tax take by 2012 was around about 25 percent of GDP—25, 26. In 2018, it was about 26 percent of GDP, and there it hovered. All during those years when debt went up and came down again, it hovered at that level of GDP.
So we do not need to drag out the bogeyman of tax increases in order to manage the debt. I'm sure that there will be some adjusting in due course, but there is no need for a rash response, there is no need for a bogeyman, and there is no need for fears around it. As has been shown by the previous Government and will be shown again by this Government, that level of debt can be managed and repaid, and it is a necessary and needed part of this Government's response to the COVID crisis. This is an excellent Budget, and I commend it to the House.





Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I'm not sure what to make of the end of that speech. I think we've just heard the Government's tax policy having just been announced. Only I don't think Grant Robertson would be that fond of the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee either announcing the Labour Party's tax policy going into the election in this debate or committing to no new taxes, because, frankly, they haven't said that. The Prime Minister hasn't said it. The Minister of Finance hasn't said it. Frankly, I don't think it's true. I think there are tax increases on the way, because that's all the Government knows how to do.
Now, the one thing I will agree with Deborah Russell on is this: that the Budget was somewhat rewritten during the lockdown, but there was part of it that I don't think the Government paid close enough attention to. We've been hearing a lot of speeches about the cost side of the Budget, but I want to focus on the revenue side, because unless we get the money into Crown coffers, it's going to be very difficult to deliver the spending programme of this Budget and maintain the debt levels—eye-wateringly high though they are—as what Ms Russell says is up to 54 percent of net GDP. My concern is that the revenue projections are frankly heroic.
Now, last year, the actual Crown revenue was at $93.5 billion. If this Budget was rewritten as recently as March, remember, before the lockdown, there was a projected fall in Crown revenue of at least $4 billion to $89.5 billion in the 2019-20 forecast. Despite that, despite all of the drops in tax take that is likely to be the case—and I'll go through why that is—they're only forecasting a $2.5 billion further drop in Crown revenue before it recovers by a massive $7.6 billion.
Now, in the face of thousands if not tens of thousands of companies going to the wall over the next few months and years, even those that survive will survive—
Dr Duncan Webb: Where's your evidence?
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: It's called realism, Dr Webb—it's called realism. The evidence is in every single small business that every single one of my colleagues has visited to hear of the trauma and the fact that they survived the lockdown by the skin of their teeth. But let me tell you what they're not saying. They're not saying, "Guess what! We're going to make a profit this year." It's only on profit that tax is paid by companies. In fact, many of them will sustain thumping great losses. The tax loss offsets for that will go through into out-years. The GST take is already down; it's going to go down even further. Jobs are being lost, and people who lose their jobs can't pay PAYE. In the face of all of that, they're telling us that Crown revenue is only going to drop next year by $2.5 billion. I say phooey. Indeed, the Minister of Finance acknowledged that in the 13-hour debate on this appropriations bill in saying that the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update is going to adjust Crown revenue. What that's going to mean? This is a Government that doesn't know how to cut spending or reprioritise spending or take a value for money lens to spending. That means debt must go up in order to sustain the spending path that they're on.
There's another reason debt's going to go up: because the health sector is in a terrible mess. Now, the Minister of Health has acknowledged that the $643 million deficits projected across our DHB sector in March isn't going to be met. It's going to be even worse than that. That's going to be about 30 percent higher than it was last year. Now, this Budget does put a big dollop of money into DHBs. But listeners should be under no illusions that there is going to be a single extra treatment or procedure or visit to the doctor as a consequence of that nearly billion dollars a year going in, because they've firstly got to recover the deficits, which could be approaching three quarters of a billion dollars before they even account for health cost inflation, which runs at about twice the rate of general inflation. So there is every likelihood that one of two things will happen: either DHBs will continue to plunge further into deficit or services will be cut under this Government.
Now, there's one thing that they will be able to draw on, and that is the underspend in the mental health commitments that they made in Budget 2019, because despite the nearly half a billion dollars they said they were going to spend in mental health, I think, Mr Doocey, they're up to—what—about $40 billion, if we're really generous.
Matt Doocey: Million.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Forty million dollars, rather, if we're really generous about the new spending that's gone into mental health. Big announcement, not big delivery. In fact, no delivery. Very little, if any, new mental health services have actually been put into place as a consequence of that commitment. So there will be some offset, but there's no doubt that the budget for health in Budget 2020 will not be met. There will have to be a supplementary appropriation just to fund the deficits before we even get to extra care for population growth and inflation.
I want to touch on the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF), because we've had an extraordinary revelation over the last few days from the Minister for Regional Economic Development, who talks about pūtea. Well, I think it's more like kete poaka. It's a pork barrel. He is running around the country, embellishing the number of jobs that he thinks is being created, and today had the audacity to issue a press release estimating that there were 13,217 jobs created out of the Provincial Growth Fund on the same day that the Auditor-General issued a damning report into the management of the Provincial Growth Fund that said that the fund's authorisation processes lacked transparency, it lacked coordination across the four organisations in Government that were managing the fund, that there were no measurements. They didn't even know how to define job growth.
Yet the Minister comes to this House and trumpets the fact that they've exceeded the target of 10,000 jobs created out of the PGF and accuses me of plucking figures out of the air. Well, that is the master of plucking figures, I would suggest, and that there is no more likely to be 13,000 jobs than I am to be 6½ feet tall. It just ain't happening. We want it to happen. We want there to be measures in place. We want to know how many jobs are being created, because that is a core task and target of the Provincial Growth Fund, but we are none the wiser. The Auditor-General cut through the spin of the Hon Shane Jones, the Minister for kete poaka, and said, "We don't know." That's not good enough. When $3 billion is being earmarked for Provincial Growth Fund initiatives, we should know better about the sustained economic and job growth that comes from it.
I say $3 billion. The Minister will say $2.7 billion of it has already been appropriated, but if one reads the fine print, there's only $339.5 million that has actually been paid out. So for every dollar of commitment that the Minister has made and every ribbon that he cuts, for each dollar, only 12.9 cents has actually reached the regions. Those regions of Northland, of Tai Rāwhiti, of Hawke's Bay, of Whanganui, and of the West Coast, those high priority regions—all they've heard is grand announcements, while Mr Jones walks in, cuts a ribbon, and leaves. The money is not flowing into those regions at the speed and in the rate that he portrays it to be.
I want to finish briefly on Pike River, because I now have responsibility for Pike River re-entry on behalf of the National Party. The Minister for Pike River Re-entry has made it clear that the $54 million—
Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: How much?
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Fifty-four million dollars, Mr Bakshi, that has been earmarked for re-entering the drift will be the limit of the taxpayer's commitment to that. I support that. I wish the Pike River re-entry team the very best over the next five months as they head down to the drift and try to recover important electrical equipment that may provide answers to questions that the families of the Pike River miners and the community right across the country have. But I agree with the Minister that it's time to put a cap on that and do the best with what we've found.





KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): Madam Speaker, I feel very honoured to be able to speak and stand in the House this evening to be able to give my reflections—or my contribution, rather—on this Appropriation (2020/21 Estimates) Bill.
It was not even six months ago, I think, that anybody in this House could have envisaged what 2020 would bring us. I know that this Budget is probably not the Budget that we thought we would be all debating in the final week of this House sitting, before the end of this 52nd Parliament rises, but here we are. Here we are in the oddest year that has been, 2020, and we are now—like the world has globally been—forced to quickly and fundamentally shift ourselves as a nation.
Now, I want to thank, first and foremost, every single person that has worked tirelessly in Aotearoa New Zealand to get us to the position that we are in today, to be able to say that here we are, this team of 5 million. Collectively, we will be leading New Zealand through our COVID recovery. Collectively, we will be building back our economy. Collectively, we have put ourselves into a position that is the envy of the world. It is something that, wherever I go in our electorate of the mighty East Coast—and I'm sure that wherever any member of Parliament in this House goes, in the places that they call home—whatever ilk that people are, whatever colour that they adorn on their chest, people are proud of the way that we have responded. People are cognisant of the privileged position that we are in to now turn to building our economy, and I could not be prouder of the plan that this Government has to keep New Zealand moving. 
In March, it was about responding to the unfathomable, and we did that. That was through two different lenses. The first was the health one, as we've discussed. But for us in Te Tai Rāwhiti, we started to see the economic impacts of COVID-19 a lot earlier than the rest of the country, because we were heavily dependent on forestry export. Almost one in every four families in Te Tai Rāwhiti had their incomes directly or indirectly impacted by forestry, and the fact that China was starting to shut down—it didn't need our logs and it started to shut down. Our community rallied, and we were supported by this Government. We were supported by the Hon Grant Robertson. We had the Hon Phil Twyford come up into our patch. He met with the people. He could see the desperation, the looks on our community's faces when it was very apparent that we were going to face some economic turbulence, well before we went into lockdown.
We were the first cab off the rank to secure a regional COVID-19 economic recovery package, of $29 million. That is something that really leads into the way that our Government has responded, because that led to the recovery, which leads to our rebuilding. Now, there are five key areas of our fundamental economic plan. We are investing in our people—investing in our people. Our Government has invested $1.6 billion into training. We are investing in those people that want to and need to—out of necessity, because of the situation that we collectively find ourselves in—retrain and be redeployed. If you want to become an apprentice in this country, we have the opportunity to do that completely for free as a consequence of this Government's investment. Whether that's being a tradie, whether that's being a sparky, whether that is working in an area that has been completely under-resourced—mental health support, whatever it is—we are providing that resource.
Now, last week, or the week prior, we had some big flooding up in Tolaga Bay, up the East Coast. We were up there assessing some of the damage. I was actually meant to be up there looking at some of the investment from last time: in the 2018 floods, the Provincial Growth Fund invested over $30 million to building and strengthening particular structures up some of our most flood-prone roads. I was supposed to be looking at that, but we had another flood. 
Now, one of the chaps that I had the opportunity to meet—he was a young fella. His name was Angus, and he was the first point of call as we sort of went up into the dangerous area. Angus was a young gentleman. I'd say he'd be no older than 22, 23. He was in his young 20s. He had just completed a three-week course: Wheels, Tracks and Rollers. It was a three-week course that was a recipient of funding that came from our COVID recovery funds to enable retraining and redeployment. Now, after his three-week retraining course to get him up into the civil engineering type of work, a local chap by the name of Kim Cranswick—he is a founder of one of our local companies up there, Cranswick Enterprises. Well, Kim had taken on, just the week prior to the floods, about six new grads who had come off this course. Locals employing locals who had been trained locally to work in our patch—that is a story that is familiar for over 400 young locals up in our patch. They had been picked up, retrained, redeployed into areas that we need. Now, I could not be prouder to see that level of investment into a region like ours. 
I heard, just prior, quite a derogatory framing, I thought, of a fund that has been transformational for rural and provincial New Zealand. I heard them refer to it as something like the poaka kete—the pig basket fund. How derogatory, because if any of those members would like to come up to a place called Ōpōtiki—I would love to invite you all to come up to Ōpōtiki. This is one of the centres of our universe. Now, this used to be a thriving, incredible town. It's been a little worse for wear—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: As much as I enjoy the member talking about my electorate, it would be really good to focus on the Estimates just for the last couple of minutes.
KIRITAPU ALLAN: The Estimates have a substantive—over $3 billion was invested into that fund that has invested in your electorate, the mighty East Coast. Your electorate of the mighty East Coast has been a benefactor: $236.5 million on the Tai Rāwhiti, $228 million into the Bay of Plenty. That funding has not gone to pork-barrel politics, and we both know this. It has gone into fundamental investment in our people.
Last week, I was sitting literally with 80 young people—young, old people—from our community that had been employed in a local project. It was the Whakatōhea mussel factory, a massive, big development. It has been invested in by this Government as a consequence of this Government's commitment to rebuilding our regions, investing in our people, and that is something that has been neglected for far too long. 
Now, as we find ourselves on the precipice of what could be a gravely challenging economic environment ahead, I am heartened. Just earlier, I saw Sir Michael Cullen sitting in this House for some valedictories of some of our good friends. I reflected on his foresight in terms of thinking far beyond a three-year political electoral cycle. It's that type of vision that I see emulated in the Hon Grant Robertson and in these Estimates that we are debating here today. 
We have a critical economic situation—the globe does. So what he has done and what this Government's done has looked at the long-term future. We are investing in tomorrow's economy, whether that be through over $1.1 billion that was invested into sustainable jobs—I'll acknowledge our friends over there in our team Kākāriki: it was $1.1 billion into nature-based jobs. That is about investing in our land and our young people, and again Te Tai Rāwhiti has been a massive benefactor. I want to acknowledge the work of Rena Kohere and Charles, who have secured substantive funding for over 60 young locals to plant trees and to do pest control up in the backblocks—for 60 young people that haven't had the opportunity to work on their land. 
I want to conclude with the words of the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: "We are focused on protecting jobs and creating new ones, on upgrading our infrastructure, and putting people at the centre of our recovery. We're focused on keeping New Zealand moving." and that is this—[Time expired]





MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I guess that actually sums up the Government: a lot of talk, hot air, and delivers nothing. That member, Kiritapu Allan, talks about how offended she was, and she actually talks about certain things that we have apparently said that were derogatory. She is offended. I suppose I am offended that she actually thinks that pork-barrel politics is something that she supports, that after three years of doing nothing as a Government, finally they're throwing money into communities, purely for the purposes of an election year.
Earlier, my colleague Michael Woodhouse was very articulate in his estimation and his analysis of this bill. In terms of the imprest supply bill, obviously that is something that we need to make sure that we pass, because the Government expenditure needs to continue, but the Budget, the Estimates, is something that we need to seriously look at. We need to collect revenue as a country, and how does a Government collect revenue? Taxes. How does the Government actually pay for things? The money that the Government spends on everything, including the Provincial Growth Fund, the $3 billion that the Hon Shane Jones is actually very proud of and that member who just sat down is actually very proud of, apparently, and offended that we're calling it pork-barrel politics—it is done as a result of collecting taxes and, in this instance, borrowing huge amounts to pay for them.
One of the things that I'd like to highlight to the House is that, often, when the Hon Shane Jones actually dishes out—what did Michael Woodhouse call it? Kete poaka. I quite like that: kete, the basket of money that he—and Shane Jones actually talks about pūtea. He talks about pūtea quite a lot. He does like that word, and I think it's actually a good word, because that could be used for good and well-meaning and well-purposed spending by the Government, but apparently it's not, because even the Auditor-General has actually criticised the transparency issue.
But that transparency issue has existed in this Government for a very long time. I, in my portfolio, wanted to find out what that Minister was spending $50 million on for enhanced digital connectivity in the infrastructure investment package announced earlier on 1 July, and the reply I got today—if I can actually enlighten my colleagues in the Chamber—actually says, "Final decisions are still being made around the exact breakdown of projects to be funded by $50 million for digital connectivity." That's typical of the answers and lack of planning that this Government dishes out with the money, the huge amounts of money that they're dishing out to the communities. Apparently, they're planning this. If they were planning it, they should've researched it, just like the Minister of broadcasting when he was talking about merging Television New Zealand and Radio New Zealand. When he took it to Cabinet, he hadn't even done the business plan. He hadn't even done the business case. I am still waiting to find out what that plan is. That was last year.
This year, the Minister announced $15 million to improve connectivity in the rural areas. COVID-19 has actually highlighted the issue of people who had lack of connectivity. It also highlighted the importance of connectivity and what a good deal of work the previous National Government actually did: the UFB that the National Government rolled out—the ultra-fast broadband—the Rural Broadband Initiative (RBI) 1 and RBI 2, and even the mobile black spots that we started and actually rolled out to the country, which the Government continues to grow in terms of the numbers of people who are connected. I actually applaud that, because we need to do more in that space.
I was hoping that in the Budget the Minister would actually announce a bigger, punchier announcement in terms of what he was in fact going to do, what this Government was in fact going to do, for the people who had major difficulty connecting. In the rural communities, we had many, many people who complained that when they're trying to do their business from home, when they're trying to educate their children from home, they did not have connectivity that was useful for them. The Minister and the Government should have responded to that, but no, $15 million, rural—
Simon O'Connor: How much?
MELISSA LEE: Fifteen million dollars only. They were planning on extending the rural connectivity issue, but I don't know how far $15 million will actually go, because it really doesn't go very far when you're actually talking about rural connectivity issue. Even WISPA: in order for them to extend, it's going to actually cost in excess of $150 million to do so. Extend fibre—it's going to cost about $400 million.
I think the Government has lacked ambition when it comes to connectivity, and it is very important to think that there are many businesses in the sector of broadcasting and media that have actually failed. There are a lot of people who are out of a job. During COVID, I had to actually deal with a constituent who was a part of an employer of the Bauer Media Group who had lost their job. This young lady had just bought her first home, and she could not see the future—she had just bought her home and she lost a job and she was on a wage subsidy. She didn't see how she could actually continue to pay her mortgage, and she was about to lose her job. There are many stories like that.
But this Government continues to talk about how they're looking after New Zealanders. This is the Government that has promised so much, including the delivery of the light rail that goes down Dominion Road—yes? They were going to spend so much money, and yet it's now cancelled. It basically shows the example of how this Government lacks the planning, lacks the foresight, and lacks the gumption and the honesty to deliver on what they promised. They actually talk about borrowing as a good thing. Yes, in a crisis, we need to borrow. We don't have the cash to actually spread out to everyone and pay for everything. Yes, we know that, but there needs to be a plan when they are borrowing to spend. When they don't have a plan and when the spending is actually not targeted, it is the future of our children and our grandchildren who will be indebted, and they have to actually pay that debt back. I would like to see the next National Government show this Government up by actually showing what planning, targeting, and responsible spending is.
One of the things that I wanted to talk about was that recently COVID-19 has actually meant there are many constituent cases that have actually come to all of our members' offices—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: It would be nice if they related to the Estimates.
MELISSA LEE: This Government talks about how they're helping a lot of people through their spending, and it is very clear that there are some people who actually miss out on that Government spending. It would've been very, very nice if they actually considered that export education industry which a lot of New Zealanders are part of. It's a $5 billion industry that many ethnic communities are involved in. We have actually suggested that the borders could be controlled better. We can actually work through the security screening, the testing, and maybe opening up to export education students, because they're here on a long-term basis—often a year, sometimes two, sometimes here on a degree three or four years—and they could actually pay for the testing, come and do quarantine, and they're going to be here for a long term. But they haven't even considered that. It's a $5 billion industry with tens of thousands of people who are ultimately going to lose their jobs as a result, and this Government are not even planning, are not even considering, because they say, "Oh, it's COVID-19; it's too dangerous." Maybe perhaps if they put some thinking into it, perhaps if they actually consider the ultimate result, the outcome for these people who are in fact hurt as a result of COVID-19, perhaps they might have some plans for those people who are desperately in need of the Government's help.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call Fletcher Tabuteau.





FLETCHER TABUTEAU (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First this evening in the Government debates on the appropriations, just to address a few issues raised by the previous speaker, Melissa Lee. They spoke about pork-barrel politics. The irony of that—am I allowed to use that word in the House? You'll check me, I'm sure, Madam Speaker, if I use it inappropriately. The irony of that statement is that the only thing that the Opposition party has come up with thus far in terms of appealing to the electorate is roads and a little bit of rail, and how much it's going to cost—that's all they've been able to engage with the electorate—
Mark Patterson: No ideas.
FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Yeah, truly, no ideas—no ideas.
So let me just put the appropriations that we have been talking about this evening in context. What we are doing here is about smart and targeted investment in, particularly, our regions but across the country. What we're doing here—
Brett Hudson: Vote buying.
FLETCHER TABUTEAU: —Mr Hudson, is about investing money in response to a pandemic that, unfortunately, is taking down the rest of the world. We here in New Zealand—I don't think we actually appreciate it ourselves that we are able to move around and engage and hug one another, like we have tonight in our valedictory speeches, and congratulate one another. It's amazing. In fact, I was at the US Embassy's Fourth of July celebrations a couple of weeks ago, and the ambassador said to the crowd, 1,500 strong, that nowhere else in the world have the United States been willing to bring people together—nowhere else in the world have they been willing to bring people together—to have that celebration: the Independence Day, as it were, of the American nation. Only in New Zealand have they been willing and able to do that. That focuses the mind, and it gives you an indication of just how amazing New Zealand's response has been to COVID—that 5 million - strong team.
But that has been our health response. I implore those people out in our communities right now who are worried about community spread and whose doctors are suggesting that they go and have a test: please do it, because it's so important that we know what the situation is. But right now, we're in an amazing position.
These appropriations give us an indication and an insight into what it is that we as a Government are trying to do in terms of an economic health response. I rebut the assertions from those members opposite on the Provincial Growth Fund. As the under-secretary of regional economic development, I have had the privilege of travelling around this country and seeing firsthand not only the people in the regions coming together as stakeholders and as members of a community, saying, "What do we need? What would make the most sense for our community right now in terms of regional economic development, growing our towns, growing our communities, putting more jobs in the regions?" That's what they've been doing. They came to the Provincial Growth Fund, and they worked with our amazing team down there. I just want to put this in context for everyone in the House: those projects—that money that this Government has spent—has come from the people and the communities in the regions. They have come to this Government and said, "This makes sense in our place. This makes sense for us long term."
I can speak about Rotorua for the next half an hour, about the difference that the Provincial Growth Fund has made and will make. I put it to this House very briefly, because I have such a short amount of time left, that we invested $55 million into Rotorua just recently, and that was simply about unlocking roading infrastructure and the three waters component so that housing in Rotorua could be developed and built. There are 1,200 homes, 1,200 properties, being developed by local iwi right now because of this Government and our investment in our communities, because that's what our communities want and that's what they needed, and it's been a blessing for all of us. Thank you very much.





Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister for Climate Change): It's always a pleasure to follow my good friend and colleague Fletcher Tabuteau on matters of finance and the Budget. I wanted to start in this final appropriations debate for this year's Budget by responding to some of the criticisms that we've received on the other side of the House. I heard the phrase "responsible spending" being used a lot to suggest that actually a lot of our spending is not responsible and that you can only rely on National to do responsible spending.
Hon Member: That's right—that's right.
Hon JAMES SHAW: So I just wanted to pick up a couple—how did it work out with Novopay? How did that work out? That was a contract awarded to an Australian human resources company with no IT experience, and it cost the country absolutely billions of dollars. That was good. How about that SkyCity convention centre?
DEPUTY SPEAKER: How about the Estimates?
Hon JAMES SHAW: OK. Well, it is a debate, Madam Speaker, and— 
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I know you're responding to the points made in the debate, but it would be good to tie it into the Estimates.
Hon JAMES SHAW: I will absolutely do so. My point being that there is certainly no monopoly on the wisdom and on responsible spending on the other side of the House. I was also just going to mention the Saudi sheep farm. That was my personal favourite. That was a good use of public finances. 
I want to turn my attention in particular to the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund (CRRF), the $50 billion appropriation that was made in Budget 2020 in order to deal with the various phases of the Government's response to the COVID-19 crisis. The first thing I'd actually like to do is to congratulate and to acknowledge the Hon Grant Robertson, Treasury, and actually the whole Public Service, because the Budget effectively got written twice. We went through the whole normal business-as-usual process, got right to sort of pretty much the end of the process as the last packages were being drawn up, and then, of course, the pandemic crisis hit our shores and everything changed. What that meant is that the Budget essentially had to get rewritten again in a very short period of time. I know that Grant and the Treasury team and the Public Service did an extraordinary amount of work under incredible pressure, at a time when we were also shutting down much of the country to go to level 4. The COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund, that $50 billion appropriation, is kind of the centrepiece in terms of Budget 2020 of how we were going to respond.
We did cop some criticism for not saying up front how all of that would be spent. But the whole point here is that we are in an evolving crisis where new information is being revealed on a daily basis—certainly at that point—or several times daily basis, and we also don't know how it's going to evolve in the future. There's about $14 billion left of that appropriation that hasn't been committed, and the reason for that is that if there is another outbreak and we have to go into some other state of lockdown and, God forbid, another state of emergency and level 4, then you've got to have some money in the tank to be able to deal with that the way that we did the first time around. So in terms of responsible spending, that is entirely the appropriate response.
The other thing that I wanted to point out is that the economy needs liquidity at a time like this. One of the things that the previous Government did during the global financial crisis is they actually turned the screws on a bit much for a bit too long, and actually it prolonged the economic downturn. So, you know, putting cash into the economy via the CRRF is an entirely appropriate response. 
The one thing I'd like to say about that, though, is that it does have to get paid back. It is tens of billions of dollars, and it is going to take a very, very long time to do so. Therefore, we have not just an economic duty but a moral duty to future generations of taxpayers to make sure that that stimulus spend in this year's Budget—that every dollar available of that is put to work on resolving the long-term challenges facing this country, because otherwise we present future generations with a double whammy. Not only do they have to pay their taxes to pay back the debt that we're running up in order to get ourselves through this crisis; they're also going to have to pay additionally to get themselves through whatever crises are facing them. And we already know what those crises are. First amongst them is the climate crisis. That is the omni-crisis that affects housing, it affects inequality, it affects public health, it affects local government, and it affects infrastructure. We have an absolute responsibility to ensure that this stimulus spend is a green recovery and sets us up for the long term and reduces that future burden on future generations.





Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The last speaker in this debate, the Hon James Shaw, mentioned the moral journey that future generations may have to pay off, and the moral obligation that we have, and that we need to set the solutions to long-term challenges. That's an admirable sentiment from a member of the Government, but we haven't seen a lot of that in action. Indeed, when it comes to the challenge that future generations will have in paying off the significant amount of debt that will be run up in the coming years, the absolute obligation on this Government is to spend as little as is necessary and to spend it very well—
Dr Duncan Webb: It's called austerity. It's called kids going hungry. It's called homelessness. We've been there. We've done it.
Hon TODD McCLAY: —to do so on things that will deliver for the economy today and in the future and to come out and tell New Zealanders, honestly and up front for once—and the member can take a call if he wants to—how they're going to pay it back without raising taxes.
What we've seen in this Budget is that debt in New Zealand will go to $250 billion over a four-year period. This Government will borrow $140 billion, additionally, to spend in four years—more debt than we've ever had before. The challenge that we have when it comes to debt is that, actually—
Mark Patterson: You've got no idea.
Hon TODD McCLAY: —it's other people's money that's being spent here.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Actually, I have quite a few ideas.
Hon TODD McCLAY: It's other people's money that's being spent here. So Mr Shaw is correct: it is future generations, children and grandchildren, that will pay this back, and they will do it in one of two ways under a Labour - Green - New Zealand First Government. There will have to be fewer services, which means less money for teachers or for doctors or for nurses or for policemen, or there will have to be higher taxes, because the country knows that a Labour Government with the Greens and New Zealand First under their wing is very good at spending money and then raising taxes to pay it back. And if it's not going to be paid back through higher taxes, every member of the House on the other side, and the Prime Minister, has the opportunity to stand up and say that taxes won't be increased, but when they've been offered that opportunity, they haven't taken it and they haven't said there won't be more taxes. But what they have said is "Our policy will come." Well, New Zealanders know what it means when $140 billion is borrowed and spent in a four-year period, and it must be paid back.
But here is the challenge—because, of course, we live in times when there will have to be borrowing, irrespective of who forms the next Government. So a National Government will also have to borrow, but what we will do is borrow more carefully, and we will make sure that we spend taxpayers' money more carefully than has been evident under the last three years under this Government, and we will look at things that will grow the economy, invest in infrastructure that actually will get built. So when we announce that we would want more houses, it won't be a few houses under the equivalent of their KiwiBuild, which has been one of the greatest failures of this Government over the last three years—such a failure that they don't call it KiwiBuild any more. We'll look to back New Zealanders and make sure that we can have the Government agencies and departments working more efficiently and more productively for the taxpayer resource that they are given, and that will mean the economy can grow more quickly, that we will be able to borrow less, and that there will be less burden upon New Zealanders today and going into the future.
There's $250 billion worth of debt, and you only need to look at actually some of the spending over the last three years under the Provincial Growth Fund, or other things that the Government have spent money on, to give a bit of insight into what would happen. So the big announcement last week of the Provincial Growth Fund was a swimming pool and a library. Well, that's going to change things, isn't it, around the country. Look, good on that small community who want a library and they want a swimming pool, but do you know what they want more than a library and a swimming pool? They want some hope, they want some jobs, and they don't want to be saddled with debt in the future and have higher taxes to pay that back. Less services and higher taxes is what this Government is promising but not admitting to.
There are 200,000 New Zealanders on the unemployment benefit as a direct result of COVID-19, as a direct result of the lockdown when the Government closed the economy down. We know there are likely to be more than 300,000 additional New Zealanders who will lose their job and go on the unemployment benefit. These are everyday, hard-working Kiwis that have done what the Government asked of them, which was actually a great sacrifice to themselves. The Budget doesn't look widely at how to help them get back on their feet. So we know that there's been a wage subsidy there, which the Opposition, the National Party, supported. It was important through lockdown that New Zealanders didn't have to worry about where the paycheque would come from, but, actually, since they've been able to go back to work, businesses have relied upon that. The Prime Minister has said that it will run out in a few weeks' time, and that is a hard cliff that businesses run up to when it comes to employment. [Interruption]
Now, members opposite can scoff at that, but wait and see what happens over the coming weeks as business after business has to lay people off because they don't have the resource to keep them on. When the Prime Minister says, "Actually, it will be OK, because we are expanding the criteria around the Government-guaranteed loan scheme offered to businesses, and particularly small businesses.", what members opposite don't realise and what the Prime Minister forgot to tell New Zealanders is that for very many businesses in New Zealand, they can't get access to those loans, because the Government has offered an 80 percent guarantee and the bank needs to give a 20 percent guarantee for that loan. In many cases, the banks won't lend the 20 percent, because they don't have certainty of when the economy will fix itself, they don't have certainty around the Government policies, and, when it comes to the tourism industry, they have no certainty of when the Government is even going to start talking about things that will help the industry get back on its feet, even safe, short-term things today that would make a difference.
So when the Prime Minister says, "Don't worry; unemployment won't go up when the wage subsidy finishes, because businesses can take on more debt and the Government is guaranteeing it.", she's out of touch, because, actually, most businesses I talk to are saying they don't have a debt problem; they have actually too much debt. It's a turnover problem, and they need help for a shorter period of time as the economy fixes itself, supposedly. But secondly, their banks won't lend to them. So what we're going to see, as of last week and this week and next week, is businesses that want to rebuild their business. They want to keep their workers there working for them as they strive to make things better, but when the wage subsidy is over, they know they can't afford to keep those workers on, and they've started the discussion already about unemployment, and they've started the discussion already around redundancy.
When the member opposite said, "What would this member do?", well, we're going to go and get every single vote, because here's the thing: on 20 September, for the tourism sector—the tourism sector, and every travel agent in this country—20 September, it will be too late, because for five months those travel agents have had no income at all.
Mark Patterson: So what's National going to do about it? What's National going to do about it?
Hon TODD McCLAY: And when Kelvin Davis, who rarely is on top of his brief, stands up in this House—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Mark Patterson.
Hon TODD McCLAY: —and he says that actually it's travel agents' fault for not applying or asking for too much or for trying to actually sort the things out themselves, what he does is a great disservice to these small-business people, who have been scrapping for five months to try and rebuild their businesses, with no remuneration. They've been looking after New Zealanders who are owed a lot of money around the world, because they're not able to travel, and, actually, the Government has done nothing for them.
So come 20 September, it will be too late, because long before that, those businesses will close. And the members opposite say, "Well, actually, it will be OK with this loan." There's not a single travel agent in the country who's said they're able to get that loan, because of uncertainty, and there are thousands and thousands of New Zealanders who have done what was asked of them, who have sacrificed, who are about to lose their jobs. The Government needs to take action on this long before the election, because by the time the election comes around, it will be too late.
The final thing I want to say, as my time runs out, is how the Government really has its priorities wrong. It is a good thing that there is money in tourism—and there's $400 million that they've given to about 120 companies—but the sad thing about that is there are so many thousands of other businesses in tourism who are deserving of funds as well and haven't been given it. And here's a question: why has AJ Hackett been given $10 million by the Government to save 20 jobs? And the reason for that is just down the road, there is a business with 50 jobs, and those jobs are about to go because they didn't get $10 million. So the problem the Government has is they picked some things that are a great press release and look good on TV, but the hard-working New Zealanders that graft every day have been left behind.
Good on AJ Hackett for getting $10 million out of the Government to save 20 jobs. That's a great achievement, but the person down the road with 50 jobs that are about to go didn't need $10 million, didn't need $1 million; they actually just needed a few hundred thousand dollars over the next few years to keep those people on, and they didn't get it, because the Government is picking people they perceive to be winners. Why did they go and give money to the Waitomo caves and not the small businesses around them that depend upon tourism in exactly the same way? The Government has lost its way. It doesn't have the right priorities. Come 20 September, a solution is on its way.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call, possibly.





GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I think that last speech—anyone sitting at home, sitting in the gallery, just have a listen to that last speech, and it sums up the ridiculous situation that the Opposition find themselves in, because you've had speaker after speaker lamenting how much has been spent in this Budget, and then the last speaker spent the last five minutes chastising this Government for not spending more on an industry which, sadly, is an industry which has suffered probably the most, heavily involved in tourism, involved in getting New Zealanders overseas. Admittedly, I have had people from that same industry come into my office; I'm sure every electorate has. I have nothing but sympathy for those people, because not only that, they are also the only people over there at the moment who are actually getting money back for New Zealanders who have money invested in travel companies overseas, and these are the companies that have to get it. So I do feel some sympathy for them; however, we cannot save everything.
Can I go straight to the appropriations. The appropriations—$50 billion this year. Now, we've been absolutely chastised for spending that money—"It's a terrible thing." Just imagine if we hadn't. Just imagine if we hadn't brought in the wage subsidy. Just imagine if we hadn't made the decision at the beginning of this COVID-19 pandemic, if we had said we'd do what the last three speakers have said we do—"Sit, wait, don't spend money, because we can't afford to." Well, where would we be? Have a look at our cousins across the Ditch. Have a look at the Victorians. How many times in this House have you sat in that Chair, have I, have we sat here and listened to us being told, "Be more like the Aussies."? How many times have we been criticised, whatever leader, whoever's over there—"Why aren't you more like the Aussies?" Well, we're not like the Aussies; we're New Zealanders, and we're taking a broad view.
The whole idea is that when we start to come out of this COVID downturn—and we are, because we are the one country. I heard a statistic this week that said Auckland Airport is as busy as Heathrow Airport. That's the sort of thing that's happening in this country. Every one of us here will have friends overseas—even mentioned by my colleague from New Zealand First about how there's an American Embassy everywhere in the world. New Zealand was the only one that had an unregulated crowd at that embassy. That tells you something. That's how successful we've been.
I go back to the appropriations, Madam Speaker—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: That would be good!
GREG O'CONNOR: Well, I've hardly ever left them, actually, but I know that you do run a very tight line on these things; so I will run very strictly down—so I'm in a sheep pen, with fences put up by yourself, in your second to last day in the Chair, but you've been consistent right the whole way through, I do have to say. But can I just say I'm reminded that I was cleaning out an old uncle's belongings after he died, and I found a slip that this uncle had been given during the Depression—1938—and it was to go to a work camp to plant trees. That was at the time when the Labour Government had started spending some money at the end of the Depression. Originally, in the United States and in New Zealand, it was all shut down and there was no spending done.
I also remember driving from Westport to Nelson through the Golden Downs forest, and that area was planted by those same people, and it was only a little bit later in the United States, during the New Deal—when Roosevelt started spending money—that the Americans came out of the Great Depression—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don't want to interrupt your story—well, I sort of do—but just to let you know that ACT is not here to take the other five minutes; so there are another five minutes available to you to continue.
Hon David Bennett: No, not him!
GREG O'CONNOR: And the crowd went wild, that they were once again ashamed at a speech like mine. But what I'm focusing on, and going back to the appropriations—not that I feel like I've ever really moved far off of them—spending the $50 billion. Again, I just want to warn that we've had plenty of evidence that if you do stop spending, and a very good example of that—and if you just want numbers, and often when those members opposite are debating they say, "Let's count the numbers. We've got to have targets." Well, just what happens when you stop spending? I'd like to go to the police appropriation. What happened when you stopped spending—or not you, Madam Speaker; I'm sure as a Minister you were only too keen to spend more money, but certainly, your police equivalent at the time—the fatalities on the road, a number that we can actually go for. In 2013, there were 253 fatalities on the road. That was at a time when police numbers were cut, as a result of Budget cuts, by 111. By 2017, those numbers had gone to 379, which was almost a 49 percent increase in numbers. That was a direct result of failing to spend. 
While I'm still on the police appropriation, I could almost go to the gang policing at the same time. That was at a time when you may have heard, in fact, the current leader talking very tough when the Rebels Motorcycle Club arrived in New Zealand—how she was going to stop that from happening; she was going to invest and there was no way that they were ever going to be allowed to establish. They were going to be—I think "crushed" was the word used. Well, the Rebels motorcycles are one of the most successful gangs in New Zealand now. And the reason why? You can talk as tough as you like, but if you don't actually put the investment in it—and today we are paying the price for that. We are paying the price for that reduction in investment at the time.
This is an opportunity, because if we get this right—and I believe we are getting this right—those generations that will come after us will look back and say, "This was a time when New Zealand invested heavily in its future." I heard one of the speakers opposite talk very proudly that Bill English never spent more than a billion at once. Well, can I just say, the evidence was clear. If you don't pay the bills and do the maintenance, someone has got to do it down the track. If we did what those members opposite are advocating now, if we stopped spending, if we sat here waiting to see what's going to happen, exactly what would happen is that we would end up—someone would have to pay the bills further down the track, which is exactly what our Government has had to do. We've had to pay the bills and do the maintenance for that stopping of spending that actually happened at the time. 
The important thing, too, as we do go forward with this appropriation, it's really important that you have a broad plan to ensure that you know that you have a context in which every dollar you spend is being contested. So is this dollar we're spending within a plan that is designed to improve New Zealand, to make New Zealand better for the future? Let's just go through that five-point plan. Investing in our people: one of the things I'd really like to focus on there that's in the appropriation is the free apprentices and trades training in key areas. Tell me, anyone who is in this House, who hasn't had a local business—whether it be air conditioning, whether it be any sort of a trade—approach saying, "We haven't got any people. We haven't got any tradespeople coming through."? We stopped training in 2008, 2010, and as a result they were demanding that we open the borders, demanding that they be able to get people imported so that they could actually have this work done. It's incredibly important we now have an opportunity to make sure that doesn't happen, and this is when I point to investing in our people. What better way to ensure that we have got our young people into apprenticeships and trades training, that they are coming out work-ready, job-ready, as they will be as the work picks up. The work is picking up. The work is very much picking up.
We then go on to the second part of this, and it's barely raining outside at the same time. Jobs, jobs, jobs, and this leads firstly into this, that there are going to be 1,100 new jobs. Well, what better way to ensure that the jobs that we are investing in are ones that our children and grandchildren are going to thank us for, and what better way than the environment? Eleven thousand new jobs that are going to be out there, whether it be out on the farms, out in the provinces, where those young people are going to be out there not only doing useful work but actually learning how to get a job, how to work, and ensure that in the future.
In the time left to me, I won't go through the other two but I would like to go to the last one, which is to position us globally. Again, I challenge everyone in the House: we will all be speaking to people overseas, and the one thing they do is to talk about our Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern. Now, it's not just the fact that they're talking about her individually; what it is they're talking about is New Zealand, and how good is that going to be to ensure that our produce, that brand New Zealand, that New Zealand Inc. is on the world stage as we come out of this, as we produce more produce that needs to be sold on the world stage, that at a time when borders are slowing down, we have that opportunity to make sure that New Zealand Inc. is high on that world stage. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): That was a speech from one of the more moderate members of the Labour Party that does value his economic credentials and thinks that he is of moderate economic persuasion for a left-wing socialist party. Now, he did tell us that at the moment, the Labour Party is investing in our future. They're not investing in our future. The Labour Party is spending hand over fist on social spending to keep New Zealanders in some kind of utopia so they don't have to worry about the election campaign. That's what the Labour Party is doing. They're not investing in our future. They're not borrowing to build infrastructure. They're not borrowing to make the country go faster in the future. They're only borrowing to save themselves in six weeks' time. That's all it's about. So it's pretty rich for that member to come to this House and then talk about the road toll as some failure to spend money. He has got no idea. In regard to tourism, he said we can't save everything. He's quite happy for some people to go to the morgue. He's the moderate one in that party. Imagine if we let the madness in the second row have a go, what they would come up with, and we don't even want to know what the first row would think.
So it is implorable on this House to consider a very special thing that is happening in New Zealand at the moment, and that is the Labour, Green, New Zealand First parties are saying the right things around our primary industries. They're actually saying they believe in them. They have actually been booting them for years and now saying, "Oh no, we need you. We love you. We want you to contribute to the future of New Zealand going forward." Should we believe that? Should we take that? Should we understand that they genuinely think that? Well, I think we have to take them at their word, because we know that the primary sector is the future of New Zealand. We know that they will deliver the jobs, they will deliver the export earnings, and they will deliver the future for this country. That party can never understand that, because they don't believe in freedom of enterprise, they don't believe in aspiration, they don't believe in hard work, and they don't believe in investing your money and making something out of it. They believe it's all dictated from a group of people in Wellington that are some kind of academic elite that can determine the future of a country, and the COVID crisis is a perfect opportunity for that academic elite to show their credentials. That's what the Labour Party stands for.
Now, I believe in the agriculture and horticulture sector. I know they will deliver, and we will have to take them at their word that that is what they believe in. But if we take them at their word, let's look at the document that they put out a month ago around the future of the primary sector. They want to double the export earnings of the primary sector by $44 billion. "We're going to double the export earnings."—and that's the first category.
The second category is that they're going to restrict the primary sector, predominantly the dairy industry, to emissions targets, which would cost the New Zealand dairy industry $5 billion to $12 billion. So on the first side, there's a $44 billion increase in primary sector, right? Of that, we asked the Minister last week, and he said $4 billion of that comes from the dairy industry, which is currently 40 percent of our exports. So we're going to get $4 billion in through growth, be from organics and regenerative agriculture. Now, no offence to those forms of agriculture—I'm an organic dairy farmer so, you know, I understand what that means—but there is no price point for regenerative agriculture in the dairy industry at the moment. We do not get paid a premium for it. So how they are going to get that increase in production from something that is not even paid for is a virtual impossibility at this stage.
But then their second criteria is that they will whack on $5 billion to $12 billion of costs on that very sector and then they're still going to have a $4 billion increase from that. How does that work? The Minister couldn't answer it. The Minister's got no calculation. He just thinks it's going to happen. It's like what we've seen out of that party for the last three years: all these glorious promises, these glorious ambitions of what can happen, and no delivery. And the primary sector is the next one to face that.
Well, let's look at the horticulture sector. That's an even bigger example of what you're talking about. Now, the horticulture sector does have ambitious growth plans, you know, very ambitious growth plans of $6 billion to getting to that $10 billion or $20 billion that they can get to in the next decade.
Dan Bidois: How are we going to get there?
Hon DAVID BENNETT: Those plans—and exactly. As my colleague says, how would you get there? Well, you can't grow fruit and veges if you don't have water. You just can't go find a farm and plant it in kiwifruit and think it just happens. You need water for fruit and veges. It's that simple. And what did they do? They cut all the water storage programmes out when they got in. The only water storage programmes we've got now are a couple little projects we've got in the last six months to try and placate the residents in Auckland—an election campaign. They have got no intention of doing anything decent on water storage.
So how do we get this glorious goal for the horticultural sector when there's no water? Let's look at the second big issue in the horticulture sector, and that's labour. We need people that are going to pick that fruit, and we're going to need people that are going to do the work on those farms and prune those vines.
Michael Wood: I'm looking at some people who are going to need some work later this year.
Hon DAVID BENNETT: That member over there—he's a funny guy, isn't he? Well, he's never picked a fruit in his life. He's never picked a vine. He's sat in that chair while other people have gone out there and done the work. And that member is a true reflection of the Labour Party: self-entitled, comes here and thinks he can go and tell people what to do. Become a real New Zealand manufacturer or income earner that actually did anything.
Michael Wood: As nasty as it is ignorant.
Hon DAVID BENNETT: Oh, nasty? But what was his comment before? It was a great comment, wasn't it? But that is the love of being a liberal Labour Party member, because you can throw stones and then you can hide behind this veneer afterwards that you are better than that. I know. You're such an upstanding member of the community.
But if we look at that plan, what are they going to do around labour supply? I reckon that the Labour Party will determine that they want to stop people coming into this country, to unionise the workforces of New Zealand. That is their grand plan. That is what their intention always has been. They don't want contracted labour; they want unionised labour all the way. And they will use COVID as an excuse to go towards unionised labour on our primary sector. That will destroy the efficiency of our primary sector. That is the number one thing that we can see will come out of that plan, because they are going to stop that labour supply.
But actually, it gets worse, because our primary producers have very high asset values and very low incomes relative to their asset values. The biggest risk to our primary producers is the Labour, Green Party, and New Zealand First that want to tax the guts out of those people. The Greens were silly enough to go out there and tell us their tax policy, give us some numbers. There's income tax rates and an asset tax. Where's the capital gains tax that the Green Party's talked about for decades? Gone, because they know the Prime Minister won't agree to it. They know the Prime Minister will agree to an asset tax. If we take an average dairy farm in the Waikato—say, $8 million. You take off the $2 million for the house and all those exemptions, $6 million at the 2 percent that the Green Party is talking about—that wipes out that dairy farm. It wipes it out—wipes it out.
The Labour Party tax policy—I can write it now for you. And if anybody wants to have a look, just have a look in a few weeks' time when their tax policy comes out. It will talk about equity and fairness. We will have a tax policy based on equity. We want a fair and reasonable tax policy. We'll give no numbers, will not talk about the asset tax that they intend to bring in, will not talk about the increase in income tax that they intend to bring in. Mark my words: anybody that votes for that side of the House and is in business will pay the price next year. Between September and Christmas, they will have passed the biggest tax programme in New Zealand's history, because they're borrowing only for social spending; they're not borrowing to invest in the country going forward. And that comes back to our fundamental starting point of the difference between these two political parties.
The National Party will invest in New Zealand's infrastructure, will invest on the way forward. On that side of the House, it will all be about spending to the election and then taxing the guts out of the productive sector. And New Zealand farmers will end up paying an asset tax, which will destroy the productivity of our most competitive—[Time expired]





Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā, and kia orana. Look, it's just sad. I've already heard two things today. One is the National Party again trying to drive a wedge between farmers and Government, and it's not there to be driven. The other thing I've heard is the arguments for austerity—to not spend, to pare everything back—and do you know what? We've been there before, and we don't want to go back. 
The fact of the matter is that there is no trade-off between the environment and the economy. The economy is a subset of the environment. Without a healthy and flourishing environment, there is no economic prosperity and there is no effective farming, and we know that good farmers are totally on board with that. Rivers and farms, in fact, go hand in hand when properly managed. Our farms depend on our climate, and that is why this Government, in this Budget, has a comprehensive strategy to address this. If we're going to hypothesise an economy, we must first assume a flourishing, healthy, and effective environment, and this Budget sets out numerous steps across the board to effect that. 
Our environment needs to be one that sustains health and sustains a healthy population, a population that can work and recreate in the environment; an environment that provides effective supply of food and trade and all kinds of exports, and we want to do that; and one that also—and sometimes we forget this when we're talking about the environment—provides an effective urban setting, somewhere where we can live and flourish. This Government, across the board, through this Budget, has done exactly that. 
We look at the freshwater package that David Parker, the Minister for the Environment, has set out. It's something that strikes a balance—a balance to the farmers I've spoken to—that is recognised as fair and effective, one that limits the amount of nitrogen that's going into our waterways, and one that requires the offsetting of stock away from the waterways, but, equally, one that recognises that farming is an important part of our economy and that it is possible to effectively and sustainably run dairy farms, which are a critical part of our exports. We can do that effectively, and a good farmer knows that to do that effectively, we must do it sustainably. 
It's no good having adverse environmental outcomes that are just paid for but that someone down the road has to pick up. That's what we are picking up now. We're picking up the neglect of our waterways that the last Government oversaw—no action at all on cleaning up our waterways. They sat on their hands and watched as nitrates leached and algae grew in our rivers. But now, with David Parker's freshwater plan, genuine steps. A plan which sees hard bottom lines and which actually sets rules in place—that's what we're seeing, and that's what we saw when we examined these Estimates. 
The Resource Management Act reform, which is part of this process, is a huge leap forward. These proposals, which the next Government will be able to implement, see not just the effects but they are also looking for positive outcomes. It's actually changing the way we think about environmental outcomes. We're saying that we mustn't just say that minor effects are OK and slowly see the environment sliced away by inches, but that we want positive environmental outcomes. 
Of course, the huge leap forward under this Parliament, and one that this Budget will actually see, is the emissions trading scheme reforms, which James Shaw came and talked about in front of the select committee. At last, we have a cap-and-trade scheme with a cap, one where we can effectively price carbon. Carbon is not costless. If you look at coastal communities that are being inundated with flooding, they're the ones that are bearing the costs of carbon emissions elsewhere. It's only right that we now have a cap-and-trade scheme, an emissions trading scheme which correctly prices carbon, and that we have a sinking lid on carbon emissions where, finally, the genuine price of carbon will, in fact, be paid. 
As for the response to COVID, the environment is a huge part of that, and, in fact, Eugenie Sage, our Minister of Conservation, has made some important initiatives there such as the $1.1 billion initiative which will see money spent now which will have returns for generations to come. Whether it be insuring our biodiversity through the predator-free scheme and by using that money so that people can get out there and hunt, trap, and otherwise eliminate the predators which are absolutely wreaking havoc in our conservation estate, or the wilding pine scheme, where people who have previously been working in the tourism sector—many of those people who are working in that scheme now are out there cleaning up our environment, removing these weed pines, and making huge leaps forward. Of course, we can see, looking across the board, that in terms of the environmental sector, we're making massive leaps and bounds which previously have been absolutely neglected, and we're making great steps forward. 
Really, what we have here is, at last, a Government which sees that left unregulated, people will take. They will abuse the environment in a way which is nothing more than the tragedy of the commons that's been identified 150 or nearly 200 years ago. What we need are genuine rules in place, national policy statements which set out some absolute dictates which say that, no, we can't privatise this—we can't privatise these gains and socialise the environmental losses—but we need to actually have rules in place which set bottom lines, whether that be a freshwater policy or an urban development policy. 
The work that's been going on in this sector—in urban development—is really important as well to recognise that Government has a significant part to play in stimulating urban development and in absolutely indicating where urban development ought to occur, enabling the finance of it, and partnering with business and private sector, where appropriate, but also making sure that where there are uplifts, there's an ability to ensure that the people who get the value uplifts pay out a reasonable price for it, whether that be through targeted rates or other means. What we're doing there is making sure that we're integrating environmental outcomes, urban design outcomes, and transport outcomes, and the work around Kāinga Ora has been real. Urban development and urban design has been critical in doing that, and it's all part of this Budget package. 
Another thing we've seen in this Budget is, for example, the progress being made on waste. The fact is that we need to understand that waste is a problem in New Zealand, and, of course, Angie Warren-Clark has made some significant gains in respect of food waste. But we're also looking at our recycling and the fact that our recycling framework in New Zealand hasn't really worked for a long, long time, and we need to address that. 
The waste levy is going up to properly reflect the cost: one, the cost of disposing of that waste and, two, ensuring that we have innovation. Only recently, there's $124 million dedicated to improving our recycling outcomes so that we're not simply trying to dispose of our problems overseas and that we're not sending all of our recycling and waste materials overseas, which raises huge problems. It raises huge problems about us being able to manage, in times like the present, our own waste problems. So having a framework where we can do that is very, very important. 
Of course, we've seen recently the Green Investment Fund making investments into the Wellington port and making sure that the Wellington port can, in fact, go carbon-neutral—another fantastic step forward. It's not a grant but a loan, because we know that when industries make steps like this, there are longer-term gains to be made—along with the grants made also for schools and hospitals to become carbon-neutral. 
So this is a Government, and this is just one example. This is just one tiny sector of all of what's going on in Government to show that we're a future-focused Government—not one that's here for immediate gains and not one that's here to immediately placate the electorate, but one that's here to make the tough decisions to make sure that future generations don't bear the costs of what's going on here today. Whether that be the environmental costs or the wider costs, we're a Government which is committed to spending the right sums of money now to avoid austerity, to avoid environmental disaster, and to look after the prosperity of our nation and our people today, tomorrow, and for ever. Thank you, Mr Speaker. 
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Honourable members, there's one minute to go, if someone wants to have a go for one minute. 





Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Associate Minister for Social Development): Thank you, Mr Speaker. What I want to do is talk about this Government's investment in social development, specifically around reducing the impacts of family and sexual violence. I mean, this Government recently announced $183 million, and we have been unprecedented in our response to family and sexual violence, and our Prime Minister has absolutely led the way. Not only have we looked at some of the more traditional ways of reducing violence but we looked at some of the other systemic issues. We've invested in perpetrator services, supporting people who use violence to change their behaviour—hugely important. The other big investment that we've made—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Sorry, the time for this debate has expired.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the Appropriation (2020/21 Estimates) Bill be now read a third time and the Imprest Supply (Second for 2020/21) Bill be now read a second time.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 56
New Zealand National 54; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Appropriation (2020/21 Estimates) Bill read a third time and Imprest Supply (Second for 2020/21) Bill read a second time.





IMPREST SUPPLY (SECOND FOR 2020/21) BILL
Third Reading
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: I move, That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2020/21) Bill be now read a third time. 
Bill read a third time.





BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Following agreement at the Business Committee, I seek leave to include the following Government notices of motion in an urgency motion, despite Standing Order 97: a notice of motion on adjustments to Vote Audit; a notice of motion on the extension of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act; a notice of motion on the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Air Border) Order; a notice of motion on the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Maritime Border) Order; and a notice of motion on the adoption of amendments to the Standing Orders. Copies of these notices of motion are on the Table of the House. 
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.





URGENCY
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That urgency be accorded the passing through all stages of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill and the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill (No 2); the passing through the remaining stages of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill, the Fuel Industry Bill, and the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill; the first reading and referral to select committee of the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill; the passing through the remaining stages of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill; and the consideration of notices of motion on adjustments to Vote Audit, the extension of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act, the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Air Border) Order, the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Maritime Border) Order, and the adoption of amendments to the Standing Orders.
The Parliament lost around 55 to 60 hours of time for Government business during the COVID-19 lockdown period. As a result of this urgency and the other urgency motions that we have put before the House in recent weeks, we have claimed around 41 of those hours back. That is time that allowed the Government to progress legislation it would otherwise have been able to were it not for the lockdown. Two of the seven bills included in this motion relate directly to COVID-19 and to the response to COVID-19. The remainder of the legislation is items of business that the Government wants to see progressed before Parliament breaks for the election period, and the notices of motion are all things the House needs to work its way through before we leave for the election campaign.





A party vote was called for on the question, That urgency be accorded.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand National 54; Ross.
Motion agreed to.





COVID-19 PUBLIC HEALTH RESPONSE AMENDMENT BILL
First Reading
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): I move, That the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
New Zealand's fight against COVID-19 continues. We have successfully eliminated the disease from our community, but we can never be complacent. Our border is our first line of defence against COVID-19. Managed isolation and quarantine has proven to be a highly effective way of preventing COVID-19 from entering the community. There is no known domestic transmission of COVID-19 at present, and there have been no locally acquired cases for over 90 days. All confirmed cases in June and July were linked to international travel and stayed in managed isolation and quarantine.
Since 26 March, over 34,000 people have entered the country and completed their stay in Government-managed isolation or quarantine facilities. We expect many more people to return home as the global situation worsens. I want to take this opportunity to thank all of those working in our managed isolation and quarantine facilities—the New Zealand Defence Force staff, the police, the Aviation Security Service, security staff, the health workers, hotel workers, the cleaners, the cooks, and all of those that are making this isolation and quarantine facility that we never expected to have to stand up in our country. It is the largest quarantine operation we have ever run in our history—the people that are working tirelessly to make this work.
New Zealanders have strong international connections. People will also want to resume overseas travel for work or personal reasons. We also know that COVID-19 is growing, not slowing. Because of this, the managed isolation and quarantine system must be sustainable. Although financial sustainability is part of this, it is also critical that the system is sustainable in terms of capacity to allow New Zealanders to return home safely. I want to make it clear that this legislation is about the sustainability of the managed isolation and quarantine system in the broader sense, managing the flow of incoming people over the border so that we can manage capacity as well as recouping part of the cost of running the system.
This legislation recognises the important public health function that managed isolation and quarantine facilities play in our collective fight against COVID. The Government has been very clear that people should avoid, wherever possible, leaving New Zealand or coming to New Zealand for short-term visits. There are ongoing travel advisories that warn against travelling and leaving New Zealand. Returning raises the risk of bringing COVID-19.
In the past weeks, we have increased capacity in our managed isolation and quarantine system to ensure that more New Zealanders can enter the country, but we are now close to exhausting our nationwide available safe capacity. Even if there were large numbers of fit for purpose facilities, there is a limit to how many facilities we can safely and responsibly manage at any one time. We need to ensure that our managed isolation and quarantine facilities are just that—managed. We also want to ensure that spaces in the managed isolation and quarantine system are available for New Zealanders and their partners and dependants to return home.
Currently, taxpayers bear all the costs of managed isolation and quarantine. These costs are substantial and growing. This is not sustainable. Managed isolation and quarantine facilities will be needed for a sustained period as part of our longer-term public health response to COVID-19. In recent weeks there has been a lot of discussion about when the Government would start charging for managed isolation and quarantine. It is important that this legislation is passed before the House rises in order to provide certainty to people planning to come to New Zealand and for New Zealanders who have to travel out of the country. The bill currently before the House provides the Government with the legal authority to charge people entering managed isolation and quarantine facilities. If this bill is passed, I intend to seek approval of the regulations soon. I intend for the charging system to come into force at 12.01 a.m. on the day the regulations come into force.
The COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill does two things. It's main change is to introduce the legal framework to allow charging for managed isolation and quarantine. It also makes minor improvements to the existing provisions about orders that can be made under section 11 of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020. The bill allows the Government to charge people entering managed isolation and quarantine. It allows for certain people to be required to pay charges for managed isolation and quarantine, unless they are exempt or the charges are waived. Under the bill, certain classes of people will be exempted from the requirement to pay charges. The bill allows regulations to set the level of charges and the manner and timing of payment. It also allows for regulations to provide for exemptions, waivers, and refunds.
Much of the details of the charging system will be in the regulations. This provides flexibility to respond to a rapidly changing environment and ensure our settings are properly balanced and calibrated based on what is happening here and overseas. I'd like to thank the stakeholders who provided me with feedback on the content proposed in the regulations. I have considered this feedback carefully when making recommendations to Cabinet on those regulations.
The Government has carefully weighed up the impact of charging on New Zealanders wanting to return home. I intend for the regulations to provide that New Zealand citizens and residents currently overseas will not be liable for charges if they are returning home permanently. Temporary visa holders who were ordinarily resident in New Zealand before our border closed on 19 March will not be liable for a charge on their return if they were out of the country on 19 March, unless they are returning as a critical worker, in which case I expect their employers or sponsoring agency will meet their managed isolation costs. I am proposing that New Zealanders who are currently overseas and come home temporarily and those New Zealanders who go overseas after regulations come into force will be charged for managed isolation and quarantine on their return, unless they are exempt or qualify for a waiver.
Under the bill, charges must relate to the cost of managed isolation and quarantine facilities, and they must not be more than the estimated actual and reasonable costs for that class of person. I intend to seek Cabinet agreement to a charging structure in regulations that is less than half of the average total costs. For a single person in a room, the proposed charge is $3,100. Additional adults or children over three years old sharing that room will be charged $950 and $475 respectively.
The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act affirms every New Zealander's right to leave New Zealand and to come home. The introduction of charges for managed isolation and quarantine may impact people's ability to exercise that right, as it makes coming home more expensive. I also recognise that Māori may be disproportionately affected by charges for managed isolation and quarantine. It is important that Māori can travel to and from New Zealand for whānau reasons such as tangihanga, and to be able to exercise tino rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga rights and responsibilities. The charge for managed isolation and quarantine may make this more difficult for some individuals and whānau. This is an important consideration of part of the Crown's Treaty of Waitangi obligations.
Any limitations on people's rights need to be proportionate to the risks posed by COVID-19. Therefore, the Government will put in place mechanisms to lessen the impact of charging on these rights. Charges will not have to be paid before someone comes to New Zealand. There will be adequate time for people to pay the charges, and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment may agree to accept payments in instalments. People could apply for a full or partial waiver if they are experiencing undue financial hardship or in other special circumstances.
As mentioned earlier, the bill is also amending section 11 of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020. Under the principal Act, the Minister of Health and the Director-General of Health can issue orders to give effect to measures to manage the spread of COVID-19. The bill will clarify that orders made under section 11 can require a person to undergo as well as report for medical examination or testing. It will also allow for orders to impose conditions on people before they enter the country to support and coordinate an orderly public health response to COVID-19. This could include requiring people to be registered to enter a managed isolation facility before they come here. COVID-19 will be with us for a while. All aspects of the managed isolation and quarantine system will be kept under regular review to ensure it is proportionate and necessary. We need a managed isolation and quarantine system that fairly represents the benefits to both the New Zealand public and those that enter the country.





Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I appreciate your indulgence in allowing the Minister to finish her speech, notwithstanding that she had gone over time. I think it was important to hear that last bit, but I would encourage her speechwriters to perhaps time it a little better in the future, because that last comment that was being made about section 11 I think is quite relevant, and I will touch on it later.
I just want to join with the Minister in acknowledging the work of those people who are working in our managed isolation and quarantine facilities, whether they are hotel staff, nursing staff, Ministry of Health, Defence Force, police now. I have been critical—critiquing, rather—the managed isolation process since 8 April - odd, when it was first put into place, and there's no doubt that the processes were too porous. The testing regime was insufficient. But there has been a response by the Government that has served to tighten that up, and I think that's entirely appropriate.
Can I also just segue into the issue that the Leader of the House raised in respect of the urgency motion, because he quite rightly pointed out that the urgency that has been taken has recovered all but probably one sitting week of this year in order for the Government to get through its legislative programme. What he didn't say, and what I think is important to acknowledge, is that the consequence of urgency is that the public, through the select committee process, does not have the same level of input into the lawmaking that we are doing, and I think that has to be borne in mind when we think about the catch-up that we're doing.
Now, when the Epidemic Response Committee was in place, there were two bills that did get referred to it, and the committee and that marvellous group of officials right across Government departments did an excellent job in scrutinising it, making improvements, bringing it back to the House within a week, and passing it through. We don't have that luxury here, and I do think it's important to acknowledge that while urgency is appropriate, the select committee process is being compromised.
I also acknowledge the need for Government to act in regard to emergencies to pass legislation from time to time. Previous Governments have needed to do that, and including the Government I was in, around earthquakes and other natural disasters. But I think it's really important that we exercise caution in the manner in which primary legislation is used to create a regulation-making power, the details of which are not well articulated through the bill or understood by this House before it passes legislation, and particularly when there isn't a select committee process. I acknowledge the need for haste, but in that haste there is often error, and it does behove us to scrutinise this bill in so far as we can, because, actually, there's quite a lack of detail around what those regulations will look like.
The Minister of Housing has provided a reasonably good summary of what the regulations might look like and what the charging regime might look like, but I would point out that there remains, I think, a lack of detail about that regulation, and the Regulations Review Committee, frankly, is not a very good control but is not actually the right place to be scrutinising the sorts of charging regime—effectively, the Government reaching into the pockets of New Zealanders, albeit returning New Zealanders, and taxing them in a way that doesn't have the same level of scrutiny. I contrast that with, for example, the appropriations bill, where we've spent 13 hours in a committee stage and three hours in a third reading analysing that bill, because it is about the amount of money that the Crown is taking out of the pockets of New Zealanders. This is a smaller example of that, but there is no scrutiny by the public on that point, and that worries me.
So I want to go to the regime as it has been described by the Minister both before and now in her first reading. It's fair to say that although the Minister is quite a few years younger than me, she may be familiar with the term "a Clayton's charge". Clayton's was a drink that you had when you weren't having a drink, and this is kind of like a charge you're having when you're not having a charge. We are now getting to the point where we could be between $500 million and $1 billion, depending on the measurement and the charging regime, of costs incurred for managed isolation and quarantine, and this is going to raise about $10 million. It's a drop in the ocean, and it shows that this Government has actually been aware of the fact that there is an overwhelming support by the taxpayer in New Zealand to say, "Look, managed isolation is important, but it cannot continue in the way that it is, for as long as it is, without there being some kind of charging regime."
I don't think this Government actually has its heart in that charging regime, and they're doing as little as they can, the least that they can do this side of 19 September, to look like they are responding to that public opinion, which is growing. They are the bill payers, ultimately, up to the thick end of a billion dollars, and they're saying, "You know what? For those people who haven't been in New Zealand for a long time, who haven't made that contribution through their earnings and taxes, it's only fair that they should be charged when they choose to come home." And the National Party has been very clear about this—that it would charge at a greater level for those people, albeit that there would need to be some exceptions. I'll be interested as we go through this bill, because the Minister talked about Māori and tangi, whether or not there will also be an exceptions regime for all New Zealanders returning for bereavement or whether somebody whose loved one passes away while they're overseas and they want to get back to be with their whānau—if they are non-Māori, would they be required to pay? I think that will be an interesting point of clarification.
I also point out that we are currently in the situation where the Minister talks about $3,100 of reimbursement, but we now know that the costs of managed isolation in the facilities that we are using is now exceeding $5,000 per person. So if you're a family unit, a nuclear family with a couple of adults and a couple of children, that could be going into the area of five figures. You know, that's talking about $700, $800, $900 per day in a five-star hotel. Even in a five-star hotel, that seems to be an eye-watering amount of money to be reimbursing—at least to be expending; the reimbursement is going to be something less than that, because it's part of the Clayton's charge the Government wants to do.
But when we are imposing these sorts of charges, I think it also behoves the Government to have a look at the nature of the accommodation and whether or not there could be other facilities that could be used that aren't the Pullman, the Crowne Plaza, the Novotel—these very fancy hotels in Auckland. The Māngere Refugee Resettlement Centre is there. It's empty at the moment. The Whangaparāoa defence facility that we used for the Wuhan returnees—we must have hundreds of campervans around the place. I mean, we seem to be fixated on the only way to be doing this is in five-star hotels. No wonder it's costing a lot. No wonder the Government is having to slow down the return of New Zealanders as a consequence of that. But it does need, I think, to think a little more imaginatively than it has.
I want to touch on those section 11 changes, because it strikes me as very interesting that, almost as a "by the way", the Minister is slipping in a couple of belts and braces amendments to section 11 of the COVID response Act—for example, to confirm the fact that the Ministry of Health can require somebody to submit themselves for testing, or that they are required, even, to go into managed isolation on their return, which suggests that they're not absolutely sure whether or not the legal framework has been in place to require people to go into managed isolation since they implemented it on 8 April. Now, in terms of testing, I'm quite clear that section 70 of the Health Act, even at level 1, perfectly entitles the ministry to require people to submit for testing if there is either a pandemic or the risk of one. So I'm not quite sure what legal advice they have received in order to require those amendments.
There's a lot more to be said about this bill. It does, on the face of it, look quite straightforward, but it is, I think, important that this House scrutinises this bill as much as we can in urgency, because it's important to get it right. Nevertheless, and despite those caveats, the National Party will be supporting this bill at this point, and unless we see any material impediments to that support continuing, we'll support it right through. But I am concerned about the manner in which it is being introduced and passed.





MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): I rise briefly in support of the bill, and I do so for a couple of important reasons. As the Minister of Housing pointed out in her speech, this is a bill, the primary object of which is to set up a legal structure within which it is possible to establish a charging regime. The details of the charging themselves actually occur through regulation. This is a fair and reasonable thing to do, in my view, and, as the Minister has outlined in terms of her intentions with the regulations, a careful balance is being struck here. It's a balance which accepts the important right of New Zealand citizens to return to their country, but does also ensure that those who exercise some discretion about their travel arrangements after the lockdown occurred and those who perhaps planned to come back to New Zealand only on a temporary basis do make some contribution towards the significant cost of managed isolation, which we know is incredibly important.
I do note briefly, in response to some of the comments opposite that were just expressed now, that the proposed charge is not a tax in the way that we think about a tax; it is a specific levy which is levied to meet very particular costs related to the quarantine requirements created by the person who is engaging in the travel. Levy costs are, in general, set by regulation, so I don't quite think that some of the arguments put forward there do hold too much water.
As I say, this is a balanced piece of legislation. It appears to have wide support in the House and I commend it to the House.





Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to speak tonight on this bill, the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill, which has the primary purpose of setting up a regime for testing in managed isolation and in quarantine. Clearly, hurried legislation—again, we're here doing this under urgency, and, furthermore, if we look at the documents that support it, we can see how hurried this is. 
It's kind of interesting to see several ways through the document that people can elect to go into quarantine. I'd be interested to know quite how that works—how you would elect rather than be required to go into quarantine—oh, I'll call it isolation, actually, and mean managed isolation and quarantine. There must be some purpose for that to be there. I'd be interested to here that. No regulatory impact statement, which is commented on in the departmental disclosure as well. And, if we look at all the other absent evaluations through the departmental disclosure, again, that very clearly confirms how hurriedly this was put together. 
Maybe as an extension of what my colleague was saying, testing the legality of all of this, I'd be interested to see the background work, because it's noted in the departmental disclosure statement that there is a risk that charging short-term travellers for isolation may not be consistent with the World Health Organization (WHO) International Health Regulations. The argument here being made is that if other countries are doing it, we should be OK too, but there must be a body of material behind that, and I note that without the regulatory impact statement, that's absent. So I'd be interested, maybe in the committee of the whole House, to hear the response to that. How big is the risk of us breaching our WHO regulations?
The parts of the bill that alter the primary Act are quite clear. I want to turn to an interesting proposition here. Fundamentally, the Government is delivering a service—yeah?—and it's a service that you're paying for. Now, any other service, including Government services that you're paying for, comes under the Consumer Guarantees Act. If I'm unhappy with it, I have recourse. So what is the recourse in this bill? What is my ability to complain for the service I am paying for—be it delivered by Government or anyone else? What is the ability for me to get recourse if I'm not getting the sort of service that I'm looking for—that I'm paying for? 
I thought I'd jot down what I thought that service was. That service is to be in isolation to keep you personally safe from infection, to keep others safe from infection, to test for confirmation of infection or otherwise, and for the basic essentials of life that would support you while you're in isolation. That's the service that you're buying. What if that service is not suitable? What if that accommodation does not provide you with those guarantees? What if I'm put at risk in the accommodation and isolation facility? What are my rights for the service I am paying for to say I've received a poor service? Where does the Consumer Guarantees Act sit over the top of this legislation? 
What if I'm not happy that I'm being told the policy is that you'll be tested on day three and day 12, and we know day three testing is optional? In fact, if we look back at all the positive coronavirus tests over the past month, 50 percent or more of them were day three tests that tested positive, thus showing how critical that day three test is. I've paid for that; I didn't receive it. How does that work? What is my recourse for a poor service?
What is my recourse for a poor service which I have paid for, where I might legitimately expect the isolation staff to wear personal protective equipment (PPE)? What is my recourse? I am paying for a service, and I'm happy to pay for it, but I want a decent service that protects me and guarantees, for the initial services I said I was purchasing, that they're delivered appropriately, which is what the Consumer Guarantees Act said. Now, you could contest: no, staff in isolation facilities are wearing PPE. No, they're not. How this works is, if you're a returnee, you're required to wear a mask outside of your room; if you're staff, you're required to wear a mask unless you'll have more than 2 metres distancing from the returnees. I would contend, from what constituents have said to me and, indeed, what I've sent to the Minister in the past few weeks, that that is not happening—that staff members at a number of isolation facilities are well coming inside that 2 metre distance and very clearly not using PPE. I'm getting a poor service that I'm paying for; what is my recourse? I'd ask the Minister to consider whether that is something that needs attention.
Look, I think the bill in itself is relatively simple. We can see the purchase. My colleague explained the issue of: is the funding, is the costing, enough, is it accurate, and is it appropriate? He's also raised the question of: what about the exemptions? Do they apply to everyone equally and fairly? I think that's a discussion we can have across the House. But I would commend the Minister to have a think about—and think about whether there's something in the committee of the whole House that she needs to address—the service I am purchasing and, if that service is not adequate, if that service is not up to standard, what is my recourse, first, just to complain anyway—it's not clear to me there's a complaints procedure—and, secondly, what is the remedy if it truly is found to be unsatisfactory. 
So I look forward to the rest of the discussions as this bill progresses through the House. Thank you.





Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a short call supporting the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill. Just to make some comments with regard to the contribution of the member who just resumed his seat, Dr Shane Reti, I do hope he's spoken to Gerry Brownlee, because this piece of legislation, just to be clear, sets the capacity for a framework for a Government to put in place regulations that set the charging regime. So the legislation is very clear: it gives a Government the capacity to set regulations around a charging regime. That is why the Opposition is supporting it, even though, from the contribution from the member that just resumed his seat, that wasn't necessarily clear.
I would caution the member around the articulation of these concerns with regard to the consumers Act and so on and so forth that, if Mr Brownlee finds himself in a position post the election that he will use this piece of legislation to put in place regulations that he and the National Party have articulated they want to do, the member may find himself trying to actually counter the concerns that he is addressing today, and with the attitude of the National Party if they end up in Government and what they say to the New Zealand public they are prepared to implement. At this stage, all this piece of legislation does is give a Government—this one has set some regulations; the next one could set some others, and if New Zealand First is part of any future Government, we will renew, we will review the regulations that have been put into place here. This is literally the minimum that can be put into place on the spectrum around the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and some bill of rights advice that we have had as a Government, but it has the capacity.
What this piece of legislation does is give any future Government the capacity to build on top of those, and the National Government—sorry, you're not the National Government anymore—[Interruption] Well, it's late and, you know, it's fantasy rules, but if, if, if, if, for example—and, on current polling it's way out, but anyway—if, for example, they were in a position to make any decisions after the election, this would give them the capacity to do it. But that member has just now highlighted for the rest of New Zealand that he's not necessarily concerned about the ability of taxpayers to gain back from people who are coming into the country, who should contribute—and it is a contribution at this stage—to the costs of their quarantine and isolation. That is not what his concern is; it is not for the taxpayer of New Zealand, which is different to what Mr Woodhouse articulated when he was on his feet, but his concern is actually around the ability of people to complain, which I find fascinating. In a global pandemic, when you look at what is beyond our gate and what this Government has done to protect the team of 5 million, the member who has just resumed his seat is more concerned around people's ability to complain about what we need to do to keep other New Zealanders safe than he is around the piece of legislation that we're putting into the House today.
So New Zealand First will support the legislation. If we had our way, we would be going a little bit further than what we have got here, or the regulations that are in play, but the reality is that this is a circumstance we haven't had since 1918—since 1918—and I think the Opposition forgets that when they decide to be flippant with any piece of legislation that is dealing with COVID-19, and perhaps they just need to continue to look beyond our borders, at what is happening in other nations, and see how paramount it is that, whatever we need to do to make sure that we can stop community transmission inside New Zealand, that is what a responsible Government does. And that is what this responsible Government is doing tonight.





DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It's a pleasure to take a call in this debate in what has been—no doubt we've all received correspondence from New Zealanders abroad and in New Zealand concerned about this issue, so really happy to take a call in this debate. I certainly want to start out by acknowledging all of those in our quarantine and managed isolation facilities who are serving, whether it's police officers, military personnel, the raft of staff that are involved. Thank you on behalf of all of us here in our Parliament for the work that you're doing.
But I do want to just raise a story that I had from a constituent who I spoke to the other day. This constituent had just come back from overseas and was put in the quarantine isolation, and I asked her, "How was it?" and she said, "Oh, it was pretty good, actually. They flew me down to Christchurch. They put me up at a four-star hotel. I had three meals a day. I had gluten-free options and nice bed sheet changes and all the facilities I could ever dream of." I thought to myself, "Well, that's pretty good—a pretty good experience for most." Then it was made clear the other day just how much that bill costs the New Zealand taxpayer: as we know, $5,700 per person per stay. Right now, the bill is running just over the $200 million mark.
So I think this is an important aspect to set the framework to help recover some of that cost. I mean, I think going out there to the average punter on the streets in New Zealand and saying, "Well, do you think that New Zealanders coming home should bear some of the burden of their managed isolation?", most New Zealanders would say yes. That's what the public polls say, and certainly that's what the mood is on the street of Northcote, where I am a member of Parliament, certainly is. So I think that the idea of this to set the framework to enable that cost burden to be reduced for the taxpayer is something that, ultimately, we're here to look at today, because unfortunately, it's not any time soon that the borders are going to be open.
We were talking to some major airlines recently and, you know, it's going to be another year or two before international routes open up. So we're going to be dealing with managed isolation and quarantining for some time, and in that time, the cost is going to mount up. So whatever we can do to help recover that cost, and on this side of the House, we're actually fine with that. If you have the ability to pay and the willingness to pay and you receive a service, as my colleague down here was talking about service, then you should pay. That's what our position has always been about in the National Party, and that's why we've fought very hard to get ideas like this brought to the House. I certainly acknowledge the work that Judith Collins and Simon Bridges and Todd Muller have done over the last few months to raise this in the public debate, because it has been important, and this is why we're actually here talking about this today.
But what has been announced in this bill we certainly have some issues with, and we do think that we can strengthen it. We hope that the member that was just speaking before will consider our Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that we've got lined up later on this evening. These SOPs would do the following: would enable high-income people who possibly could get exemptions to actually not get those exemptions and pay some of the cost and burden of that managed isolation. Another SOP seeks to make sure that if you escape managed isolation, you actually bear the cost of that isolation and the costs involved with escaping as well. I think that that is fair and equitable. That side of the House always talks about fair and equitable policies. I think—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I'm going to let the member know that he's mentioned the SOPs—they can't be debated until the committee stage, so we'll just move on.
DAN BIDOIS: OK, excellent—thank you, Mr Speaker. So as I said, we've got some changes that we want to make to this legislation. Of course, we would've liked to see more uniformity, less chances for exemption. As Michael Woodhouse, my colleague here, made very, very clear, the very small cost that is actually going to be recovered is minuscule compared to the costs for the taxpayer—$10 million versus the $200 million that taxpayers have already spent, and the other more than $250 million that will be spent by the end of this year. So we do hope that these will be debated and considered later on.
Certainly, the other thing to note is around the shortness of time that we're here. I must say that this is at least the 10th or 11th time since I've been a member of Parliament in this House where we've debated stuff far too late. This Government has had a lot of time to consider this legislation, and here we are on the second or third to last day of Parliament having to rush this through in urgency, having no due process for a select committee to hear from various groups that may be impacted adversely from this legislation. I just think that it's an affront to the democracy that we have in New Zealand that this House is considering such rushed and poorly drafted legislation in such a short time frame.
So we'll certainly support this in the House. It's been something that we have been pushing for some time. We hope to get some more discussion and debate later on around how to strengthen this bill, but National commends this bill to the House.





Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister for Climate Change): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call on the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill. I just wanted to start by saying that the clue is in the title—that it is a public health response bill. 
I'll just start with a couple of points made by some members of the Opposition. Dr Reti asked the question about whether the Consumer Guarantees Act would apply to this, on the basis that this is a service that is being delivered to the individual. That's actually an argument against this bill rather than for it, because people are being quarantined because they have to be quarantined. If they're being quarantined in particular types of hotels it's because they are the ones that enable us to actually manage the public health outcomes, not because we're shouting everyone a two-week holiday in a four- or five-star hotel because we want to but because that is the level that is necessary in order to ensure that we can actually keep people safe.
Dan Bidois, who just sat down, was talking about, essentially, the cost of this and how we need to recover the costs from New Zealanders who are coming in. This is a complete reversal from everything that we've done up until this point, of course, because we've laid out tens of billions of dollars, actually, and we haven't recovered the costs of those. It will come back via the tax system over time, and people who are moving home pay taxes. People who are returning from overseas will move here and will pay taxes and will contribute to the public health response, not just for their quarantine, but the tens of billions of dollars that we are outlaying to support all New Zealanders through this crisis. So the very premise of what they're talking about—the question is: why are we seeking, as part of a massive public health programme affecting every part of the economy, why is it that we're singling out one group of New Zealanders for cost recovery and not everybody? 
I want to turn—Tracey Martin mentioned the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and I think it is worth just sort of mentioning a few things. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act guarantees to every New Zealand citizen the right to enter New Zealand—that's section 18(2). It doesn't say "the right to enter New Zealand if you pay a $3,000 fee." It also says that New Zealanders have the right not to be subject to torture. It doesn't say that "you have the right not to be subject to torture if you pay a $3,000 fee." It says that we have the right to freedom of expression. It does not say "you have the right to freedom of expression if you pay a $3,000 fee." It says "the right of peaceful assembly", not "the right of peaceful assembly if you pay a $3,000 fee". 
So the New Zealand Bill of Rights, and I know that this House does pass legislation—unfortunately, fairly frequently—which contravenes or is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights. That doesn't make it a good idea, right? Just because we do that, because we have that facility under our legislation doesn't mean that we should. And I think that we should seek, where at all possible, to uphold the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Otherwise, it's not worth the paper that it is written on. 
Regardless of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, I think that this is a matter of fundamental fairness. New Zealanders who have left New Zealand prior to the outbreak of COVID-19, or prior to understanding that there would be compulsory quarantine with a cost attached to it, it's fundamentally unfair to retrospectively—and remember, we do try and avoid law that is retrospective, to say to people, "That's bad luck. You left New Zealand perhaps 10 years ago. You now find yourself in a situation where you're returning to New Zealand and because there's a global pandemic, we're going to charge you. But we're not going to charge other New Zealanders. In fact, other New Zealanders, we're actually paying their wages for them." It's only this group of New Zealanders who live overseas at the moment who are forced to return home due to the pandemic that we're saying, "Well we're not going to support you the way that we're supporting everybody else. We're going to charge you instead." 
That's fundamentally unfair. I mean, it creates two classes of New Zealanders: those who live in New Zealand and those who are currently outside the country. I have to say, that I think that the treatment of New Zealanders living overseas in relation to this debate has been appalling. The expat community has been the subject of abuse and denigration for daring to return to their homeland. The team of 5 million, I have to say, is all of us, not just those of us who live in New Zealand versus those of us who live overseas or are currently overseas. I would like us, as we go through this debate, to return to some of the fundamental principles—where we started as we were moving into the pandemic crisis, into the state of emergency—where we said, "Look out for each other, be kind, support each other. This is about all of us, not just some of us." I will support this bill through the House.





AGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to speak on this bill in this short time. This bill is, essentially, about trying to recoup the cost of managed isolation and the quarantine facilities. As the speaker before me has said, it is not fair; it is not fair to the New Zealanders who are overseas but it is also not fair to all the New Zealanders who have been here during lockdown, who have sacrificed so much—their jobs, their businesses, the ability to connect with family, to attend funerals, to have weddings. Everybody has carried the burden of this. This is an extraordinary situation we would normally not—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry to interrupt the member, but it's come time for me to leave the Chair for the evening. The House is suspended. I will resume the Chair at 9 a.m. tomorrow. Kia ora mai tātou.
Debate interrupted.
Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)