TUESDAY, 18 AUGUST 2020
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Prayers.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
COVID-19 Outbreak—Government Economic and Health Response
SPEAKER: I understand that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Health wish to make ministerial statements.





Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Indeed, I wish to make a ministerial statement under Standing Order 356 regarding the Government's economic response to the recent outbreak of COVID-19.
Yesterday, Cabinet agreed to the details of a new nationwide wage subsidy scheme to assist workers and businesses as the country works together to contain the recent COVID-19 outbreak. The new wage subsidy is for two weeks of support at the same rate as the existing wage subsidy extension. To qualify for the new subsidy, a firm must have had or be predicting a revenue drop of at least 40 percent for any consecutive period of at least 14 days within the period of 12 August to 10 September compared to a similar period last year.
The cost of the new scheme is estimated to be $510 million. The cost will be covered by the underspend in the wage subsidy appropriation, so we will not be dipping into the $14 billion that has been set aside from the COVID response and recovery fund. It is important to note that the existing wage subsidy extension is still open for applications until 1 September. Some firms who may have thought that they were not eligible for this scheme may wish to reconsider in light of the impact of the current restrictions on their business.
We have made the new scheme available nationwide for several reasons. First, Auckland represents around 38 percent of New Zealand's GDP and many businesses around the country rely on customers from Auckland, so the level 3 restrictions in Auckland clearly flow through to other parts of the country. This is especially so for tourism operators. We also recognise the impact that alert level 2 settings around the rest of the country are having on the hospitality and retail sector, and we want to make sure that we're supporting them as well.
Cabinet has also agreed to a change to the leave support scheme, which financially supports people who have to self-isolate but cannot work from home. The 30 percent revenue drop test and the negatively impacted test for the scheme are being dropped. It is essential that we remove any barriers to taking a test and going into self-isolation if required. The scheme gives confidence to workers and businesses that they will be supported if they are required to self-isolate.
I have also asked officials to continue work to ensure the full package of measures available to businesses and workers is sustainable and adaptable to different alert levels. Underpinning these support measures is the Government's focus on protecting jobs and supporting the country's health response. We acknowledge the cost that comes with this health response, with estimates of the weekly economic cost of the current restrictions ranging widely from $300 million to $600 million.
We continue to believe, however, that the best economic response to this pandemic is a strong public health response. We have already seen the benefits of this approach in economic data for June and July with the country under level 1. The BNZ-BusinessNZ Performance of Services Index and the BNZ-BusinessNZ Performance of Manufacturing Index both showed strong and expanding results for June and July, particularly when compared with our international peers. Likewise the New Zealand Activity Index for June and July was up 0.6 percent and 2 percent on the same year respectively in June and July.
The strategy that got us these results—of going hard and early to get the virus under control—continues to be what we are pursuing. The support measures agreed by Cabinet yesterday will support households and businesses through the next couple of weeks so that once the virus is brought back under control, we can all recover more quickly and bounce back strongly again.





Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Health): One week ago tonight, the Prime Minister announced that a new case of COVID-19 had been detected in the community. It had been 102 days since the last evidence of community transmission, and the virus had returned. While we worked incredibly hard to prevent this, we always knew that it was possible, and we planned and prepared for that. Just as we did when COVID-19 first emerged, we went hard and we went early.
At the same time as the new outbreak was announced, we also announced that Auckland was moving to alert level 3 and the rest of the country to alert level 2. Our approach remains the same as it has throughout the global pandemic. We will contain the virus and we will stamp it out. We've done it before, and, with the combined efforts of our health workers, contact tracers, lab workers, and our whole team of 5 million, we can do this again.
In the last week, we've seen incredible surge testing. There are now 39 designated community testing sites in the wider Auckland region, and mobile testing sites are being redeployed to test close contacts as required. More than 100,000 tests have been processed over the last five days, including a total of 18,421 tests that were processed yesterday. That is a remarkable effort. The volume of the tests has been made possible through the pooling of samples, the hard work of lab staff, and the willingness of people to front up and to get tested, and I want to thank everybody who has been involved in that. The sheer number of tests can give the Government and the wider public of New Zealand that confidence and assurance that aside from the current cluster, there is no sign of widespread community transmission.
The source of this latest outbreak is still under investigation. The immediate focus has been on the border and our managed isolation and quarantine facilities, and I want to acknowledge, at the outset, that testing of staff working at our border has been too slow. It has not met the very clear expectations of Ministers, the decisions that Cabinet has made were not implemented in a timely or a robust manner, and that is disappointing and frustrating.
But I should note that, of course, testing is just one of the tools that we are using. All staff working at the border and in our managed isolation and quarantine facilities are using appropriate personal protective equipment, using physical distancing, and getting regular health checks. Most importantly, anyone who was displaying symptoms was being tested. While the routine testing wasn't happening to the extent that we wanted it to, some—and many—were still being tested. For example, some airport workers were being tested at their local GP, but there was no centralised reporting of the number of tests being conducted, and that was not good enough. My absolute focus has been on addressing this, and the testing has been made mandatory for those working in the front line at our border, and our mobile testing sites have been dispatched to gather those swabs.
In the last week, new systems have been put in place, and all tests involving customs officers, aviation security staff, port and airport workers, and anyone working at a managed isolation or quarantine facility, such as health staff, police, defence force, and hotel staff, are now being coded separately. This allows for a very clear and specific line of reporting so that we know now, as of last night, in Auckland, in managed isolation and quarantine facilities, 2,806 staff have been swabbed on site, with further staff tested at community testing centres and GPs. At least 97 percent of that workforce has been tested.
Testing is continuing on site. At other managed isolation and quarantine facilities around the country, more than 1,599 staff have been tested. Two hundred and forty one customs officers have been tested in the last week, out of 277; 308 aviation security workers at Auckland Airport have been tested, out of 328, in the last week. As of 6 o'clock last night, Auckland Airport had swabbed 2,407 of its 4,474 workers, with a testing team working last night to capture night shift workers. Three thousand four hundred and eighty-five port workers have been tested. At the Port of Auckland, more than 5,000 staff working from around 800 organisations have accessed the port since 21 July. As at 6 o'clock yesterday, 2,194 of them had been tested. The dedicated testing team is operating with extended hours to ensure that all workers have access to COVID19 testing, including those working on the night shifts and the twilight shifts. 
Ensuring those workers who are most at risk of coming into contact with the virus are routinely tested must be part of business as usual. Health officials are under no illusions that this is what the Government and the public expect and require. The importance of this work is underlined by today's news of a positive test of a maintenance worker at the Rydges hotel managed isolation facility. This case does not immediately appear to be linked to the current community cluster. Workers at the Rydges facility had been offered testing on 21 and 23 July, and again on 10 and 13 August. This case was identified from the 13 August round of routine testing. This case is now under further investigation. 
We now have 71 cases identified in the community. Sixty-nine of these have so far been definitively linked to the community cluster. To help limit the potential of further spread beyond the cluster, for the first time we are moving positive community cases into quarantine. So far, 44 cases have been transferred to the Jet Park quarantine facility in Auckland. A further 54 people classed as close contacts have joined them, so that households can be kept together. I want to thank those people who have gone into quarantine. They're playing their part to help contain the virus. 
I also want to acknowledge the effort of our public health units and the National Close Contact Service. So far, 1,880 close contacts have been identified: 1,691 of these have been contacted, and they're in self-isolation; 55 contacts have been referred to finding services; and just 134 remain awaiting contact. As of 7 o'clock last night, 78.5 percent of close contacts identified between 8 and 14 August have been contacted within two days of being identified. That's just shy, now, of the 80 percent target, but is a real improvement on the performance of our contact tracing services at the height of the outbreak earlier this year. That reflects the good work that's been done to ramp up our contact tracing capability, and that work remains ongoing. 
Of course, we can all support the work of our contact tracers by installing and using the NZ COVID Tracer app. Since last Tuesday we've seen a huge increase in the use of the app, and it is now being actively used by our contact tracers. With just under 1.5 million registered users, it has more than doubled in the last week; 234,000 posters have now been printed and are on display; over 7 million posters have been scanned; and more than a million manual entries have been made. To further encourage the use of the app, the Government's made it mandatory for all businesses to display QR code posters, and that has to happen by tomorrow. 
Every member of this House knows there is real concern in the community about the re-emergence of COVID-19. Yesterday there were 5,149 calls to Healthline, compared with 972 on the same day last year. Of those calls, 3,412 were to the COVID information line. Last week, an extra 180 staff were added to handle the increased demand, and another 73 staff have been added in the last three days. COVID-19 requires a whole-of-Government and a community-wide response, and that's exactly what's happening. We have record levels of testing, including mandatory testing for workers at our border for the first time. Our contact tracers are identifying close contacts for isolation and testing. We know how to beat this virus. We are prepared for a second outbreak. We have a plan, and we're doing everything right to stamp out COVID-19 once again. 
Finally, I want to reiterate the words of the Director-General of Health: the virus is the problem here; people are the answer.





Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, the resurgence of COVID-19 in our community is a source of great pain and anxiety right across the community. There will be people at home who are worried about their health. There will be many, many, many, many children who are missing out on their education or worried about exams, families under pressure trying to figure out how to make it work, and small-business owners terribly worried about their prospects. And so this resurgence is putting intense pressure on the community, and also intense economic pressure for this country.
The Prime Minister said, back in April, the last thing we want to do is to yo-yo back into lockdown. We were told we went hard and early and we stayed longer in lockdown the first time, those additional hard weeks, because we wanted to avoid a yo-yo back into lockdown, and here we are again. There are huge consequences for that: $1.6 billion has been estimated will be the cost for the wage subsidy extensions. Economists are predicting that it could be about $450 million a week in lost economic output for the country each week. But, more broadly than that, it's the uncertainty that goes right throughout the business community, because our economic recovery, as a nation, relies on businesses investing and growing. But, when they look and see the possibility of returning into lockdown and the apparent inability to control the borders, they are less likely to invest, they are likely to hold back, and that makes it tougher for the country to get back up on its feet.
So that's why it's been so puzzling and, frankly, annoying to many New Zealanders when they've seen so many elements of the border being dealt with in a loose fashion despite all the talk. We heard the Hon Chris Hipkins on the TV all weekend saying that the Government decided that it wasn't right to make it compulsory for the many people working at the border and in the quarantine facilities—we weren't going to make it compulsory to take the test; we thought that was too big a lever to pull. And yet we have the extraordinary circumstance of the Prime Minister this morning saying, "Oh, well, we thought they were all being tested. We thought they were being tested. We were misled by the officials." We thought they were being tested—but the whole weekend previously her health Minister has been saying that the Government made a decision not to make it compulsory for them to be tested. So there is a complete disjuncture and confusion in the Government about that critical point.
So, when you're dealing with a relatively low-probability, high-consequence event such as this—that something might happen on the border which has enormous ramifications for the economy—you would think that the Government had all their effort focused on ensuring that they could give themselves the best chance, and New Zealanders the best chance, to keep this disease out, and you would think you would start by testing people properly who were working at the border and going home to their communities and their families having been connected with people who are potentially carrying this disease.
So, if your plan is elimination, keeping it out, you have to be vigilant. That's what people expected. And then you have to have a clear plan of how to deal with an incursion, short of a massive lockdown. Clearly, there has been insufficient faith in the tracing regime, and so we've gone to a full lockdown. Then, if you have a lockdown, you would expect to have clear plans for how a regional lockdown would operate. We've had three months, four months now, to prepare for the possibility of a regional lockdown, and yet what we've seen in the last couple of days has been a complete shambles. I was listening on the radio at 1 o'clock today to an Employers and Manufacturers Association person saying that there was a 4½-hour wait on the motorway for trucks to get into Auckland, as if this has all happened as a great surprise and there's been no plan, and we've got the gall of the Minister here saying that they had planned and prepared for this. Well, if they've planned and prepared, they haven't done it very well when it comes to preparing for a regional lockdown—that was always on the cards.
The shambles that we're seeing in Auckland on the motorway and the confusion about how workers can get across the border—essential workers. So you've got people who were essential workers under level 4 last time presenting their credentials at the border and they're not being accepted, and then they're being told that they have to apply for an exemption, but it will take seven days to get an answer. So the suggestion that they've planned for this possibility is leaving New Zealanders scratching their heads and confused.
Then we've got the question of the subsidy, and the Minister has announced the extension of the subsidy, and we in the National Party support that. It's quite right, if businesses are told that they cannot conduct their business for public health reasons, that the rest of the community chips in to help them through, and so we support the extension of the wage subsidy. We are a little bit puzzled that they haven't been able to manage to work out a regional approach to that. There are, no doubt, administrative complications for that, but we would have thought in three months that more progress would have been made.
Hon Member: Just for Auckland, that's what you're saying.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: No, what we're talking about is how you would actually deal with the fact, if there was a regional lockdown in a particularly small part of the economy, how would that be dealt with? And all we've seen after three months of preparation is an announcement from the Minister that they're going to look at that more closely as time goes on.
Then we still see arbitrary rules about what is essential and isn't essential, and we've got the problem with the butchers and so forth. You would have thought that with the rules that were drawn up in haste at the start of the lockdown in March, after all this time, they would have come up with some slightly more nuanced and better organised rules, so as to ensure that the maximum amount of economic activity could carry on.
So the only conclusion that you can draw is that there's been an enormous amount of complacency. We've got through the initial lockdown. They sat back and said, "Yes, we've done it, we've smashed it, we've crushed it."—there was an element of self-congratulation—and the preparation for the possibility of another community lockdown does not appear to have been properly prepared for. So that is the question that the Government has to answer for.
Hon Member: When we prepared, you said we scaremongered.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: And we have—yes, you said you had to be prepared. And yet we've still got a situation where there is complete confusion at the border. Then we read this morning Chris Hipkins saying that we'd dodged a bullet. Well, you know, $1.6 billion of extra spending on wage subsidies—it's a very expensive bullet.
So what we hope, and what we hope from this Government, is that they'll learn a lesson from what's happened here and absolutely ensure that if you're running an elimination strategy, you do everything that you can to ensure that the border is secure, and that means testing everybody that works there. That enables you to get there.
Now, in terms of the economy—and I've heard many comments from the Minister that everything was strong prior to this outbreak—I just make the point that 70,000 New Zealanders have joined the unemployment benefit or the COVID benefit since March. We have had a colossal impact on the economy over the last few months, and notwithstanding the fact that we have been borrowing at a rate of $1.3 billion a week through this period, so the Government has been stimulating on a historically unprecedented scale. You might say that that's the right thing to do, but to think that that is reality when it comes to the economic situation that we face as a country, it shows that we're under enormous pressure as a country, and we have a great job to do to restore the economic vitality of this nation. I think what we'll be talking about over the next few weeks is the plan to do that.
For us, we have every confidence—every confidence—that New Zealand can get itself back on track, and we can restore our prosperity, and we can return to the way of life that we have enjoyed in the past. But it does require some very hard work over the next months and years. It requires job-friendly policies: policies that make it easier for companies to invest and hire people and take on new people and take that risk to expand their businesses—so not adding costs to their businesses, not adding taxes, being consistent about the rules that you have, and allowing foreign investment to flow. All those things make it easier for New Zealanders to hire people and get the economy growing again. It's about keeping taxes low and it's about delivering quality infrastructure that actually makes a difference—not just announcing the infrastructure but actually delivering the infrastructure. So creating jobs, keeping taxes low, and delivering quality infrastructure are the things that we can do to get this economy on track again, and we hope to have the opportunity to talk about that over the next few weeks.





Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak in reply to the ministerial statements and in support of the actions of this House today. We're here today because we have a second coronavirus outbreak. These are the cards we have—the facts as we know them. Can I first wish a speedy recovery to those who currently are burdened with the virus, especially those who are patients in our hospitals. We trust our health professionals, and we thank them, along with many others, for what they are doing. In some shape or form, we are all affected by the response, and I join others in asking for respect and understanding for those who are effecting the response. Police, testing stations, contact tracers, and laboratory staff all deserve our respect as they do their very best job, along with the policies and the mandate this House gives them. It is our responsibility, then, to present the policies—the best policies we can—to give people the best tools that we can to bring this outbreak to a speedy close and prevent further incursions. 
This is our second wave. Much was learnt with our first brush with coronavirus, but the fact we have a second wave means there is still more to learn and we must do so quickly. This is a hard problem, and, sometimes, in situations like this, with huge complexity and many balls in the air, one of them gets dropped. When that happens, this Opposition will help pick up that ball and put it back in its correct place. There will be a time to understand how the ball was dropped, but first we will help put it back, and then we'll figure out how not to drop it again.
In my view, there are four key levers that we ask New Zealanders to pull. That's it. We all wish there were more tools in this tool box, but this is what we have—although we hold out hope for a vaccine, possibly on a distant horizon. 
There are four levers that we have and that we ask New Zealanders to use. One is personal protective equipment (PPE), especially face masks—the best advice we have is that there are benefits in wearing a mask. We understand that there have been different views over time, but we also need to have some trust that officials will distil the best national and international information and provide that advice. Routine masks may not be a strong barrier against receiving the virus—which, at only a few microns, might make itself through the weave—but advice tells us that it is effective against transmitting particles, especially larger droplet-type infection. I also believe there is something useful in the discipline of using a mask—in that the purchasing, preparation, carrying, use, and storage every time we use it reminds us of the environment we are in and the other actions we must take. This is a good discipline.
Lever two is contact tracing. Officials have told us one of the most effective tools—if not the most effective—is contact tracing. We are asking New Zealanders to use the coronavirus tracing app as far as is possible and sign-up sheets when not. There is a critical mass for usage before it is maximally effective, and that figure is roughly 60 percent. Surely we can get there. Lever three is testing. If one has symptoms or meets other high-risk criteria, please get tested. This is the only definitive way at this point to say positive or negative, and different pathways evolve depending on that result. The final lever, lever four, is social distancing. As citizens, we have control over this. This is a choice we make. We understand social distancing can be a challenge, and all we ask is that you do your best.
If this is what we ask of New Zealanders, then there are also things we ask of the Government and how they manage these same four levers. PPE: we ask that there is PPE available for everyone who needs it, that the policies are clear, and that the logistics and procurement chains are long and deep and more than a single supplier. Contact tracing: we ask that contact tracing be well resourced, with a rapid response and an integrated digital environment that allows quick analytics and reporting. Lever three, testing: we ask that there be enough testers, testing materials, and testing sites; that results be reported early; and that case definitions be stable and easily understood. We especially ask that our highest risk area, the border around our country, be well tested with sound policies and guaranteed delivery of those policies. Our final lever for Government is social distancing, and we ask that the Government continue to weigh the benefits and disadvantages of social distancing and consider how to do enough but not too much in every single unique environment.
This is what we ask of ourselves. This is what we ask of the Government. We remain absolutely committed to protecting New Zealanders. Thank you.





DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in response to the Minister's statement. I've said on, I think it was, 24 March, when this House met before the country went into level 4 lockdown, that it is the role of Opposition parties to offer constructive criticism where necessary and to make helpful suggestions where possible. Unfortunately, at this point, the criticisms are the easiest category of that feedback, because we have just seen so many basic failings, the most obvious being the need to test people. You know, the person found today at the Rydges was only found to be infected because of the recent scare leading to a much more robust testing regime than the Government had been happy to tolerate up until this point. Had it not been for the scare and the increase in testing, that person would be out in the community and we would be none the wiser. 
But the other criticism that we might make is that we've had 102 days of COVID freedom, which we should have been using to mend the holes and prepare for this eventuality that even the Director-General of Health said was inevitable. We instead chose to spend time doing a little dance and engaging in a victory lap, which has not led to us being prepared for this outbreak. It's interesting to look at which Australian states the Government has chosen to compare us with. We hear constantly, "It's so lucky that we are not Victoria.", forgetting that there are eight other states and territories which are doing considerably better. We chose to use the time for self-congratulation and indulgence rather than improvement, and that is why we are here today. 
Enough of the criticism; what about the helpful suggestions? Well, I would say that the Government has an opportunity to do vastly better, if only it was prepared to use something that should be familiar to it, and that is actually a wellbeing approach to managing COVID, because, you see, there are a range of challenges to our wellbeing, of which COVID-19 is only one. 
Let me identify some of them. The mental health of small-business owners driven to the brink of bankruptcy and beyond by lockdowns is immeasurable. I was in Queenstown talking to people in that community a few weeks ago. They said they had had seven suicides in a fortnight—an outrage. I've heard stories of butchers standing on the footpath outside their store in tears because they had to ditch or freeze all of the stock that they'd got in for the weekend. We've got to think about those outcomes—health and mental health. We've got to think about the academic wellbeing of students missing high-stakes, make or break exam preparation. We've got to think about that, and we've got to think about the health of those people who have missed out on screenings and elective surgery due to this latest outbreak. If you weigh up all of that, one conclusion you can't avoid is that lockdowns are incalculably bad for wellbeing, before you get into the economics of it. 
The ASB tells us it costs $440 million of GDP to lock down Auckland at level 3 for a week. Well, a 16-day lockdown—that's $1 billion, which happens to be identical to Pharmac's budget for all taxpayer-funded pharmaceuticals for a whole year. That's what we've just given up, and that takes you to the position that we cannot afford more lockdowns. But what, in the absence of lockdowns, is the solution? 
You know, I've said that we need to learn to live with it, and I think that's true. It doesn't mean learn to die with it; what it means is learn to live with COVID-19 being endemic in the world. That means we're going to have to find ways to maintain an elimination strategy by being smarter instead of using lockdowns, which are just too damaging to the wellbeing the Government says it believes in. I think if we're going to do that, then we need to learn from the world leader in preserving wellbeing during this time, which is, of course, Taiwan. Rather than spending the last 102 days of COVID freedom doing victory laps, we should have taken a leaf out of their book, which is continuous improvement, because they had SARS and bird flu and swine flu and dengue fever, and each time they used the opportunity to strengthen and sophisticate their defences. Now, we didn't have that experience—nobody can claim that they saw this coming before March—but what is unforgivable is the failure to prepare since then.
The first thing we should do is actually mimic their central epidemic control centre. I'm sorry to say it, but, as charismatic as their chief executive may be, the Ministry of Health is not the organisation to do manufacturing, procurement, and distribution of personal protective equipment. They have failed time and time again at that. They just don't have those skills. They are not the organisation to do software development. I would wager not a single person in this outbreak was actually identified using the Ministry of Health's COVID tracing app, and it's not surprising they failed at software development, because these are the people responsible for the state of patient health records in New Zealand—hardly a surprise. And I would wager that the Ministry of Health are not the right people to set clear rules of the game. That's why, once again, we are stuck in a scenario where people ask why they must drive past their beloved butcher or greengrocer, who's going broke, in order to shop at a supermarket with a larger group of people in another suburb. 
The second thing we should do is understand the role of Government. You know, in Taiwan, if you're a low-risk—and we'll get to risk—person arriving in the country, you can isolate at an Airbnb but they'll electronically track you, and, if you break the isolation, they'll find you and they'll punish you. In New Zealand, the Government doesn't set the rules of the game. It tries to run isolation by itself, and, if the Government's running it, who's holding them accountable? Well, Michael Morrah, it seems. If it wasn't for him, we wouldn't have a clue that they weren't even testing the people who were most exposed to the only people in New Zealand we knew had it. How crazy is that? So we need to understand the role of Government, and that is to set and enforce the rules of the game, not try and run everything. 
The next thing we can learn from Taiwan is actually how to manage risk. You know, we have basically the same treatment for people who come over as 501s from Australia as we have when we try to squeeze in rail tunnel engineers coming to work on the City Rail Link. There is no sense of understanding and managing different risks. We treat people coming from Victoria the same as we treat people coming—or not coming, as the case may be—from Samoa. Again, the total blindness to risk is absolute madness. 
The fourth thing we could learn from Taiwan, if we had the leadership and the wherewithal, is to start using technology. Now, I'm not in a position to recommend or evaluate Sam Morgan's CovidCard or Datamine's ëlarm, but the fact that our Government hasn't even given them a chance while the latter is being bought up by the tens of thousands by foreign healthcare systems is a disgrace when it was home grown. What happened to supporting New Zealand businesses? We've got to augment our public health response with technology. 
Finally, just as the Taiwanese reflected on swine flu and SARS and bird flu and dengue, we have got to start learning from our experience instead of doing victory laps. The opportunity is to do so much better. The opportunity is to be safe and actually protect all aspects of wellbeing that are currently imperilled so badly by the Government's strategy of blunt and costly lockdowns. 
The question at this election is whether or not the New Zealand people will choose a better way forward or whether we will blindly go on this destructive and unsustainable path none the wiser. I hope people will decide to change their future.





Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The nature of this virus is always that, despite the extraordinary measures that the Government has put in place since March, there was always a probability that there would be an additional outbreak. Despite the complaints of the Opposition, that was always on the cards. No system is perfect, although we can always struggle to improve the measures that we have. I would like to say, in response to some of what we've heard from the Opposition's responses to the Ministers' statements earlier, that it was actually the very same people who were suggesting that we open the border to Australia, that we allow ourselves to have the virus come into this country, and so on, who were actually suggesting that we let our guard down, and who are now saying the precise opposite and are suggesting that there are actually some ways that you can be 100 percent sure that it would never, ever come back into the country. That was never the Government's position. 
From the outset, we have been absolutely clear about the need for quick and decisive and comprehensive action. I mean, this week we have shown that, yet again, we are ready to do whatever it takes to protect the health and wellbeing of our families and our communities and our friends. Since we learnt of the first cases of community transmission in several months, we've been very clear about the risk and we've acted rapidly to contain it and to put in place a range of measures to support those who are most affected. We have, again, made very clear that it is the health and wellbeing of New Zealanders that we value more than anything else. 
On behalf of the Green Party—and in the absence of my colleague and co-leader, Marama Davidson, who is right now at home taking care of her family—I'd like to take this opportunity to commend the Prime Minister for her leadership. Delaying an election and asking MPs to return to Parliament is an extraordinary step to take. But I think everybody outside of this place recognises that it is in keeping with what they elected us to do, which is to take the action that is necessary to protect their wellbeing, keep them safe, and to provide support to those who need it the most—when they need it. 
Every one of us in this House, and those of us who are unfortunately absent today, hoped that, by now, we would be out in our communities up and down the country, knocking on doors, attending local meetings, talking to people about our plans for the future and our recovery for the country. Facing a second wave of community transmission was not in the plan, but it was always a probability that we had to be open to. We did prepare for it and we are ready to work through it, together with the rest of New Zealand. I can say that with some confidence, because when the original outbreak happened, we had nothing in place for regional lockdowns, like we have at the moment; nothing like the ability to track and trace, like we have at the moment; nothing like the genetic testing that is able to work out the boundaries of particular chains of transmission and whether they relate to each other or not. 
All of those months since March have been taken up building those systems. If we had the same systems in place now that we had in March, then we would be in the same situation that we were in March, which is the entire country would be in a level 4 lockdown, because that was the only measure that we had in place at the time. As it happens, our systems are much more sophisticated than they were over a few months ago. 
We've heard from the Minister of Finance, just before—we have already stepped up to provide additional support for the people who need it. The new wage subsidy and the existing extension will mean that more New Zealanders can stay in their jobs and continue to provide for their families. We've also provided additional security to those who are worried about what a loss of income means for keeping up with their payments for their home. Because of the actions that this Government has taken, yet again, more people can continue to support their families, to pay their bills, to put money back into their local businesses and into the community. That is really what our response to this crisis has always been about—keeping people safe, supporting those impacted, and helping our communities. But the truth is we cannot do it alone. Just like before, COVID-19 will be overcome by all of us working together, by New Zealanders in every home and every community and every business sticking to the rules that we have set.
Now, we've just heard from the health Minister about the steps that we're taking to slow the spread of the virus. So rather than repeat those actions, I wanted to take this opportunity to acknowledge people all across New Zealand who are making our health response possible—and I do want to acknowledge the words that Dr Shane Reti gave in his contribution just earlier, which I thought was reasonable, reasoned, and to the point—the businesses up and down the country who have adapted to alert level 2 and put in place measures to support their staff and keep their customers safe; the nurses who are putting themselves and their families at risk so that we can ramp up our testing and keep track of how the virus is spreading; the medical laboratory scientists who are working flat out in laboratories to get test results back to people quickly so they don't have to worry any longer than is necessary; the mental health workers who are there for people who need them; the teachers who are calmly and patiently, again, explaining to students why we have to go back to physical distancing; our police officers; our supermarket staff; and the dairy owners. Every action that these people are taking is what will, together, make the difference.
Now, I would like to give a special mention to the people of Auckland. We know that what you are experiencing right now is different to the rest of New Zealand. So as much as I'm sure you love being at home and spending time with your loved ones and avoiding the morning traffic, I know that this was not part of the plan. But I know this: the actions that you are taking, you are taking for the good of everyone. For that, I'm confident that I speak on behalf of the rest of New Zealand when I say thank you. Keep well, look out for each other, and keep your distance physically but not socially. Call people, connect with your friends online, and message colleagues to make sure that they are OK, because now more than ever we need each other.
With this in mind, I bet if you ask someone to explain how, in human terms, the pandemic has impacted them and their loved ones, they will tell you something very different from what we now see on show through the headline grabbing antics of some in this place—whether it's a small-business owner in Auckland who's worried about their future, someone at risk of losing their job, or someone who's loved one has just tested positive for COVID-19, we are all experiencing the pandemic differently. But underpinning every individual experience is a story of hope, because most of us here know that if we come together, if we do not turn to fear or misinformation, if we stick to the rules and look out for each other, we will be able to beat the pandemic a second time. As we experience this pandemic again, every one of us has a responsibility to remember the reality of what is being experienced in New Zealand today.
People all across New Zealand are looking to us for leadership. They want to know that what we will do is what's needed to keep their livelihoods intact and their families safe. What each of us needs to be saying to them is very clear: that we understand that we all have a part to play in making sure that Aotearoa can get through this again, together.





ORAL QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Finance
1. Hon JAMES SHAW (Associate Minister of Finance) to the Minister of Finance: Is the Government supporting working people who need to take leave due to COVID-19; if so, how?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, we are. Yesterday, I announced that Cabinet has agreed to remove the revenue drop and negatively impacted tests for the COVID-19 Leave Support Scheme. This means businesses with workers who have been told by health officials or their medical practitioner to self-isolate will receive the equivalent of the wage subsidy to help cover that person's wages for the time that they cannot be at work, regardless of those businesses' current financial position. Our focus is on doing everything that we can to support our strong public health response. That means removing barriers to a person getting tested, including fears that a positive result would put their employment at risk or that they wouldn't receive income while they couldn't work because they had used up their sick leave.
Hon James Shaw: Will the leave scheme help support the principle that "The best economic response is a strong health response."?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes, we continue to believe that the best economic response to this pandemic is a strong public health response. The leave scheme will remove barriers to a person getting tested, which will help to ensure more people get tested so that we can get a track and isolate the virus, bring it under control faster, and get the economy moving quickly.
Hon James Shaw: Should employers be asking people who need to self-isolate to use up their annual leave?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No. The leave scheme is available so that businesses with workers who have been told by health officials or their medical practitioner to self-isolate will receive the equivalent of the wage subsidy to cover the person's wages for the time they cannot be at work. Therefore, there is no reason for employers to ask workers to take annual leave in such cases.
Hon James Shaw: Has he received advice about leave options for people who need to look after symptomatic children?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We have asked officials to look into this matter further, and I look forward to receiving that advice.
Hon James Shaw: What is his view on whether the current support settings are suitable for people who work multiple jobs and need to get tested and self-isolate or enter quarantine?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: This is also a matter on which we are seeking further advice. Cabinet has asked officials to look at further modifications to the scheme to ensure that it is sustainable, flexible, and appropriate.




Question No. 2—Prime Minister
2. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: What advice, if any, has she received on the most likely way COVID-19 entered Auckland, causing the lockdown which began on 12 August, and what weaknesses, if any, have officials identified in border procedures which may have left New Zealand vulnerable to fresh outbreaks of COVID-19?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): I have been advised that, as with all countries which have faced resurgence, we should not rule anything in or out without evidence. That's why we have undertaken border testing that has covered our front-line agency workers, testing across our managed isolation facilities, contact tracing, and environmental testing—and even secondary environmental testing at the worksite, that remains our earliest sign of this outbreak. To date, we have not established the source of the current cluster, but investigations continue. 
In terms of border testing, on 22 June, Cabinet agreed to fund the Ministry of Health testing strategy, which included testing workers at the border. Previously, there was an issue with the coding of tests which meant we weren't obtaining the data for reporting when border workers were tested at their GP or a community-based assessment centre (CBAC), so we moved to on-site testing. I am advised, though, that Customs staff, for instance, who were symptomatic were tested at GPs or CBACs. I'm advised that led to approximately 660 tests from the March period onwards.
On 10 July, the first mobile testing at Auckland international airport started, and on 16 July, the second round of on-site testing took place at Auckland international airport. Cabinet also set an expectation on 22 July that all managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) staff would be tested, and we were also working to lift the broader uptake of testing across the board at high-risk sites. On 14 August, we made testing mandatory for those at Ports of Auckland and Port of Tauranga, but I should add there were already health orders in place covering expectations of the way that port workers would operate to ensure their safety. Testing is only one element of the additional precautions we have put in place. Of course, our first lines of defence are daily health checks, because not even weekly testing necessarily picks up cases as they arise; personal protective equipment (PPE) use; and strict operational guidelines that limit contact, for instance, between managed isolation staff and people in facilities, and also those who are working at our borders.
Hon Judith Collins: Does she stand by her statement of 15 July that "We've … ensured our front-line workers at the border are safe by wearing appropriate PPE, getting regularly tested, and that our systems for managing returnees are robust and limit the risk of spread. As I say, the system has done the job it was set up to do to date."; if not, why not?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member will know that Cabinet agreed to fund a testing strategy that was released some time after its agreement, which was at the end of June, so I was referring to that testing strategy. We also, of course, had, because of the issues that I outlined in my primary answer—although we were being advised that border staff who may have, for instance, been symptomatic were being tested at CBACs and GPs, and we know, for instance, for Customs there were hundreds of staff tested in that way, because we had no ability to match a staff member's National Health Index number and where they were working, we started on-site testing. As I said to the member, that started on 10 July. There was more on-site testing, as well, at the airport on 16 July, and we of course had testing happening in our managed isolation facilities—not as comprehensively as we expected or as was set out by Cabinet. 
Hon Judith Collins: When she said on 29 June about the border, "We are now amongst the only ones in the world testing every single person who comes into those facilities", what was her understanding of exactly who was being tested? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, the member hasn't provided me with the full quote, but, by the sounds of what I was referring to, we were having a debate at that time as to our quarantine and isolation processes for New Zealanders who were returning home. The point I was making at that time was we were mandating testing and moving to mandatory testing for day three and day 12. Not every country requires individuals, as New Zealand does, to go into a Government-approved facility. Many countries still require at-home isolation, and some countries that do require quarantine in a facility don't mandate testing. We do both.
Hon Chris Hipkins: Has any clear link between the current cluster outbreak in Auckland and any incursion at the border been established?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No, not at this stage, as I set out in my primary answer. Of course, we have moved through and prioritised testing those at the highest-risk posts at the border, and in those positions we have almost complete coverage now. Not all, necessarily, results will have been returned, but we have almost complete coverage. MIQ—we're at well over 90 percent of those staff as well. As yet, we have not established a link between the current cluster in Auckland and border staff.
David Seymour: Why, then, did her Minister of Foreign Affairs go on TV and say there was a connection between the cluster and the border?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That question would be better directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Hon Judith Collins: What was her reaction to the news last week that just one week before the current community outbreak, 63.5 percent of all border and hotel isolation workers in Auckland had never been tested for COVID-19 when she herself had said eight weeks earlier that front-line workers at the border were getting regularly tested?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: From the reporting we received from 7 to 13 August, we had roughly 571 border staff that were tested over that period. As we've already set out, our estimate of those who would be considered front-line would be about 280. When it comes to those working in managed isolation facilities, on 22 July, after Cabinet started receiving breakdowns of the number of staff being tested—
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Just answer the question.
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Mr Goldsmith, I am. After we received a breakdown of those individuals being tested, it was clear to us that we weren't getting full coverage, which is why, on 22 July, we set down a Cabinet minute—our expectation that it be mandated that every staff member working in those facilities be tested—because we were concerned about the coverage of those staff. Again, I reiterate, we have not as yet established a link between those staff and this cluster. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: OK, there have now, I think, been seven interjections that have reflected on me, from two members. The next time, the member who makes it will leave.
Hon Judith Collins: Why have not all border-facing staff been tested, eight weeks after her Government said they would be tested?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I tried to address in my original answer, originally we were using GPs and CBACs in a voucher system. That did not enable us to track whether or not all the staff we expected to be tested were tested. That is why we then moved to on-site testing. That began on 10 July and also on 16 July. It was clear then, once we were able to get numbers coming through from that—although it was never comprehensive because it didn't pick up anyone tested outside; keep in mind, if you're symptomatic, you would not be at work to therefore be tested—we identified that that coverage was not what we had expected. We were engaging with agencies around lifting those rates, including with MIQs. It's why we started mandating the rotation but also questioning with the Ministry of Health why those numbers weren't representative of the entirety of border staff. As I say, we did start to see numbers lift. From 31 July to 6 August, 211 border staff were tested, and from 7 August to 13 August they reported 571 were tested.
Hon Judith Collins: If, as the Prime Minister says, there were such issues around coding and other matters, then why didn't she tell New Zealanders of this problem when she knew about it?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We did identify that issue, which is why we moved to on-site testing on 10 July, because we identified that. We also, of course, as I've said, had every expectation—and that is all that I've ever articulated—that border staff were being tested, because that is what we were advised.
Hon Judith Collins: How many people—front-line border workers—have refused to be tested?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I was advised by the Ministry of Health that there was an issue—I wouldn't use the word "refused"—that some staff were declining testing. That was an issue that was raised some weeks ago. It was significant enough that I did choose, for instance—and I believe other Ministers may have—to raise with those representatives in the workforce that if that were an issue, could we help support them to address it. Again, I can only report what was raised with me by the Ministry of Health.
Hon Judith Collins: Does she agree with her Minister of Health, the Hon Chris Hipkins, who has indicated to media in the weekend that it's a pretty tough lever to pull, or a hard lever to pull, against staff working at the border to have them tested, and how does that coincide with the tough lever of having to lock down a third of New Zealand?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I think the member, unfortunately, is really misrepresenting the Minister of Health's statement there. The issue here, of course, is that from a public health perspective, the practice generally—and I'm sure Dr Reti would reinforce this—happens to be that you have to exercise some caution where you're compelling people where there is no public health reason—therefore, if someone is asymptomatic to be put through a test, because then you're going beyond clinical judgment and we are compelling blanket orders. We have moved with orders to mandate that now. Of course, you can see that we were also putting in place every effort to ensure that testing was available and that staff were being tested. I've given the numbers at the border. That does demonstrate we were seeing those increasing numbers, but we wanted to make sure everyone who was at risk was, and that is why it has now been mandated through an order to ensure it's the case.
Hon Chris Hipkins: Can the Prime Minister confirm that mandatory testing has been put in place using the powers under the COVID-19 response Act that was described as a massive infringement on human rights and was vigorously opposed by the National Party?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I can confirm that we have used those powers. We do believe that that is necessary because we do want to make sure that we have that very comprehensive coverage. What I would also say is that we've got to do everything we can to overcome anyone's reluctance in the community generally around testing, and the message that I'll send very, very clearly is: getting a test does not jeopardise your job—being found positive does not jeopardise your job. It should not also jeopardise your safety, and I am concerned that that has been an issue raised more generally in the public and that that may cause some reluctance for testing.
Hon Judith Collins: So who, ultimately, is responsible for this system: is it her Minister, herself, or is it actually the Ministry of Health?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As the Government, of course we take responsibility for our resurgence plan, for the fact that New Zealand continues to be one of the more successful countries in the world with our COVID response. This is a tricky virus. There has been no country in the world that has had COVID within it as we have, has got to the status we've had, and has continued to maintain the levels of freedom we have. When we prepared for a resurgence plan, the Opposition claimed we were scaremongering. Now they seem to be claiming that somehow our resurgence plan wasn't sufficient. We have always prepared for this scenario because no one has managed to get themselves to a situation where they haven't experienced a second wave—no one.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, you've warned the member from the Opposition before, but in his last comment he made a statement which is clearly a challenge to you. He knows it, and I'm happy to repeat it if you want to know what it was, but he said, "Do you take responsibility"—that's you, Mr Speaker—"for this stuff-up?" Now, sir, that is a direct infringement against the warning you gave him, and he should be asked to leave.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I would note that in an answer to a question just prior to that, you were brought into the answer. You might've taken some comfort from the fact that your job is not at stake as a result of COVID-19—a similar thing.
SPEAKER: Well, on the latter point, I had warned the Prime Minister earlier about my COVID testing and the negative result that I'd got, so that could even have applied to me directly, and the Prime Minister did say "Mr Speaker" in that case. I want to thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his support for me, but I think in these interventions I'll do it off my own cognisance rather than with his telling tales.
Hon Judith Collins: Was she or any of her Ministers made aware before the Auckland outbreak last week that people working in the managed isolation and quarantine facilities who should've been tested had not been tested?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As you can see from the numbers that I've read out in this House, there was the suggestion through that reporting that the coverage wasn't as comprehensive as we expected. That is why I've been very open about that. This is why, on 22 July, Cabinet minuted a decision of our expectation that every worker in a managed isolation or quarantine facility be tested. It is worth also pointing out that prior to 13 August, 811 staff members were on-site. That doesn't include those who may—keeping in mind, if you're symptomatic, you should not be at work—have been tested elsewhere. Finally, it is not sufficient to simply claim that testing is the only response required; if it was, it would be patently insufficient. Even weekly testing would not, for instance, pick up someone who may be tested on a Tuesday, come in contact with COVID on a Wednesday, be infectious by a Saturday, and take it back to work again on a Monday. You have to include health checks, PPE, and infection control, and that is what we had across our high-risk areas alongside the expectation of testing.
Hon Judith Collins: If that is so, then why is testing now compulsory?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because, as I just said, it has to be part of a plan around infection control, PPE use, and daily health checks, which we have had. I again would point out to the member that this is a virus, not simply a human we are dealing with. It is not a straightforward management and control issue, and every country in the world has had an experience like New Zealand. We happen, currently, to be in a much better position than most.
Hon Grant Robertson: How helpful is it to security at the border for people to take positions such as accusing the Government of scaremongering when we ask people to be tested, calling for a shorter level 4, calling for a shorter level 3, inventing complaints about homeless people getting into facilities, and calling for open borders with countries such as China?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I have to concede that in my view, at these times I absolutely expect as a Government we should be held to account—that is why we are here. But I also have to say that the kinds of contributions by Dr Reti are the kinds of contributions that I think add something when New Zealand is in the situation we are in. What I don't think adds to the situation is if we have anyone that unnecessarily calls into question the role, for instance, of testing and the importance of restrictions and limiting spread. There are other areas where I think it would be useful if we took the politics out of the response.




Question No. 3—Finance
3. GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister of Finance: What recent actions has he taken to support the New Zealand economy under the current COVID-19 restrictions?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): With the re-emergence of COVID-19 in the community, the Government is again moving quickly to cushion the blow for businesses and workers. Yesterday, I announced criteria for a new nationwide wage subsidy covering the period that Auckland is at COVID-19 alert level 3, along with the removal of the revenue drop test for the COVID-19 Leave Support Scheme and an extension of the mortgage deferral scheme from its current end date of 27 September to 31 March 2021. The criteria for the new wage subsidy are similar to the current extension: a business must have had or is predicting to have a revenue drop due to COVID-19 of at least 40 percent. For this new scheme, the revenue drop applies for any consecutive period of at least 14 days within 12 August and 10 September compared to last year. These measures will help support cash flow and confidence while we take the necessary public health measures to bring the virus back under control.
Greg O'Connor: What impact will the new wage subsidy have on the economy and on the Government's finances?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The cost of the new wage subsidy scheme is estimated to be $510 million. In addition, the current wage subsidy extension is still open for applications until 1 September. Treasury estimates we will see a potential increase in the uptake of the current extension so that the combined cost of the new scheme and the extension is $1.6 billion. Treasury estimates that about 930,000 workers will be supported by the two schemes. Uptake of the wage subsidy extension has been lower than anticipated, due to the economy outperforming expectations, meaning that these new costs will be covered by the underspends in the existing wage subsidy. Therefore, we will not be dipping into the $14 billion that has been set aside from the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: All borrowed.
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We are able to manage these demands because of this Government's careful fiscal management leading up to and through this one-in-100-year shock. Yes, Mr Brownlee, and that's exactly what businesses have been calling for, and your finance spokesperson just suggested we do.
Greg O'Connor: How do these new measures support the Government's public health response to COVID-19?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The new wage subsidy scheme helps cushion the blow to households and businesses while public health measures take effect. We have always said that the best economic response is a public health response. By supporting businesses and keeping workers attached to their jobs, we can facilitate the necessary current restrictions so that once the virus is under control again, the economy is able to get back up and running quickly and bounce back strongly. We've seen this play out before in the positive data for June and July when we did operate under lower restrictions after the lockdown. This includes the New Zealand Activity Index and the BNZ-BusinessNZ Performance of Manufacturing Index and the BNZ-BusinessNZ Performance of Services Index. We are once again going hard and early in our economic response as in our health response so that New Zealand is well placed to recover quickly from this particular outbreak.




Question No. 4—Housing
4. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Housing: Does she think the public should be concerned that post the 23 June announcement by the Minister of Health that "a testing strategy to keep New Zealand safe" with priority testing for MIQ staff and international and maritime crews was not comprehensively put in place, despite the Prime Minister stating last week that testing was happening all the way through?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): The Prime Minister was quite right when she said that testing was occurring. Prior to 13 August, 811 staff across our managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) facilities were tested. While I do not have ministerial responsibility for international and maritime crews, I understand testing was being rolled out, and last month Minister Hipkins asked for maritime asymptomatic testing to be scaled up. As we've acknowledged, there have been issues with testing and the rate did not meet our expectations. There have been issues—for instance, I've heard about difficulty for some staff accessing testing due to shift work, and then there was the issue with the coding of staff tests in the community that the Prime Minister mentioned. The coding issue means that not all tests would have been captured, so it's likely that the actual number of staff tested prior to 13 August is higher than the number that I have just provided the member. As for managed isolation and quarantine facilities, what I can confirm is that between 12 August and today 97 percent of staff working at our Auckland managed isolation and quarantine facilities have been tested, and 95 percent of staff across facilities in other regions. It's important to emphasise that testing is only one element of the precautions we are undertaking in our facilities. Staff and returnees also practise physical distancing, personal protective equipment is worn, and daily health checks are undertaken. This virus is tricky, and that's why we remain committed to continuously improving the rigorous processes at all of our facilities.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Why were two-thirds of all MIQ workers not tested by late last week?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As the Prime Minister canvassed in the answers to her questions in this House today, prior to Friday we had a voluntary system alongside surveillance testing, not a mandatory system that did not come into place until the order came into being. What we did have was symptomatic staff being tested. I outlined to the member that 811 staff across our facilities prior to 12 August were tested, and there were some issues and it did not meet our expectations.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Why was the advice from the Ministry of Health that backed the health Minister's statements on 23 June that called for wider-spread testing not adhered to, and for what reason was an order not issued sooner?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I'll answer in as far as I have ministerial responsibility for this question. I reject the premise of the member's question, that testing wasn't occurring. Testing was taking place after the decisions in June and further announcements in July. As for the timing of the order, that is a question to put to the Minister of Health.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: What I asked her on 6 August to guarantee that the Government's management of the border and MIQ would not result in a second wave, why did she tell me the only risk of that occurring was human error when it's become very clear we're experiencing an outbreak now because of flawed policy?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Again, I reject the premise of that member's question. There is absolutely no evidence to substantiate the claims that that member is making. I'd like to take the member through the facts—that we do not have a known link to an isolation facility in the current community that is being experienced. I caution that member for making assertions around this and instead to look at the comprehensive evidence that there is. In particular, I point that member towards the genomic sequencing that provides a good evidence base.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was for—
SPEAKER: No, the member's question was actually out of order and I should have stopped him. I let it run on. On to the next supplementary.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: When she was asked whether she'd learnt anything from what caused Victoria's second wave and she said to the House, "what I've learnt is the importance of good Government oversight and robust procedures to ensure we keep COVID out of our communities.", do the events of the last 10 days reveal that she hadn't learnt all that much from those Victorian events?
SPEAKER: Order! I'm just going to ask the member to somehow tell me how that relates to the primary question or the answer?
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, I'm referring to an answer the Minister gave in the House on 6 August.
SPEAKER: Well, actually, you've got a question today, not on 6 August. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Yes, I know, but if the Minister said something in the House on 6 August that relates to the question today, which is about testing, why wouldn't I be able to ask it?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I'm happy to answer it, Mr Speaker.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, no, I'll ask another one.
SPEAKER: No, no, I'm happy to be flexible and let the Minister answer it. I haven't quite got the link myself, but—
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: When the member asked if I had learnt anything from the lessons of Victoria, on 6 August, and whether we as a Government had learnt anything from the lessons of Victoria, and I said that good Government oversight was one of those lessons, I absolutely stand by that answer. If the member is alluding to the kind of systemic failures that have been reported in the case of Victoria, there is absolutely no evidence—there is no link—that this is the kind of situation that we are seeing in New Zealand. In regard to the worker who works in a managed isolation facility who has tested positive and does not have a genomic match with the current community cluster—it belongs to a different genomic clade—he does not have daily contact with members. It does not match the current cases, and, indeed, he was not in a space that the person that did tests with the corresponding genomic match—who was subsequently moved to the Jet Park—was. We continue to investigate this, but I caution that member against wild assertions not based in fact.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: OK. When she said of MIQ testing on 6 August, "We are also interested in whether or not they are licensed security companies that are being employed in these facilities. So not only have I asked the questions, we have also met with unions who represent these security workers.", did any of those unions oppose regular compulsory testing of their members?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Absolutely not. That is actually something that we were working with the Ministry of Health around—the roll-out of more routine asymptomatic testing in our facilities.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: What were the findings of the investigations and site security assessments of all of the 31 managed isolation facilities she told the House were under way on 6 August?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: That we have robust systems in place around the security at all of our managed isolation and quarantine facilities. It is, of course, as I have continuously reminded this House, a process of continuous improvement, and that isn't the end cut-off date for us continuing to look at what improvements can be made in our facilities.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Had the maintenance worker at the Rydges Hotel, who has now tested positive, had a previous test at any time in the previous five months?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: No, he had not previously been tested. He had not been tested because he was not symptomatic, which is what the order—the previous guidelines, rather—would have required. I would also point the member to the fact that he was not a worker who had contact with any of the returnees in the facility. This is a maintenance worker who only ever entered unoccupied rooms that had been vacated by returnees.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: If the House is to accept the description the member has just given, suggesting that this particular worker did not have contact with people who were in isolated quarantine, doesn't that make the situation even more scary for people trying to work out where this thing came from?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: What that does is demonstrate how tricky and insidious this virus is and why we have to be methodical and scrupulous in investigating how it is that someone has contracted a strain of the virus with a different genomic sequence that does not match with the current community cluster that is being experienced in Auckland. That is why we are working through it methodically, and that is why we are committed to ensuring that we have robust procedures in place at our facilities.




Question No. 5—Finance
5. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: What is the total estimated cost, to both the economy and to the Government, of the re-emergence of COVID-19 in the community?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): There is a wide range of estimates of the total cost to the economy from economists, ranging from an impact on GDP of $300 million per week to about $500 million to $600 million per week. Part of the reason for this range of estimates is the difficulty of assessing the impact beyond the Auckland City boundaries. It is important to note that these estimates don't include the benefits to the economy from the Government's plan to stamp out the latest outbreak quickly. We know in New Zealand from experience that the best economic response is a strong health response. The estimates also don't factor in the counterfactual of how much higher the cost would be if ideas floated by the members of the Opposition that we should just let COVID take hold in New Zealand would happen, which, while the Government does not agree with it, Mr Seymour did. With regard to the cost to the Government, we have taken a responsible approach to managing the costs of COVID-19 as we keep debt under control and much lower than other countries. It's why we set aside the remaining $14 billion of the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund, in case of a second wave. The total cost of the new wage subsidy and its existing extension is estimated to be about $1.6 billion. There will be some cost to the Government in terms of tax revenue as well. At this time, other costs, as a result of the level 3 restrictions, will be dealt with through existing baselines.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he agree with the Prime Minister, who said in April, "The worst thing we can do for our country is to yo-yo between levels, with all the uncertainty that this would bring."?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No one in this House would want to see us do that; that's why we're acting hard and early now to get back on top of the virus.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he sure that the Government did everything it could to avoid another lockdown?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Absolutely. The Government is doing 
everything in our power to do this, but I can only quote from the Opposition health spokesperson when he was asked whether it was possible to ever have 100 percent watertightness at the borders. Mr Reti said, "I think that would be almost impossible, and I don't think anyone in anyone's hands anywhere around the world has done that." If only the member would listen to his health spokesperson.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Will the 4½ hour delays for trucks to get into Auckland reported yesterday further add to the economic pain felt in that city, and, if so, why was his Government not better prepared for the possibility of a regional lockdown?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Obviously, as we move into a regional level 3 situation, there will be issues with making sure that we get all of the facilities in place. The member either supports a level 3 restriction in Auckland or he doesn't. The record of the Opposition has been to flip-flop around on what they think should happen here. If there is a level 3 restriction in Auckland, Mr Goldsmith, it has to be policed.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why is his Government prepared to spend more on the leave support scheme "to remove any barriers to taking a test", but his Government wasn't prepared to insist that people working in quarantine facilities took a test?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We absolutely want all New Zealanders to be confident that if they do need to take a test and they do need to self-isolate, they will have some support for their income. In regards to the second part of the question, that is the very power the Opposition opposed this Parliament granting.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: When he said today that "the best economic response to this pandemic is a strong public health response.", would he expect that that would include regularly testing everyone who works at the border or in quarantine facilities?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Indeed I would. That has been the expectation of the Government. It has been traversed in this House by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Housing as to the fact that those expectations weren't met. But I'd reiterate: this House passed a law that enabled compulsion in testing. That's now been enacted. That law was opposed by the National Opposition. It is yet another example of their flip-flopping around on borders and border security.
Hon Chris Hipkins: What could have been the potential impact to the New Zealand economy if we had reopened our border with Australia when we were being urged to do so?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, a number of commentators urged us to reopen the border with Australia and China. They urged us to allow universities to make sure that they could manage international students on their own. All of those things could have had a catastrophic impact on the New Zealand economy. Amazingly, all of those things have been suggested by the Opposition.




Question No. 6—Education
6. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What steps is the Government taking to support students whose learning has been disrupted by the shift to COVID-19 alert level 3 in Auckland?
SPEAKER: As I call Chris Hipkins, I'm just going to warn the Leader of the Opposition that sometimes muttering can be taken as an interjection. I won't on this occasion.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Yesterday, the Government committed further funding to enhance distance learning support to schools, particularly focused on secondary school students, with a particular emphasis on those who are studying towards NCEA. The Ministry of Education has been purchasing the limited stock of fit-for-education computer devices that are available in New Zealand, and they'll be using this, firstly, to meet the unmet demand of students in year 9 and above in secondary schools in Auckland—that is, 3,612 students for whom schools have placed orders for a digital device with the Ministry of Education. The rest of the stock, plus some of the devices sourced from overseas, will be used to meet unmet demand from students in year 9 and above around the rest of the country. The total number of devices that we are seeking to secure and distribute to secondary school students is 8,100. The Ministry of Education has been contacting eligible Auckland schools and kura first and foremost to confirm their requirements and to arrange the delivery of devices to them for distribution to students.
Kiritapu Allan: How is the Government helping schools to meet the needs of senior students?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I am particularly conscious of the needs of our years 12 and 13 students who are studying towards NCEA, for many of whom the year 2020 will be their last year of compulsory schooling. They have, effectively, lost a full term's worth of in-classroom teaching time, and I'm mindful that, particularly for those subjects that are applied subjects, that can pose particular challenges. So the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Health have been working together to ensure that senior secondary school students in years 12 and 13 can come back into school during level 3, providing all of the relevant protections are put in place. Effectively, those schools would be treated the same as other workplaces. So they would have to have small bubble sizes, small group sizes; they would have to adhere to social distancing; and they would have to keep the groups the same and ensure that there's continuity there and that there's good record-keeping and so on. If schools can demonstrate that they can do that, they will be able to provide in-person teaching and support to a smaller group of years 12 and 13 students.
Kiritapu Allan: What action is the Government undertaking to support younger students in Auckland?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Good news: we've brought back the very popular Home Learning TV to support children learning in age groups from two to 11 whilst Auckland remains at level 3 and the rest of the country is at level 2. It will take over TVNZ's DUKE TV channel daytime schedule from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. on weekdays. The programming is particularly focused at younger children and includes the very popular Karen's House and junior science and maths lessons with Suzy Cato. Teachers and parents can access details of the lessons upcoming on the Learning from Home website, and lesson plans are also being made available to support teachers so that they can support that learning.




Question No. 7—Health
7. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement regarding testing of border staff that "it has not been happening at the rates (a) we have asked for and (b) we were told"?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Health): Yes.
Dr Shane Reti: When he said on The Nation that he had been told several weeks ago that all staff at Jet Park, Auckland, were being tested weekly, who told him that, and did he receive that in writing?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I was told that by the Ministry of Health, and, yes, I did receive that in writing.
Dr Shane Reti: Did he receive information showing incomplete weekly testing of staff at the border prior to the current outbreak, and, if so, when?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Since I became the Minister of Health, and it's been, I think, by my count, roughly seven weeks now, I have been receiving regular updates on the scaling up of testing at the border. I've been receiving that information primarily to inform my Cabinet colleagues each Monday, but also to be prepared for the regular press conferences that I've been doing on Tuesdays and Thursdays, where I've answered extensive questions on the rate of testing at the border. Right the way through that, members who have been watching that will know that I have been continuing to work on that and I've been continuing to say that the testing rates have not yet been at a level to meet my expectations.
Dr Shane Reti: So did those regular weekly updates demonstrate incomplete testing at the border?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes.
Dr Shane Reti: When the Director-General of Health said about the lack of testing of border staff, "There was clearly a dissonance between what the prime minister thought was happening and what was happening on the ground", what was the cause of that dissonance?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That's something that the member would have to ask the director-general.
Dr Shane Reti: Will he release all relevant information he's received on incomplete border testing, and, if not, why not?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, of course, the Government will be releasing all of the relevant information, as we're obliged to do.




Question No. 8—Health
8. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Health: What does the Government's resurgence plan for COVID-19 say about testing those involved in maritime transport, if anything, and is he satisfied with the implementation of that plan?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Health): I think the member is confusing the resurgence plan and the testing plan. They are different plans, so I will address the testing plan. The testing strategy is separate from the resurgence plan. Testing at the maritime border includes regular ongoing testing of port workers who have contact with ships' crew; secondly, short-term mandatory testing of port workers who have contact with ships' crew, with our focus on the few thousand higher-risk workers, and that has been happening over the last few days and over the next few days; and regular mandatory testing of crew, where a crew member wishes to disembark and remain in New Zealand. Strong targeted testing is already focused at the ports and at the border, and there's been an intensified effort with the ports of Auckland and Tauranga due to the connection with the Auckland community cluster. To date, more than 3,485 workers at ports around New Zealand have been tested for COVID-19, so, yes, I'm overall satisfied that health officials are standing up what they need to do.
Chris Bishop: Has there been regular testing of workers at our sea border, or when did that testing commence?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No, there has not been regular testing at the sea border, and until recently it was not a requirement for that to happen. It is important to note that thousands and thousands of people will interact with the border every day, and it's not necessary to test all of those people. The focus has to be on testing of those who are likely to have contact with those who are coming off ships, even if they're coming off the ships temporarily to load and unload. 
Chris Bishop: Why was there not a requirement for regular testing at our sea border, when the Government assured New Zealanders that the first thing we need to do is to continue to ensure our border stays as tight as it can be?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: One of those barriers was logistical. It is not possible to test all of the people at the sea border. Some of those people don't actually come off ships at all. Some of them will come off ships only for a matter of hours before going back on to those ships. It is not always possible to test absolutely everybody working at the port or at the sea border.
Chris Bishop: Has he asked for weekly briefings from his ministry on the number of workers at our sea border who have been tested for COVID-19, and, if not, why not?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, I asked for detailed breakdowns on a very regular basis of all of the testing taking place across the country. That was one of the first things I did as Minister of Health.
Chris Bishop: If that's the case, why did the Government not move more quickly to ensure regular testing of workers at the sea border, since he's just told the House he's been receiving weekly briefings on the number of workers at the sea border since he became the Minister?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I have, of course, been pushing very hard to get additional testing happening at the border—the air border and the sea border—and at managed isolation and quarantine facilities, and I've been providing near daily updates, publicly, about the progress on that, so it shouldn't come as a great surprise to anyone around that. I have been reluctant to make it mandatory, and, again, I've been very open about that, bearing in mind that the legal power that I have to make it mandatory was vigorously opposed by members of this House, who called it a massive infringement on human rights. 
Chris Bishop: Has he visited any ports to check on the implementation of the Government's testing of workers at the border?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I've not visited any of the seaports. I visited Auckland international airport. My colleague Dr Woods has visited seaports.




Question No. 9—Internal Affairs
9. Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What recent announcements has she made regarding lottery funding and local communities in light of COVID-19?
Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): Today, I have announced that a new lottery fund worth $40 million has been established to focus on community and social initiatives in the wake of COVID-19. The Lottery COVID-19 Community Wellbeing Fund will support groups that have lost access to funding sources, have extra demand on their services, or are now working in different ways in responding to COVID-19. Community groups responded incredibly to the initial lockdown and continue to play a vital role in supporting most of our people and communities. The Lottery Grants Board wants to help these groups as they provide support to rebuild and strengthen our communities and help with the recovery. 
Hon Ron Mark: How is this fund made possible?
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: The new Lottery COVID-19 Community Wellbeing Fund is possible as Lotto New Zealand has been able to maintain the levels of funding provided to the Lottery Grants Board through the COVID-19 period and its 2021 forecast profit remains the same as last year. These types of one-off funds are established as and when required to respond to unexpected needs. Specific lottery funds were created in response to the events in Tasman, Kaikōura, and Edgecumbe over the last few years, although they provided localised funding, whereas the COVID-19 fund will be rolled out nationally.
Hon Ron Mark: Can the Minister tell the House, will this new fund affect the allocation of funding into other lottery distribution committees at all? 
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Given Lotto New Zealand has been able to maintain its levels of funding, this COVID-19 fund will not affect the allocation of funding to other distribution committees. Today, I also announced that the Lottery Grants Board has allocated $178 million to the core distribution committees for 2021. This is the same level of funding as they received last year. This funding will support a range of social initiatives, marae, community facilities, heritage, environmental activities, outdoor safety, and health research. Another $117.6 million of lottery funding for 2021 will go to the board's statutory bodies: Sport New Zealand, Creative New Zealand, New Zealand Film Commission, and Ngā Taonga Sound & Vision. This funding continues to make a significant contribution to these sectors.




Question No. 10—Agriculture
10. Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Agriculture: Why did the Director-General of MPI tell Beef + Lamb New Zealand and the Meat Industry Association on Wednesday last week that the same definition of essential services used during the last lockdown would apply again in this lockdown, and are farmers also required to get a Ministry of Health exemption to cross the level 3 boundary for work purposes?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Firstly, can I say that all decisions have been made to reduce the harm from COVID-19, all through this process. In answer to the question why: because that was correct at the time. The initial health order was stood up swiftly, as was necessary. A new health order was subsequently issued, making some alterations to protect against the spread of COVID-19 that allow for the movement of critical primary sector workers. We committed to work with the industry to solve issues as they emerge, which we have done and continue to do. Primary sector leaders want us to do everything possible so that we don't have to move up a level or stay under any extended restrictions. In answer to the second part of the question, yes, exemptions are required to cross the level 3 boundary for work purposes. The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) worked with industry groups and the Ministry of Health over the weekend to expedite travel exemptions for dairy, horticulture, and poultry workers.
Hon David Bennett: Was the weekend the first time the Minister made representations to the Minister of Health for an exemption of primary sector workers to any regional lockdown at the borders?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: No, MPI have been aware, from the initial order, that some areas of the primary sectors would need exemptions, and so the question was whether class exemptions were the appropriate way to deal with the issue, or whether it should be with individual exemption applications.
Hon David Bennett: If the Minister knew prior and MPI knew prior to the recent outbreak that such exemptions would be needed, why didn't he ensure that such exemptions were in place when the lockdown occurred?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: One thing that this Government has done is always take the precautionary approach. The reason that we have lockdowns is to prevent the spread of COVID-19. The movement of any people for any reason adds a risk to that. We've been mindful that some people have required to shift across the borders. This is a new situation that the Government has faced, and we've been trying to manage that to reduce the risk of spread but to allow the sensible movement of people where absolutely essential.
Kiritapu Allan: What actions has the Government taken to keep industry sectors up with the protocols necessary under the current COVID-19 restrictions?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I can say that this morning, we met with all industry leaders via Zoom teleconference. We asked them if there were any issues, major issues, they had. They raised a few points, but I'd have to say, in summary, most of those industry sector leaders were happy with the way that the Government has been handling this, because they too want to eliminate any possible spread of COVID-19, where possible.
Hon David Bennett: Will the Minister ask for the Auckland level 3 boundary to be changed to meet the demands of producers that have said, "The boundary area has been arbitrarily set half way through the Pukekohe production area and that is where the main problem is … so we're finding that [it's] very disruptive for getting crops harvested, getting food to supermarkets and whatever other channels that are allowed to be open."?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: The boundary was set through legislation, as I understand it. I'm not familiar with the streets, but it is the area of the Auckland greater city boundary. Any attempt to shift that would be quite complex. We have understood that in the areas of horticulture, some people have worked or lived on both sides of that boundary. That's why we're working through very sensibly and have made provision for horticulture in particular over the weekend.




Question No. 11—Attorney-General
11. GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Attorney-General: How has the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 supported the Government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): The COVID-19 Public Health Response Act has enabled the Government to implement the resurgence response plan quickly, with democratic oversight. The orders made provide for different rules for different levels of risk in different regions. The 1956 Health Act did not adequately provide for this.
Ginny Andersen: How does the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 improve upon the Health Act from 1956?
Hon DAVID PARKER: Despite misrepresentations about the Act spread on social media, including by some in this House, the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act allows more targeted responses with greater democratic accountability than the Health Act provisions. The Act confers the power to make orders on Ministers—accountable to Parliament—acting on advice from officials, rather than orders being made directly by officials. The Act must be renewed every three months by this House. It is important that New Zealanders, especially under alert levels 1 and 2, enjoy as much freedom as possible while still taking actions to halt any resurgence of the virus in ways not allowed for under the Health Act.
Ginny Andersen: What reports has he received on the appropriateness of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic?
Hon DAVID PARKER: A select committee inquiry found the Act was "necessary and appropriate". The Law Society, in its submission to the inquiry into the Act, said, "The new bespoke framework provided by the Act is a significant improvement." and that it is "appropriate for the power to make orders to be exercised principally by Cabinet minister accountable to Parliament, rather than officials." The Finance and Expenditure Committee also noted that among submitters, "legal academics and others including the [Legislation Design and Advisory Committee] support the COVID-19 Act and consider it [is] a clear improvement on the Health Act."
Ginny Andersen: Why was it important that Parliament renew the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 earlier this month?
Hon DAVID PARKER: The COVID-19 Public Health Response Act allows more targeted messages that impinge less on freedoms and economic output than Health Act orders. An example is level 2 restrictions on large gatherings while normal work and social interaction is largely allowed. If the new Act had not been passed or had not been renewed earlier this month, this would not have been possible. I was, accordingly, surprised to hear the Opposition claiming yesterday they had supported all COVID legislation when they actually voted against the Act, both when originally enacted and again when it was extended. That is an interesting series of facts.
Hon Member: Cheap.
Hon Member: But correct.
SPEAKER: Well, I think there's not much left to the afternoon, and, therefore, I won't do what I threatened to do and Mr Peters warned or asked me to do as well.






COVID-19 ORDERS
Approval
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Following discussion in the Business Committee, I seek leave to move the Government notice of motion in my name regarding the approval of COVID-19 orders.
SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There's none.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I move, That the House approve, in accordance with section 16 of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020, the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Air Border) Amendment Order 2020, the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Levels 3 and 2) Order 2020, the COVID-19 Public Health Response (COVID-19 Testing) Order 2020, and the COVID-19 Public Health Response (COVID19 Testing) Amendment Order 2020.
The four orders that are the subject of this motion all contribute to the ongoing fight against COVID-19, and I do want to thank all parties across the House for giving leave to allow them to be considered by the House today. I'll run through each of them separately but briefly.
The COVID-19 Public Health Response (Air Border) Amendment Order 2020 moves the decision-making responsibility for granting permission to leave a place of isolation or quarantining from the Director-General of Health to the chief executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. The extra sitting of the House today requires that the House give approval to this change.
The COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Levels 3 and 2) Order 2020, which came into force on 12 August in response to the discovery of a new case of community transmission of COVID-19 in Auckland, is a critical tool in the restriction of the spread of COVID-19. The order defines the alert level 3 area in Auckland. It sets out the stay-at-home and physical distancing requirements in that area and the travel that is permitted as essential personal movement. It also sets out the requirements for businesses and for services.
For the alert level 2 area that comprises the rest of New Zealand, the order sets out what is expected of businesses, services, and other workplaces, as well as the limits on social gatherings. The order also established the protocols for restricted movement between Auckland and the rest of the country. The measures implemented by the order place unusual restrictions on New Zealanders, so it is important that they are subject to the approval of this House. I should note also that, by popular demand, that particular order makes the display of QR codes mandatory across the country.
The COVID-19 Public Health Response (COVID-19 Testing) Order 2020 and the subsequent amendment order relate to the testing for COVID-19 of workers in the ports of Auckland and Tauranga. It sets out the categories of port workers who are required to undergo a test. This is an important component of our work to prevent the entry and spread of COVID-19 into New Zealand. The amendment order that came into force last night pushed back the deadline for testing to take place by three days, until 20 August, and specifies more precisely the affected workers that are required to be tested.
We're united in our determination that COVID-19 will not take a hold in New Zealand, as it has done in other countries. The provisions in these orders are essential for successful resistance against the virus. The Government does not regard lightly the imposition of such measures on New Zealanders, and it is important that they have the approval of the House.





DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of the motion that the Minister has moved, with a couple of comments. As he rightly mentions, the Government has had the power to make mandatory the testing of people working at the border and in isolation facilities, people who are the only people in New Zealand who are habitually in contact with the only people in New Zealand known to have COVID-19. I applaud that those people are going to be mandatorily tested, but the question is: why now, when the Government's had the power to do it since the legislation was passed months ago?
Hon Chris Hipkins: Which he voted against. 
DAVID SEYMOUR: Second of all—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! I just want to warn the Minister of Health, I did not vote against it.
DAVID SEYMOUR: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Secondly, when it comes to the testing of those at the seaports, of course that is something that should have been done long ago. The question is: is the capability there to do it? So not only did the Government have the power to do it but they haven't used the capability. And, again, I ask, you know, if they had the ability to do this, why now?
Finally, on the topic of belatedness, incredibly belated is the issuing of QR codes. The Minister himself on Q+A this weekend admitted that he hadn't been using the Ministry of Health's app. I have to admit, neither had I, because it had been given up on. As I said in my speech earlier, it's all very well to make it mandatory, but, just as with the availability of testing at the seaports, the app didn't work. The QR codes weren't there because people had given up on it. So it's all very well to be making the order, but let's just remember that the Government has had a huge amount of time with these powers where it could've used them, but it got engaged in complacency, victory laps, and indolence, and, as a result, it finds itself taking this action at a time when Parliament wasn't even supposed to be sitting. And I think that there's a salutary lesson in that: when we say that Government has done a great job and New Zealand has done so well, we just have to remember that these orders and these powers are only being used too little, too late, when there was no capacity to actually fulfil them, and only because it all went wrong. That's what we need to remember, and I think it's salutary that we just mark this time, because this Government hasn't been going hard and going early; it's been caught napping—that's why we're here now. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Mr Speaker. We will be supporting this legislation, but, to support what the previous speaker, David Seymour, was saying, we just have concerns as to how we come to be here again, so late in the piece, that it sort of needed a wake-up call with this second wave to finally nudge us along.
If we look at the development of the app, which we're completely supportive of, we do think that this is an important tool. In fact, probably there are other things that need to go with this particular tool—you know, for those who don't have smartphones, etc. It's not clear to us it's actually working across all sorts of operating systems either, so there's probably some work that needs to be done there. But if you look at the copyright of the app and look at the two developers who gifted their intellectual property to it, a few weeks ago they were reported as saying, "Look, this doesn't represent the functionality that we thought we were coding when we first contributed our coding, and we have significant concerns with it." Now, I take on board that that functionality has been improved, and we're hoping that there'll be further updates. I'm pleased that probably the most significant functionality that was improved with the app was the ability to manually enter a location when you weren't able to actually scan. I think that was a good thing. 
But, just to talk to that point about the importance we see with the app, and why we needed this second wave to do these things we're doing today, why could we not have anticipated, as we're hearing that it will be a matter of when, not if? Well, if that's the case, this legislation could have been 30 days ago or 60 days ago. If that was the case, why are we doing it here today? Again, we'll be supporting it, but, you know, we've sort of been pushed here and driven here in a little bit of a hurry, if you like, to form these regulations and to support these regulations that, actually, could have been done sooner. They might well have benefited from more views or possibly more scrutiny, and yet here we are.
We will still be supporting this, because we think the fundamentals of the legislation are important, but we just say that maybe it could have been better if we had more time and could have got here sooner. Thank you.
Motion agreed to.
SPEAKER: In accordance with a determination of the Business Committee, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.
The House adjourned at 4.03 p.m.