WEDNESDAY, 26 AUGUST 2020
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Prayers.
ORAL QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Prime Minister
1. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement that the reason the Government will not extend the wage subsidy to cover the additional four days of lockdown is because "it would require an entirely different process and regime"?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): That wasn't exactly my quote, but on Monday I was asked why we didn't just tack on an extension to the two-week wage subsidy. My reply to that question was: "It is not a simple exercise to simply tack on additional. It would require an entirely new application [processing] regime. Our focus is getting the money out the door quickly for everyone who's already applied." As a Cabinet, we also weighed up a number of other factors when considering the two-week wage subsidy that has been applied across New Zealand. That included that Auckland has had a combined lockdown at levels 3 and 4 in total of around nine weeks, and the wage subsidy has been available for 22 weeks in total, far exceeding the 3 and 4 levels. In addition to the short two-week extension, thousands of additional businesses have become eligible for the eight-week wage subsidy payment as a result of the shorter lockdown. The other financial support the Government is offering was also considered, including the Small Business (Cashflow) Loan Scheme, tax changes, and specific sector support packages. Finally, we also considered the fact that we do need to manage the Government's finances responsibly. Every dollar in wage subsidy is, unfortunately, a dollar that is also borrowed.
Hon Judith Collins: [Interruption] Is she, in essence—
SPEAKER: Order! Which member was that—made that noise? Well, I think Mr Hudson has a recognisable voice, or there are three other members in the quadrant that might have made it. Who made a noise—a loud noise—as the Hon Judith Collins started her question?
Hon Member: It was a sentence.
SPEAKER: All right. Well, that's honesty and transparency.
Hon Judith Collins: Is she, in essence, saying it's just too hard?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I refer to the answer I gave in my primary, which is no.
Hon Judith Collins: Is she saying that workers could lose their jobs just because the Government thinks it's too difficult to extend the wage subsidy for four days, and, anyway, businesses have had enough help?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That's absolutely not what I'm saying.
Hon Judith Collins: Well, then, what is she saying?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I'm saying that we have considered that over the levels 3 and 4 period, which has been the most constrained, that equates to about nine weeks of constraint, particularly for the Auckland region. But the wage subsidies that have been available now total 22 weeks. It's also worth considering, as I acknowledged in my primary answer, and we did consider this, that some businesses would not have been previously eligible for the wage subsidy extension, keeping in mind that that is an eight-week payment. A number of businesses, because of this more recent lockdown, are now eligible for that eight-week payment. In fact, we have received in the order of 37,000, if I recall correctly, applications for the wage subsidy extension. That demonstrates that businesses are actually accessing eight weeks of support in some cases, not just two.
Hon Judith Collins: Does she understand that the wage subsidy does not actually end up with businesses because it is for the subsidy towards wages for workers, and that businesses who have been in lockdown do in fact have other costs as well as wages to pay, when they've got no income coming in?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course we have kept that in mind all the way through, which is why we've also had access to things like the no-interest business loan scheme and why we have put in place initiatives to reduce tax liability, also, for small business.
Hon Judith Collins: Why, when New Zealand went into lockdown for seven weeks the first time, did the Government pay 20 weeks of wage subsidy, yet this time round it's only paying two weeks' wage subsidy despite the lockdown being more than two weeks—for two weeks and four days?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: My recollection is that that isn't quite an accurate portrayal of the first and second—of course, keeping in mind that we have had different alert levels for all those periods as well. What we've tried to do, rather than just attach it to an alert level, we've attached it to an analysis from the business around revenue loss. So if a business can demonstrate, over a period of time, that they've had a revenue loss in the order of 40 percent, and they can include in that this two-week period, they will, for instance, be eligible not for two weeks of subsidy but for eight weeks of subsidy. So that demonstrates it's never just been about alert level; it's been about the impact of that alert level on a business—after all, you wouldn't expect the likes of a supermarket who has had an increase in purchasing being eligible for a subsidy. 
Hon Judith Collins: Would she be surprised to learn, then, that an extra four days lockdown would cost a small business with 10 staff at least $6,000 in wages, with no revenue to pay for it?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would encourage any small business who has been adversely affected by the more recent lockdown to contact the Ministry of Social Development and check their eligibility for the wage subsidy extension. If they've already received that in the past, they will almost certainly be, then, eligible for the extra two weeks and, therefore, have likely received 22 weeks of support for what equates to nine weeks of level 3 and level 4.
Hon Grant Robertson: In light of that question, can the Prime Minister confirm that if a business has received all 22 weeks of the wage subsidy, it would have received $12,887.60 per full-time worker, which would represent $128,000 to a business with 10 full-time workers?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, I can confirm that. And, of course, there are a number of other supports that those businesses would likely be eligible for, including the voucher scheme we've put through to support businesses who may be, for instance, trying to transition into an online environment, which means that more businesses can continue to operate at level 3 than perhaps they could at level 4. There are a suite of Government initiatives to support small business through this very difficult time.
Hon Judith Collins: Is she still committed to the Flexi-wage scheme that she announced earlier this month, considering that she said it would be paid for from the underspend of the wage subsidy, which has now been spent?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, we've said that when it comes to the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund, which has in the order of $14 billion still available for it, in our view that needed to be kept for times like these. I note the Opposition have committed half of that to roads, when it's our view that, in fact, we need to keep that $14 billion available for moments like this and for the likes of that two weeks of extra support that's been provided.




Question No. 2—Finance
2. GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister of Finance: How is the Government supporting New Zealand businesses and workers through the global COVID-19 pandemic?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The scale of support provided by the Government to businesses and workers throughout the COVID-19 pandemic has been unprecedented: 1.65 million jobs have been supported by the almost $11 billion paid out under the original 12-week wage subsidy scheme. The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) estimates that around 58 percent of all jobs in New Zealand were supported during this time. This includes $3.5 billion in support of 528,000 jobs in Auckland alone. The original wage subsidy injected cash into firms across multiple industries, including the construction sector, which received nearly $1.4 billion, supporting 203,000 jobs; the accommodation and food services sector, over $1 billion, supporting 164,000 jobs; and the retail trade sector, $1 billion, supporting 156,000 jobs. In response to this one-in-100-year shock, the Government has stepped up with unprecedented levels of investment to cushion the blow to the economy and help keep businesses afloat and workers employed.
Greg O'Connor: Why did the Government extend the wage subsidy beyond the initial 12 weeks?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The wage subsidy extension was designed to target assistance to those businesses whose revenue was still significantly down even at levels 1 and 2, such as tourism operators and the hospitality sector, so that they could adjust to the new normal, while many other firms were able to largely go back to business as usual. The amount of support provided to these sectors is apparent in MSD's data, which shows that up to 14 August the accommodation and food services industry was the greatest recipient of the wage subsidy extension, receiving $302 million to support 73,000 jobs. This brings the total amount to $1.3 billion provided to the industry prior to the current outbreak. With the recent increase in alert levels, I would emphasise, as the Prime Minister has done, that businesses who have not already applied for the extension may now be eligible and can do so up until 1 September. For those firms who have used the extension, we have also introduced the new wage subsidy to provide a further two weeks of support.
Greg O'Connor: How much support has been provided to businesses through the new wage subsidy announced last week?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Since applications opened on Friday, we've already granted $145 million to 45,000 businesses through the new wage subsidy. I want to once again acknowledge the work of the Ministry of Social Development in being so swift in being able to allocate that funding. It is worth noting that businesses who have taken on all phases of the wage subsidy have received 22 weeks of support in a period in which Auckland businesses have seen 9½ weeks at either levels 3 or 4. Since 12 August, we have also approved wage subsidy applications for 22,358 businesses, providing them $4,686.40 per full-time employee. This has been an extremely tough year for businesses and workers, but, as we have already demonstrated in this pandemic, we are committed to cushioning the blow. We have put the policies in place to support the most affected sectors and businesses, and helped keep workers in their jobs, so that we can all bounce back stronger together.




Question No. 3—Health
3. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Health: How many people in managed isolation have not had day-three tests since the week of 8 June?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Health): Mr Speaker, I thought the question was a bit longer than that. No—it's been edited. The vast majority of people want to do the right thing and agree to get tested at day three and at day 12. So far, 20,065 day three tests have been completed since 8 June. During that same time period, 19,473 day 12 tests have been completed, and there are currently 5,204 people in managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ). There are some instances—[Interruption] 
SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. I've warned members about that interjection which is a reflection on me and my responsibilities. Mr Goldsmith will withdraw and apologise.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: I withdraw and apologise.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There are some instances where it's not appropriate to test a person with a swab, such as young babies who are six months or younger. The number of people leaving managed isolation or quarantine without a day three test has not been collated and reported in that way, because before people can leave managed isolation they must return a negative day 12 test. I'm advised that only 15 adults have refused a day 12 test, and that means that they can be required to stay up to 28 days in managed isolation.
Dr Shane Reti: Is he really telling New Zealanders that the Government cannot count the number of people who entered managed isolation and subtract the number who were tested at day three?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No, I'm saying that we don't routinely measure the number of people who haven't had day three tests, because it's not the most important consideration when it comes to our public health response. The key question that people should be asking is: "Are people being released from managed isolation at risk of taking COVID-19 into the community?" Because they get a day 12 negative test before they are released, they are not. With regards to those people who are in managed isolation, everybody who's in managed isolation is treated as if they have COVID-19.
Dr Shane Reti: Does he agree with reports that thousands of people have not been tested at day three in managed isolation since 8 June?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The numbers simply don't support that claim. 
Dr Shane Reti: How many people in managed isolation have tested positive at day three, and how does that compare to the number who've tested positive at day 12?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think the number that the member would be most interested in is that, of the people who have tested—there's 14 people who have tested positive on the day 12 tests; of those, 12 people had a negative day three test, only two of them didn't have a day three test. Those were people where they had their day 12 test shortly after we had introduced the mandatory requirements around the mandatory testing regime. 
Dr Shane Reti: Have the majority of positive coronavirus tests in managed isolation been at day three and not at day 12?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, that would appear to be the case, yes.
Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: Can the member describe for the House the purpose of the day three test from the Government's perspective and a public health perspective, relative to the purpose of the day 12 test, which is primarily, of course, to ensure public safety?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The day three test is primarily to ensure the people who have COVID-19 who are in a managed isolation and quarantine facility are getting the support that they need for that. There is very little risk to the public health from a positive day three test because, as I've indicated, everybody who is in managed isolation and quarantine is treated as if they have COVID-19, until such time as they get a negative day 12 test before they are released into the community. 
Dr Shane Reti: If the majority of positive tests in managed isolation have been at day three, doesn't that justify the importance of compulsory testing at day three?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The importance of compulsory testing at day 12 is to ensure COVID-19 doesn't move out into the community. Day three tests—which, as the numbers have indicated, the vast majority of people are doing—help us to better serve the needs of the people who are in MIQ.
Dr Shane Reti: Does the modelling that the director-general used at a recent media stand-up to justify the current policy settings at the border require compulsory day three testing, and, if so, has the Government made serious border decisions on a modelling assumption that now turns out to be wrong?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I'm not sure I follow the question. Can I get the member to repeat the question?
Dr Shane Reti: Does the modelling that the director-general used at a recent media stand-up to justify the current policy settings at the border require compulsory day three testing, and, if so, has the Government made serious border decisions on a modelling assumption that now turns out to be wrong?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No, and I do want to remind the member opposite that it was only three weeks ago he was accusing me and the Government of subjecting people to medical procedures in managed isolation and quarantine that they didn't consent to.
Dr Shane Reti: Will he require testing in managed isolation to be compulsory at day three?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The current requirement is that it's mandatory at day 12 before somebody is released, and I have no intention of changing that, because the public health grounds to do so would not be strong enough. 




Question No. 4—Prime Minister
4. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she agree with Professor Nick Wilson from Otago University, who said, "We must have had some failure at the border, it's unlikely there could have been silent transmission for that long"; if not, why not?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): I agree with him that it is unlikely that there could have been silent transmission for that long, and the Institute of Environmental Science and Research (ESR) analysis supports that to date. However, that does not necessarily mean there has been a failure at the border. As I said on 15 July, when announcing our resurgence plan, "We only need to look to Victoria, New South Wales, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Korea to see examples of other places that, like us, had the virus under control at a point in time only to see it emerge again. This does not mean anyone has failed. It means perfection in the response to a virus and a pandemic is just not possible." There are a number of ways the cluster originating at Americold could have entered New Zealand. To date, we have not established the source of the cluster, but we are working hard to investigate all possible options.
Hon Judith Collins: Does she agree with Professor Des Gorman, who, following the recent revelations that 63 percent of border staff were not routinely tested, said that the community "deserves better than such a casual approach to surveillance to possible infectivity among the border workforce"; if not, why not?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member is again trying to imply, without any evidence, that that is the source of the outbreak. I again point to the fact that the vast majority—the vast majority—now of our border staff, our managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) staff, those at ports, have been tested, and to date we have not found the source of this outbreak. [Interruption] And for the member who is pitching in, the ESR evidence demonstrates that the genome sequencing suggests that the source of this outbreak was in very close proximity to the first cases, thus demonstrating that it's not a matter of there having been, necessarily, a case that was not picked up.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: Further to the member's answer there, can the member confirm that the—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! The Minister—the Prime Minister, in this particular case.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: Sorry. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the genomic sequencing has not formed a link with any case coming out of a manged isolation facility or indeed any other worker at the border—that that link to the B.1.1.1. genomic clade has not been established? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, I can confirm that of those tests we've been able to run, we have not been able to demonstrate a link between the genome sequencing of this cluster, which is a B.1.1.1. cluster, and those to date, where we've had the ability to test, who have come through our MIQ.
Hon Judith Collins: When did her Government ask the Ministry of Health to work through a protocol which prioritises regular testing for staff who are more front-facing and at higher risk, and did the Government ask that the strategy make weekly testing mandatory for front-facing border staff?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, as I've referred to in this House on many occasions, we had a testing strategy that was endorsed by Cabinet on 22 June. It included reference to regular asymptomatic surveillance testing, which included, for example, customs, biosecurity, aviation security staff, and front-line staff at ports. Also, I had further, on 6 July, an appendix on the testing strategy in another Cabinet paper, which talked about proactive surveillance testing, including asymptomatic testing, and regular health checks of all border-facing workers—for example, air crew, customs, biosecurity, aviation security staff, and front-line staff at ports. So both on 22 June and 6 July.
Hon Judith Collins: Does she agree with Professor Nick Wilson, who said that "to prevent such outbreaks again, the Government needs to further improve the quality of its border management yet again."?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I cannot tell you whether or not the member is quoting from some of the original statements from Nick Wilson, but I note her first quote was actually right at the beginning of the outbreak—so, I believe, somewhere in the order of 13 August or thereabouts. Obviously, an enormous amount of work has been done, sweeping across with surveillance testing of asymptomatic workers at our front line, and has not demonstrated a link between the outbreak at Americold's site and our border staff. So the member can continue, of course, this line of inquiry, but I would say to the member that no one wants to find the source more than we do. It helps us make sure that we have got all of the periphery of this cluster. But it is not evidence based to imply it has come from one particular origin when we have not defined that as yet.
Hon Grant Robertson: Does the Prime Minister agree with Dr Shane Reti that it would "be almost impossible" to have 100 percent watertightness at the border, and "I don't think anyone in anyone's hands anywhere around the world has done that."?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Dr Reti is correct because, as I've said, Hong Kong, Singapore, Korea, Australia—places that have managed to get their cases down low, although none have managed to do it for as long as we have—have all experienced resurgence. I note Vietnam reached 99 days and has been highly praised for their proactive and rigorous regime. They are yet to determine the source of their outbreak either. We will continue looking, but it is simply not fair to say that this has been illustrative of a particular failure when there is no link to our borders or anywhere else at this stage.
Hon Judith Collins: When she said yesterday, "we've asked the Ministry of Health to work through a protocol"—[Interruption] 
SPEAKER: Order! Order! I know there were two members involved in that conversation, and I can't quite work out how it's coming through the sound system, but it is. Can I ask Mr Seymour and Mr Shaw just to be quiet. Thank you.
Hon Judith Collins: Thank you, Mr Speaker. When she said yesterday, "we've asked the Ministry of Health to work through a protocol, a matrix, which prioritises more regular testing for those staff who are more front-facing and at higher risk.", how does that differ from the testing strategy announced nine weeks ago on 23 June, which said the same thing?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Thank you for finally acknowledging that the Government did ask for and seek asymptomatic testing, because that is true, and I have produced countless evidence in the House of that. What I've also demonstrated is that when we originally had that working through a voucher system, we could not monitor it adequately. We moved to pop-up sites at the airport on 10 July and 16 July. Then those numbers were not adequate, and we were seeking again to scale up the border testing and had every expectation that our surveillance testing, as contained in the strategy of 22 June, would have been rolled out. We're now working with Health to get the support of other agencies across airports and ports across the country to make sure we have that ongoing surveillance testing. I would say again, though, to the member, that we still, as yet, do not have evidence that this is where the cluster at Americold, which we have not traced any further back than 31 July, at a cool store facility in Mount Wellington—we have not as yet determined where it came from.
Nicola Willis: Sloppy!
SPEAKER: Order!
Hon Judith Collins: Has her Government—
SPEAKER: I know that her leader hadn't started, but using words like that as people are about to is disruptive and, I think, not a good reflection on the member's own leadership. 
Hon Judith Collins: Excuse me, Mr Speaker, that's not my leadership, I hope you're—
SPEAKER: Well, the point that I'm trying to make is that when a leader is getting up to ask a question and a word like that is used through the leader's microphone, as it was by Nicola Willis on that occasion, I think it's a sign of disrespect to the leader whose microphone is being used, and I know in my time, if that was done to a leader, there'd be some pretty serious consequences, and not from the Speaker. 
Hon Judith Collins: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Has her Government ensured yet that border workers are getting tested weekly?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I identified yesterday, we've had a first sweep of staff that has included both those that you would consider at higher risk, because, roughly speaking—280 or so agency staff just at Auckland Airport alone would be considered higher risk. There are then some that are further back that we would still want to be part of ongoing surveillance. They were part of our two weeks of sweeping through. We've started that again. We expect that will happen over the next fortnight again, and then, from there, we'll have a regime that means those who are more frequently interfacing, potentially, with at-risk individuals will be tested more frequently than those who are not considered at risk but we'd still want to be part of asymptomatic surveillance testing.
Hon Judith Collins: Does she agree that Part 3, clause 18 of the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Maritime Border) Order, which deals with crew of non-departing ships who arrive in New Zealand by air, should be tightened to require mandatory testing of those replacement crews after their arrival in New Zealand?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Those crews are directed to go directly to their ships. If the member wants to stop the ability for imports and exports, that is a matter for her. We have a health order that very carefully manages the safety of our seafarers and our port workers. If anyone is to have any time in New Zealand, they must quarantine. This is an arrangement for those who are departing a departing ship.
Hon Judith Collins: So is the Prime Minister happy for such crew to fly into Auckland Airport and then fly to Wellington Airport to then board a ship without being tested?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The order is very specific about it being crew who are leaving directly, or who are coming into port and then leaving directly to their home country. That is what those orders are designed for. Of course, we have regimes in place that mean people should not be having contact, outside of those arrangements, with others.




Question No. 5—Finance
5. Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Finance: Is the Government taking steps to ensure the economic recovery from COVID-19 contributes to New Zealand's zero carbon 2050 target?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, the Government is committed to a zero carbon 2050 target, and, in rebuilding from the current economic crisis, will build on the progress we've already made, including through the zero carbon Act. We are focused on futureproofing the economy, including through investments in new technology and productivity enhancements that contribute to a more sustainable economy.
Hon James Shaw: Has the Minister seen reports showing that 86 percent of New Zealanders believe that climate change should be a part of our COVID-19 recovery plan?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, I have. According to IAG's 2020 climate change poll, 86 percent of New Zealanders want climate change to be part of the Government's economic response to COVID-19. Fortunately for that 86 percent of New Zealanders, I can assure them that on this side of the House that is indeed the case.
Hon James Shaw: Has he seen reports showing low-carbon stimulus spending generates far more jobs and long-run economic activity than carbon-intensive spending?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, I have, because the member sent it to me. It's an Oxford University study which identified five policies with high potential for both economic multipliers and climate impacts. These are: clean physical infrastructure, building efficiency retrofits, investment in education and training, natural capital investment, and clean research and development. The Government agrees with both the economic and environmental benefits of these policy areas, and that's why they are areas where we have provided significant investments through the COVID response and recovery fund.
Hon James Shaw: What projects have been funded this year which reflect the wishes of New Zealanders who wish to see climate change tackled head-on?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Mr Speaker, there are a number, and I will run through as many as you'll let me get away with: investment in the Hiringa hydrogen refuelling network; $120-plus million invested in waste infrastructure; $220-plus million invested in cycleways; $200-plus million invested in climate resilience—
SPEAKER: All right. The member invited me to interrupt him. I have. Question No. 6, Dr—oh! Further supplementary?
Hon James Shaw: I was wondering if it would be possible to ask your permission to allow the Minister to table the remainder of his response for the House's information.
SPEAKER: Well, in fact, if the member has it in his official document—he must—but he can seek leave to table it anyway.
Hon Grant Robertson: I seek leave to table the list that I didn't get even halfway through.
SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none. It may be tabled. 
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.




Question No. 6—Health
6. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Health: When he said he hadn't read the Ministry of Health's COVID-19 Testing Strategy for staff at the border, why had he not read it?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Health): The Government testing strategy is the strategy decided by Cabinet. The document that the member refers to was prepared before I became the Minister of Health, and informed the Cabinet paper on testing which was considered by Cabinet on Monday 22 June—also before I became the Minister of Health. Cabinet took decisions at that meeting, and at subsequent meetings, that went beyond the initial Ministry of Health strategy, including on the issue of asymptomatic testing. It's the Government's approved testing strategy that I have been focused on the implementation of. Though I am a diligent and conscientious reader, I have not read every document the Ministry of Health prepared before I became the Minister.
Dr Shane Reti: Was this an important document for the Minister to read?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think the member, once again, should have listened to the answers before reading pre-scripted supplementary questions. As I indicated, the document was prepared before I became the Minister and it informed Cabinet's approved testing strategy. Of course, as a member of Cabinet, I read that document even before I became the Minister.
Dr Shane Reti: Does he agree with the strategy recommendation that testing of all border-facing staff is not viable?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No. The advice at the time—and bearing in mind that the Government did get advice that there would be some difficulties around implementing that—was that we needed to find ways to get past those difficulties and make sure that that testing strategy was implemented, and that's what we have done.
Dr Shane Reti: Have all border-facing staff, including staff at managed isolation facilities, been tested for coronavirus, and have they all got their results?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes. In terms of the managed isolation, yes. In terms of those front-facing airport workers that are at higher risk, yes. In terms of the port workers that are at higher risk, yes. Has absolutely everybody who has been at the port, for example, been tested? The vast majority of them have been. There will still be some where they may have moved on, for example, or we may not have been able to get in touch with them. That would be a very small number of people. About 13,000 people in the overall categories that I just mentioned have been tested over the last two weeks, and a second sweep of testing those people is happening again now.
Dr Shane Reti: Will it be compulsory for all border-facing staff, including staff at managed isolation facilities, to be tested weekly?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Not necessarily. The Government is currently doing a second sweep of everybody. By the end of that second sweep we will release a schedule that will set out how frequently people in different roles need to be tested. That will be based on a risk assessment, so that the lowest risk people are tested less frequently and the higher risk people are tested more frequently.
Dr Shane Reti: How infrequently could low-risk people be tested?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Those decisions have not yet been made.
Dr Shane Reti: When he said last week that staff testing failures were reported to him but were not facility-specific, why was the Jet Park, a high-risk quarantine facility, not reported separately?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I reject the first part of the question; that's not what I said last week.




Question No. 7—Revenue
7. GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Revenue: What advice has he seen about the take-up of the Small Business Cashflow (Loan) Scheme?
Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Revenue): The Government took decisive and considered action to support small businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic. Inland Revenue advised me that almost 100,000 small businesses have applied for an interest-free loan, totalling more than $1.6 billion. Around 81 percent of the loans have gone to small and medium businesses with one to five staff, and around 11 percent of applicants have six to 10 staff. Interestingly, 61 percent of loans have gone to mature or longstanding firms that are at least five years old. Only around 6 percent of loans have gone to new firms that are less than one year old. As the economy starts to open up and recover, many businesses have begun repaying their loans. Around 3,500 small to medium sized enterprises (SMEs) have repaid almost $15 million so far. The interest-free loans are a cheap source of working capital for firms that find themselves in a tough spot. They have proven to be a popular and fast way to access capital for viable but vulnerable small businesses.
Ginny Andersen: What advice has he seen around the regional distribution of the Small Business Cashflow (Loan) Scheme?
Hon STUART NASH: Inland Revenue advises that one in four small businesses has received a small business cash-flow loan. The lion's share of interest-free loans, or around 41 percent, has gone to SMEs in Auckland. That's more than 42,000 businesses that have applied for almost $700 million. Around 12 percent, or $192 million, of loans has gone to the Christchurch region; 9 percent, or $144 million, has gone to Wellington; and 7 percent, or $111 million, has gone to Hamilton-based small businesses. SMEs in smaller regions and cities have also made good use of the initiative. Around a third of all loan applicants are from outside these main centres. For example, Napier has had almost 2,500 applications for $42 million in loans. The loan scheme is only three months old. The wide distribution across the country and repayments show the efficacy of this policy, and I urge small businesses to check out the Inland Revenue website to see what help may be available to them through the tax system.
Ginny Andersen: What advice has he seen around the industry breakdowns of small business cash-flow loans?
Hon STUART NASH: Construction, accommodation and food services, professional industries, retail, trade, and manufacturing have received the most loan proceeds to date, but while the construction industry has received most loan proceeds, the largest loans on average, or around $22,000 per business, were approved for applicants operating in the accommodation and food services. Inland Revenue analysis also shows that almost 50 percent of transport, postal, and warehousing providers have received a loan, compared to roughly only 8 percent of all businesses in the agriculture, forestry, and fishing sector. Together with the numerous Government initiatives, such as the wage subsidy and the loss carry-back scheme, these measures are designed to cushion the blow of COVID-19 on our nation's small businesses.




Question No. 8—Research, Science and Innovation
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): My question is to the Minister of Housing and asks—sorry, the Minister of science, research, and—
SPEAKER: Research, science, and technology. 
8. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Research, Science and Innovation: Yes—thank you. Your education of me continues. Where precisely on the Southern Interceptor is ESR testing for COVID-19 in Auckland's waste water, and when was the first positive result?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Research, Science and Innovation): I'm advised that testing is undertaken precisely where the waste water from the Southern Interceptor meets the Māngere treatment plant. Testing commenced at the Southern Interceptor on 12 July, and the first positive result was confirmed on 16 July. As I mentioned in my answer yesterday, it is expected that we see positive results in the Southern Interceptor as this is where the waste water from the Jet Park Hotel flows through. I would caution the member about reading too much into these results at this early stage of the project. This is scientific method development and not yet a verified public health surveillance tool. The research obviously does not provide granular information about the precise location of COVID-19, and to read too much into these interim findings could ultimately undermine the public health response. I'm happy to offer the member a briefing on the use of waste-water testing or, indeed, when alert levels allow, a visit to the Southern Interceptor, should he be interested in how the process works.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Well, I just want to indicate that we'll most certainly take up the Minister on that generous offer.
SPEAKER: That's much better than he did for Mr Parker—his offer for a trip at one stage. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters: That's not a point of order.
SPEAKER: Oh yes, I understand that it's probably not, and if I was going to be really strict through my term, I think the Deputy Prime Minister himself might have been pulled up a bit more often than he was. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Is she aware that the Watercare maps show that the Jet Park is not on the Southern Interceptor? 
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: In terms of the facilities that are connected to the South Western Interceptor, the Naumi Hotel, the Holiday Inn Auckland Airport, Jet Park Hotel Auckland Airport, Sudima Auckland Airport, and the Novotel Auckland Airport are all on the South Western Interceptor. I am more than happy to table a map that shows all of the managed isolation facilities and which of the interceptors they connect to, because this is, of course, what the Institute of Environmental Science and Research (ESR) needs in order to carry out their surveillance methodology development. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Is it possible that some of the positive testing in July did not come from the Jet Park? 
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: What we see is that there was testing that was being carried out at the Jet Park and the associated interceptor. One of the challenges we have in New Zealand—and why this is scientific method development rather than public health surveillance—is the fact that we had no COVID in the community before that. We were seeing it going through into the appropriate receptor. But if the member is looking for conspiracies, I suggest he look somewhere other than the sewer. 
SPEAKER: Question No. 9, the Hon Paul Goldsmith.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: That's a reasonable answer? Is that a reasonable answer?
SPEAKER: Well—
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I've asked straight questions. 
SPEAKER: It was a straight question, there were some interjections from his colleagues, the Minister might have added on some unnecessary stuff and been political, but I think compared to some of the things that have been going both ways, it didn't call for my intervention. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Supplementary. 
SPEAKER: A further supp—hadn't I called Mr Goldsmith?
Hon Gerry Brownlee: No.
SPEAKER: All right.
Hon Members: Yes, you had. 
SPEAKER: Had—well, I just want to ask a very straight question: had I called you, Mr Goldsmith?
Hon Paul Goldsmith: I can't remember, sorry. 
SPEAKER: I had called Mr Goldsmith. I'm willing to take the leave of the House to go back to allow Mr Brownlee to ask a question. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I thank the House. Just a simple question: on what day can we organise to have the briefing with ECR and Watercare? 
Hon Members: ESR. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee: ESR—sorry. 
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: ESR is the Crown research institute that is carrying out this methodological development. We will do that at the earliest possible convenience. I would imagine we'll be able to do that pretty quickly, and then—once the alert levels allow—travel to the Southern Interceptor. I look forward to accompanying the member. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: I'm lost for words, but I think we'll go to Mr Goldsmith.




Question No. 9—Finance
9. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Is he confident the Government is doing all it can to reduce the economic damage caused by the current lockdown restrictions?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I am confident that the Government's overall strategy is the right one to support businesses and the economy through the current restrictions, as we have done throughout this global pandemic. The current alert level 3 restrictions in Auckland, and alert level 2 in the rest of the country, are in place to reduce the economic damage caused by COVID-19 being in our community. Getting on top of the virus quickly allows us to open up the economy more quickly, as has been indicated by the New Zealand Activity Index showing higher activity in June and July compared to last year. One part of what we're doing to reduce the economic impact of COVID-19 on the economy is the more than $13 billion of wage subsidy payments over 22 weeks. Our response has always struck a balance between providing the support that is needed in a timely fashion with our responsibilities to manage New Zealand through this one-in-100-year economic shock in a sustainable way.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why doesn't the Government extend the wage subsidy further to cover the extended level 3 lockdown in Auckland?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: This matter was covered both in answers in the House yesterday and, indeed, by the Prime Minister today. There has been 22 weeks of payment for businesses that are affected in Auckland. During that period, only just over nine weeks of that has been spent under either level 3 or level 4. That is a significant investment in those businesses, and we continue to support them through other means, as well.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is a reason he's not further extending the wage subsidy for the extended level 3 lockdown because he's mindful of the debt we're taking—"We are borrowing every single dollar we are paying out"?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said in my answer, we take seriously the balance that needs to be struck in making sure that we support New Zealanders through this in a timely fashion with our overall responsibilities to now and future generations of New Zealanders. We have taken on a significant amount of debt to do this. I'm unaware, at this point, of the member's position on how much debt he thinks we should be taking on.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he agree that Government debt eventually needs to be paid back?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, Government debt does need to be paid down. It's very rare in New Zealand's history for us to have got to the point where we had almost no public debt. I believe Sir Michael Cullen got us, in terms of as a percentage of GDP, as close as we've got in history. But we have to manage debt carefully—for example, the record of this Government speaks to that: the fact that we inherited 21.7 percent net debt and we reduced that to under 20 percent.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Will he rule out cancelling or writing off any of the Government debt that has been bought by the Reserve Bank, as long as he is the Minister of Finance?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That is definitely not my intention.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Rather than his intention—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! I am going to ask the member to answer the question again because, I mean, there's no requirement for yes/no answers, but that answer could have been taken either as a positive or a negative response to the question.
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No.
SPEAKER: That's much clearer.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Sorry, so he won't rule out cancelling or writing off any Government debt that has been bought by the Reserve Bank? Is that his answer?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It is not my intention to write off any of that debt.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Just clarifying: rather than his intentions, will he rule out cancelling or writing off any Government debt that has been bought by the Reserve Bank, as long as he is the Minister of Finance?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I am ruling that out, yes.
SPEAKER: Right, that concludes oral questions. [Interruption] Sorry? 
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. 
SPEAKER: Oh no, I apologise. It concludes supplementaries from one side, not all of the questions, yes. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh sorry, it's not a question—no, I'll wait till—
SPEAKER: No, we've got a couple more questions. I've been slightly obsessing on making sure that the Opposition get a fair number, and I forgot that we do have Government questions, as well.




Question No. 10—Health
10. KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Health: How is the Government supporting Pacific communities at the forefront of the fight against COVID-19?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media) on behalf of the Associate Minister of Health: The recent cases of COVID-19 have disproportionately affected the Pacific communities. The response to this current outbreak has been designed and delivered in partnership with Pacific experts, providers, and communities. As part of this commitment, Cabinet agreed on Monday to an additional $19.5 million to help boost our COVID-19 health response to our Pacific communities. This funding will ensure we continue to have the front-line capacity for the cultural and language skills and the relationships required to provide the testing and case management needed to handle this most recent outbreak.
Kieran McAnulty: What support will the funding provide?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: We have seen the rapid mobilisation of our Pacific health workforce in response to COVID-19. This new funding allows Pacific health providers in Auckland to meet increased demand for testing and support services. It also enables Auckland metro DHBs to expand their mobile outreach services. It also allows for an enhanced Pacific priority outreach service as part of our National Close Contact Service. It funds additional support for intelligence gathering and analysis, and includes flexible funding to assist disability support services in their Pacific COVID-19 response.
Kieran McAnulty: Why is a specific response for our Pacific communities so important?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: The recent resurgence of COVID-19 has almost entirely been in the Auckland region, where more than two-thirds of our Pacific communities live. The proximity and connection of this outbreak within our Pacific population has required a targeted response, and we're achieving that through our health response and, just as importantly, through our information campaign. This has included translations of key official messages into nine Pacific languages, an extensive social media campaign, and regular digital fono between key community leaders. Only by working together with our Pacific communities can we get on top of this virus in our Pacific communities.




Question No. 11—Social Development
11. PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister for Social Development: What support has the Government made available to assist communities in response to COVID-19?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Associate Minister for Social Development) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development: The Government has opened a $36 million Community Capability and Resilience Fund for community groups seeking funding for initiatives that support the rebuild and recovery from COVID-19 over the next two years, and $1.7 million has already been approved to support a broad range of local initiatives like building marae, IT capability, safe distribution of food packs amongst community groups, and initiatives that support young people to access mentoring, counselling, and online services. There are also a range of groups who have sought funding, including 19 Māori and 10 Pacific providers. The majority of funding has been distributed into the Auckland region, and the fund has pivoted to include a focus on providing immediate funding to support groups to respond to people in need in Auckland following the level 3 restrictions. 
Paul Eagle: What other support has the Government provided to support communities to respond to COVID-19? 
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Answering on behalf of the Minister, $27 million was also provided to non-governmental organisations and community groups during level 4 to support the provision of food and essential goods to those in need. Social services are key to promoting wellbeing in our communities, and our most recent investments build on the $267 million investment to address cost pressures within our community sector. On top of this, we also invested $79 million towards social services as part of COVID response, plus an extra $8.6 million for family violence services. This Government remains committed to both the longer-term sustainability of our social service providers as well as to supporting local solutions to address more immediate needs for our people, whānau, and communities through different COVID alert levels. 
Paul Eagle: Why is it important to include community and social service support as a key part of our COVID-19 response? 
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: On behalf of the Minister, our community organisations and social services are key to helping us support New Zealanders and improve wellbeing in our communities. This is true now, but will be particularly important in our rebuilding and recovery phase in response to COVID-19. It's important that our economic and health response is supported by a robust social response. As a Government, we are committed to keeping our communities safe, strong, connected, and getting through this together. 




Question No. 8 to Minister, 25 August
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raise this now because of the relatively short time that the Parliament has to run before we adjourn again, and because I think it possibly is a mistake that's just been inadvertently made. In question No. 8 yesterday, the Minister, the Hon Dr Megan Woods, speaking about the Institute of Environmental Science and Research testing, referred to the Southern Interceptor. In written question No. 15360, the Hon Chris Hipkins referred to the Southern Interceptor. But in questions today, the verge point appears to be with the South Western Interceptor, which is quite a different matter, and a different line of questioning could have been pursued. So I'm really wondering: is that a mistake or is it a new piece of information?
SPEAKER: It is an unusual approach—not one that I'd normally allow—but because of the relatively short time and the importance which the members clearly place on this, I'm asking between the Minister who answered the question yesterday and the Minister who answered the question today for a response to clarify that—if the member's able to, otherwise it can be done next week. 
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Research, Science and Innovation): I will send the member a written response to that this afternoon.
 





GENERAL DEBATE
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. 
I wanted to start today by acknowledging the people of Christchurch and, most importantly, the Muslim community in Christchurch. At this time, they are going through the most extraordinary reliving of grief, and they're doing so with levels of courage, fortitude, and dignity that I believe makes all New Zealanders proud. No one would wish upon this community what has happened to them, but their ability to stand up and stand in the court for the last three days and speak the way they have makes me extremely proud to have them as fellow New Zealanders. 
The extraordinarily tough time that community has gone through does give us pause for thought when we look at what has happened with COVID-19. This has been a tough year for everybody, and going now back into a period of restrictions, in the Auckland area in particular, is psychologically tough. It is important we acknowledge that—this has been a difficult year. But New Zealanders have worked together to get through it, and, as the Prime Minister said earlier this week, "We have done well as a country." Yes, there is a new outbreak, but we are getting it under control quicker than most, and every single day New Zealanders contribute to that. 
It is also important to remember that we have done well throughout this year—103 days of no community transmission. That saw the country operating at a level that had not been forecast and was not seen virtually anywhere in the world. The New Zealand Activity Index actually showed that the months of June and July were better—from an economic perspective—in New Zealand than those comparable months in 2019. We saw expansion in our manufacturing and our services indexes through that same period. The New Zealand economy was recovering well, and that was a result of the fact that we had done well. 
But, yes, the virus came back again—as it has done almost everywhere else in the world. But, again, we acted swiftly and decisively, and New Zealanders have swung in behind. If we need to look to the example of what might happen if we hadn't acted in that way, we only need to look across to the state of Victoria, which on 26 July had 8,181 cases, and 71 deaths—whereas, on 26 August, they had had 18,613 cases and 462 deaths. 
We stand today as a country that has worked hard to make sure that we can get on top of an outbreak like this. Yes, it has come with sacrifice, but we've done it once and we can do it again. In doing so, we have got better at what we do. We have tested over 170,000 people since that outbreak. Our contact tracing systems, which set a gold standard of 80 percent of people being contacted within 48 hours, are contacting over 90 percent of people in a 48-hour period. Our ability to use genome sequencing means we can understand more about the virus. We are getting better at this and we are getting on top of it—all without going back into level 4, with only having one region of the country in level 3 and the rest of the country in level 2. This is the result of a consistent strategy to stamp out the virus, to go early and hard, to strengthen our public health system, and to cushion the blow economically. 
It is that consistency of strategy that this Government stands behind. That stands in contrast to the other side of the House, where we have seen all sorts of strategies, all sorts of plans and proposals, all sorts of contradictions, and no clear vision for how that side of the House would handle an outbreak like this. They've spoken against money being invested; they've asked for more money to be invested. They wanted a shorter level 4; they wanted a shorter level 3. They invented a homeless man. They called for an open border; they wanted a closed border, and then another open border. They leaked patient details. They thought universities could run their own isolation facilities. They dismissed the need for action during the period that we were at level 1 and called it scaremongering, and they made up conspiracy theories. Those are not the actions of a responsible political party with a proper, coherent plan and strategy for how to deal with an outbreak like this. 
There is no playbook for dealing with a pandemic. What this Government has done is relied upon expert advice, upon evidence, and upon making sure that our values of looking after people—no matter who they are—in New Zealand stand fast in this period of time. It is impossible, facing a pandemic, to get everything 100 percent right—as Dr Reti has told the country—but on this side of the House, I am proud of a consistent strategy that has looked after New Zealanders and has gone hard and early. New Zealand, as a whole, deserves credit for that—this Government is proud to be leading New Zealanders in that strategy.





Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): Thank you, Mr Speaker. COVID-19 has, quite rightly, gathered our attention for the last number of months. But just because COVID-19 is here doesn't mean that some of our other very deep-seated challenges went away. I want to bring us back to why New Zealand First actually chose this configuration of Government. What it was that New Zealand First was making sure of was the pathway into the future for New Zealand. I want to do it in the context of one of the most challenging portfolios, that the Opposition won't challenge, and that is the portfolio of children, Oranga Tamariki. The last question I received from the Opposition around Oranga Tamariki and the care and protection of our children in this country was in August 2018.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh! The Minister's doing such a great job—beyond question!
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: That is not because the Opposition does not care about children; that is because the Opposition actually agrees and sets the platform upon which we built. So Mr Brownlee might like to calm down and just keep listening. There are over one million children here in New Zealand—280,000 of them are of Māori descent. There are 5,900 children in this country who need intensive intervention to allow them to remain safely at home with their families. There are 5,900 children who are under the care of Oranga Tamariki; 90 percent of those children have experienced family violence. Whoever forms the next Government must ensure that the joint venture to address family violence and sexual violence continues and is strengthened. If we could do one thing to address one of the major issues in this country, which will have a domino effect for our families, regardless of their ethnic background, it would be to address family violence.
One of the largest misunderstandings I've come across during the last three years in this portfolio is that when a child is taken into care, many people think that they're all removed to orphanages or large institutions. Sixty-six percent of children in the care of the State are actually at home, either with mum and dad or direct family or extended whānau. So of the 5,900 children in care, 3,894 are at home with family or whānau. The vast majority of children in technical care are at home with family, supported by the State. Of the 5,900 children under the care of the State, 79 percent have had a parent with treatment for substance abuse or drug-related offences. In recent times, methamphetamine use by parents and other household members is the major factor. At least 50 percent of the most recent entries into care have a relationship to P. The major item number 2 for whoever forms the next Government: make sure there are addiction services on the ground in every community so that they have a chance to reform their family.
When I came into this job on 26 October 2017, while there had been an expert advisory committee, and the organisation had been formed on 1 April 2017, there was no operating model and there was no budget. There was no money. On 1 July 2019, just 18 months after the 2017 election, we had a Cabinet-approved operating model that included a focus on prevention, early intervention, and intensive intervention, and the largest investment in child protection in our nation's history. But have we made a difference? We have. There has been a 44 percent decrease in children coming into care since 2017. Over 850 tamariki Māori less—fewer; I'm not sure which one, Mr Speaker—entered care between 2017 and June this year. We can do better, absolutely, but we're on the right track.
What about babies being taken into care—pēpi Māori. We have made a positive movement in supporting our mums and babies to stay at home and be together. There's been an over 50 percent reduction in babies coming into care between 2017 and 2020. Their entries into care via the section 78 orders—as a result of the Hastings practice review, there is an expectation that all section 78 interim custody orders will be made on notice. There has been a 62 percent decrease in section 78 orders since 2017. These children are safe, though, because we have partnered with iwi, hapū, and communities. Relationships are the key to what will solve this issue for our children. I urge anybody who makes up the next Government: stay on this track, trust Māori, trust our communities, and devolve and resource. Kia ora.





Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister for Climate Change): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to start by commending the very strong speech that the Hon Tracey Martin has just given about where things stand in this country, both in terms of the situation and the challenge that we find ourselves at with domestic and sexual violence and the effects that that has on children, and also on the Government's response to that. I thought that was very strong. I also commend her for, whilst we're dealing with the current crisis, lifting our heads up beyond the immediate horizon and focusing on some of the long-term challenges that are facing this country, and that's actually where I'd like to pick up.
As the Prime Minister said this week, this has been a very difficult year—and, I think, in her own words, "frankly, terrible"—and she's not wrong. None of us expected things to unfold the way that they have this year. COVID-19 has changed everything—everything. That which we used to take for granted, we no longer can guarantee, and we have all—including political parties—had to adjust to a new way of doing things and to rethink our future. Now, I want to be clear. The Green Party absolutely supports the health response to COVID-19. We know that we need to act decisively if we are to get on top of this virus again, and we would like to thank the people of New Zealand for following the rules that keep us all safe, because if it were not for all of our actions—actions by all of us—we would be in a much, much worse situation.
The thing is, as difficult as 2020 has been and as unpredictable as it will no doubt continue to be, it has also taught us some incredibly valuable lessons. The pandemic has shown us the importance of community, of looking out for one another, that we are only as strong individually as we are collectively, that COVID-19 has not created the cracks in our system but it has revealed them in the stark, harsh light of day. Right now, we're obviously dealing with the ongoing fallout of the pandemic, a second wave that we were warned about but which many had not expected, after weeks and weeks of living at level 1. My message to New Zealand, then, is that we will get through this, just as we have before, if we follow the medical advice backed by science, if we continue to push back on attempts to stir distrust in information, and if we look out for one another.
But, while we deal with a second wave, we must also look beyond that, because, of course, we are a couple of months out from an election, and at this point in every election cycle, we say that this is the most important election ever—"This election is critical." Now, this time we mean it, because this decision will come down to one thing: what is our vision for the future of Aotearoa. Do we try and claw our way back to the way things were before COVID-19, or do we think ahead and position ourselves for the long term to create a truly sustainable economy which creates prosperity without creating a climate crisis, which protects the natural environment so that it can support and be enjoyed by our children and our children's children?
Returning to business as usual is not an option. Even if it were possible to simply click our fingers and turn back the clock, a return to business as usual means a future of climate breakdown, ecological catastrophe, economic inequality, and social instability. If we spend the next few years resuscitating last century's economy, with all of its flaws and its consequences, then the window of opportunity to avert these future crises will have closed. We now have a once-in-a-century opportunity—a responsibility even—to change. A year ago, few could have fathomed the situation that we find ourselves in today, but 30 or 50 or 100 years from now, when future generations look back at our response to this unprecedented series of events, we need to be able to tell them that we were thinking ahead, for them and for all of those to come.
It's been tough; we can agree on that. We should be proud of our efforts, and we must also think ahead and make smart choices now, so we and all of those to come—and our planet—can thrive. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, Mr Speaker. On behalf of the National Party, I'd first like to acknowledge all the victims and families of victims of the massacre at Al Noor Mosque and Linwood Islamic Centre in Christchurch. I think many New Zealanders, most New Zealanders, would have been very much impressed by the incredible level of humanity displayed by the families of victims and those people who have themselves been victims of what happened in Christchurch at those mosques. We give respect and we acknowledge that here in this debating chamber, we work in what is a war memorial, where the deeds of our former military are being acknowledged here in this place. I think it's appropriate that as a Parliament we acknowledge what has gone on and the effect on people who have been so wrongly treated.
Today is a day when we've heard the Prime Minister say that there's no idea where this COVID came back from. It seems to be a miracle. It seems to have come in the air, maybe on a cloud somewhere, talking about the cool storage place, which apparently has almost no relationship whatsoever—no idea where this COVID came back from. It is 102 days; it appeared back in New Zealand.
Hon Member: 104 days.
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: A hundred and four days, I should say, because on 100 days the Prime Minister was busy dancing a jig and posted it online. Something that people tend to learn in Government is to never start dancing the jig and claiming victory until it actually is a victory.
It certainly hasn't been a victory for those New Zealanders who have found their businesses put at risk and their jobs at risk. We have heard today from the Government that they're not interested in extending out the wage subsidy for a mere four more days; it's just all too difficult. They've had enough. All these businesses, these employees, is what they're saying—the workers have had enough, is what they're saying. They say, "Oh, well! You know, they've had a lot any way." They seem to have no understanding of business. They have no understanding that if you take a small business, you close it for six or seven weeks, and then suddenly it's allowed to open again—through no fault of their own, by the way, they were closed; no fault of their own. And they start to get back into business, they start getting some income coming in, the bills haven't stopped from where they were before, and wages—well, actually, the wage subsidy was going through to the workers, as it should do.
It's not as though this is a welfare programme for small businesses. It's actually a programme to help workers keep their jobs. I understand that it's all too difficult for somebody from the Government to understand that four days including a weekend is actually four working days, not two working days, as the Prime Minister disclosed the other day to the media—not two working days. The biggest working days for the hospitality industry are actually a Saturday and Sunday. It's called a weekend, where, actually, they're open, and, by the way, so is retail. These are not highly paid workers and they're not high-earning businesses. These are small businesses, in the main, and they're being told "You've had enough. We don't want to give you any more. You should be grateful." That's what we've heard today.
We've heard today from the Prime Minister that it's no one's fault that this COVID came back. This B.1.1.1. genome, we heard today from Dr Megan Woods—she forgot to say it came from Australia; not sure how it got here, but suddenly it did, clearly through a border. Whether it's an air border or whether it's a shipping port, through that border, it's still a border. When we compare ourselves, as she does, with other countries, we're one of the most isolated countries in the world. We're surrounded by this enormous moat. We don't have a land border that people can come across in. And, by the way, tell me this again. Why is the South Island in lockdown at the moment, with level 2 lockdown? Just answer me that. How is it going to jump across, this COVID, on the cloud, across through?
Hon Andrew Little: What a clown.
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: And we're hearing now from Andrew Little. We know what he thinks about businesses, don't we? How has that happened? The answer is it's so much easier to make everyone feel dependent on the Government. So why not give people a bit of a chance? Where's the advocate for the workers over there, Mr Little? Where is the advocate? A long way away. Also the advocate who said Pike River was a really good mine and it should all continue. So, no, think about the workers.





Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): Today I want to cover two topics: fresh water and COVID. Before doing so, can I also pay my condolences to the survivors and families of those killed in the Christchurch attacks, as other members have done.
In respect of these two topics—fresh water and COVID—the choice for voters is clear. I'm sure some of the members here have already read the magnificently written words of Marina Hyde in the latest column in The Guardian. She injects some levity into some of these issues, undoubtedly one of the world's best political writers, and today's contribution is truly sublime. She has a serious message described acerbically and she unpicks some leading Republicans not as halfwits but as quarterwits, and it really is worth a read; I'd say google it. This is the same week that the New Zealand Herald, of course, published this photo of the Hon Gerry Brownlee and his doppelganger Ronnie Barker. Of course, Ronnie Barker's the fullwit; the other one is Gerry, the purveyor of conspiracy theories. Marina Hyde, of course, says—
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It's somewhat unusual, but I must reflect on the imagery that Mr Parker has used in the House today. Firstly, it's interesting that it's allowed. All I can say is that, come the election, I suspect it'll be goodnight from him.
Hon DAVID PARKER: Thank you, Mr Brownlee. We've had a history of interchange in this House that I've always enjoyed.
But Marina Hyde says that quarterwits are worse. They would seek to undermine public confidence in current managed isolation and quarantine that safely managed 40,000 through the border. They would say there'd be no mistakes under them, and they'd deny any prison breaks when there have been dozens. They'd put out a press release in their own name saying that they've backed every bit of COVID legislation when they didn't just vote against the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act; they voted against its renewal. They'd roll a leader on 35 percent, saying that was intolerable and take them to 25 percent because they're accident-prone. Today, they've blamed Labour for the USA not being in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership when the USA pulled out under National. They've said that the freshwater reforms will be gone by lunchtime. Well, that worked really well for Don Brash, didn't it? He was on the wrong side of history, and so is the person who said that today. She thinks she would know better than the prior leaders who've studiously stayed away from this because they know that the population is with us and that we need much better water quality policy in New Zealand. What will be gone by lunchtime if the other party were to be elected would be rivers that are clean enough to swim in. They prefer a licence to pollute.
So we've got an accident-prone leader on the other side who's plunging in the polls, and she's judged it wrong again. Instead of appealing to her voter base, it's evaporating, and her vote's shrinking instead. Marina Hyde's got a lot better puns than these, but I think New Zealanders essentially get the point. The equivalent of the Republican Party on the same part of the spectrum in New Zealand is, actually, National, and Judith Collins displays many of the temperaments that are criticised over there, and I don't think New Zealanders will want a bar of it.
I want to end on the serious topic of COVID. Since COVID erupted in the world in March, we've stood up amongst the best systems in the world, and our outcomes, which have been more personal protective equipment, hundreds of thousands of COVID tests, managed isolation and quarantine, track and tracing, border testing, vastly improved processes, more ventilators, bespoke legislation, and more training for staff—all of these things have meant that we've had a better outcome than the whole of Europe, better than the whole of North America, South America, Asia, Africa, even Australia. This is something that New Zealanders can be proud of, and they know that it's still a difficult journey.
Now, New Zealanders know this is hard, notwithstanding the fact that we've all rallied together as a country and that we've had supports for businesses—the small business loan guarantee, the wage supports, the loan scheme. Notwithstanding that, we know it's a difficult and perilous journey. I reckon it'll be about June next year by the time there's a vaccine being rolled out around the world. From March to June next year is about 16 months. We're already a third through it. By the time of the election, we will be halfway through it. But it is still a difficult half to go. I think we might have seen the worst of it. I hope we never get back to level 4, but the country can rely, in a Labour Government, on an issue well-managed, as evidenced by the fact that we have—albeit not perfectly—done better than just about anywhere else in the world. That is my serious message for today.
I was on Duncan Garner's show the other day, and Mark Richardson was there, and I made the point in his presence that if you're in the middle of a difficult test series, you don't change the captain halfway through. If you're winning, you keep going. That is the choice for voters at the election. 





Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to speak today about another hole in our border with day three testing, and I want to address it in several ways. First of all, it's sort of a surprise. We've had the big surprises—the staff who weren't being tested like we were told they were. This is a little unusual in that it's only a small surprise to the Government, but, unusually, they will not fix it. I want to talk about it in four areas. First of all, I want to walk through the risks of not testing at day three. I then want to cover why day three testing is important. My third point will be the process for counting those who have not had tests at day three, and, hopefully, my fourth and final point will be New Zealanders' expectations and solutions.
So let's start first of all with the irrefutable facts that we heard the Minister of Health affirm today. They are: day three testing is not compulsory and the Government does not know how many have not been tested at day three. Those are just statements of fact, so let's set that as the anchor and progress from there. I want to talk through the implications of not testing at day three and I want to create an imaginary unknown positive—not quite a carrier, but I'll call it an unknown positive—who turns up at Auckland Airport, or any border actually, is positive but doesn't know it; more specifically, they then do not have the day three test. What are the implications for this unknown positive of not having a day three test?
Well, first of all, let's talk about all those who are close contacts. Their family members: clearly, they are all at risk from this unknown positive. We know there is cohort mixing, unfortunately, in isolation facilities. All those other cohorts are put at risk by this unknown positive. If we look at a study that I'm hoping to come to shortly, a Nicholas Steyn and Shaun Hendy study, they say one of our biggest risks in our whole border policy configuration is the number of people that are interacted with—they say about five—in managed isolation. Imagine if one of them was the unknown positive.
The third thing I want to talk on is the Minister focusing on "Oh, don't worry. It's all about day 12. It's all about also having that two-week period." Well and good maybe, but what about staff—if we just don't focus on returnees for a while. Staff will be exposed to the unknown positive. Surely that can't be a good thing. These are some of the risks.
I then want to talk to why day three testing is important. Without mandatory day three testing, the first time a returnee is tested in New Zealand is day 12—12 days after they've arrived in New Zealand. That's a long period of time from our border. If we look at what happens when you do test positive at day three, it's so important you're immediately escalated to quarantine. That's how important it is to have the day three test.
I think even more damning—and we knew it, and the Minister confirmed it here today—is that the majority of positive tests in managed isolation are the day three tests. We estimate between 30 to 40—something like that. Imagine if we didn't pick them up. Imagine if we hadn't picked up those 30 to 40 positive tests at day three and who they might have infected.
I've mentioned briefly the policy settings. The Director-General of Health referred to this paper [Holds up a document] on—I think it was—Friday, when he said, "Look, we know our policy settings are good, because it's been tested by Nicholas Steyn and Shaun Hendy, and they've said, 'Yep, it's pretty good.' " A small problem there. If you have a really close look at that, one of the input parameters to the modelling is that day three testing is compulsory. That is part of our issue. If the whole policy setting has been grounded on day three being compulsory, and they're quoting from this paper, we've been working on a flawed basis. That needs to be relooked at. What are the implications for making this modelling not compulsory?
The third point is the process for counting. How can we not count people who've not been tested? Let me go back through the mathematics. We know how many people have been in managed isolation. We know how many have been tested. Why is this not a simple subtraction? Indeed, some of the media did exactly this last night and came up with a figure of 6,000 to 7,000 people. How can we not count those who have not been tested? 
Fourthly, if we ask New Zealanders today what they think is happening at the border, they think people are being tested twice. Some will know day three and day 12, but they think returnees are being tested twice, when in fact the reality is it is not compulsory to have the day three test. They think that we are having the day three test, because the director-general said so on 9 June, because the Minister of Health said so on 22 June, and the Prime Minister said in this House on 23 June, "Testing of people entering New Zealand will commence in the week 8 June. These people will be tested at day three and day eight." 
There is a solution. There's no surprise—no surprise at all—and the solution is not that hard: test at day three. We test at day 12; people understand that. I do not understand why we wouldn't test at day three. I believe New Zealanders want a test at day three, and I commend that solution to the Minister.





Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Like colleagues before me, we are experiencing, in Christchurch, a few days of immense sadness as victims read their statements to the court. I'm just a little overwhelmed, overcome, by it, actually, because some of the things that are coming out in statements make me feel that our Muslim community have held on to an enormous amount of grief that they didn't share with us at the time. The victim impact statements have come to represent a whole body of knowledge that they have held apart from us. I want to just send to them my absolute aroha at the distress that they must be feeling but also at the huge amount of forgiveness that is being expressed in the courtroom as we sit here in this Chamber.
Extraordinary times have been experienced not only in our city but in our nation and across the world. In my contribution today, I want to talk about the quality of leadership. It occurs to me that when we are in our most difficult times, we look to those around us for comfort, for support, but mostly we look to our leaders in the community for how we can find ways to get through. Nothing was surer than what happened in Christchurch on March 15, more than a year ago—that what happened immediately after that was that the community stood together behind our Muslim community but that, at the very top of our leadership chain, our Prime Minister stood and made some extraordinary statements to the world: that everybody in our community deserves our care, our love, and our support, and that we as a nation should stand with them—and we did. People from across our motu, from across Aotearoa, stood with the Muslim community in Christchurch at that time. But not only that, the world looked to us, as well, and looked to our leader and saw what an extraordinary amount of empathy, support, and compassion was being poured out from her, and our other leaders, into Christchurch.
Here we are again, at one of the most difficult times that our nation will face. We don't do this alone; we are part of the global response to COVID-19. There is something about the quality of leadership that I think, again, speaks to how we get through this as well as we can. As a student of leadership, I know that there are three key elements to good leadership. The first is respect. How do you gain respect? Well, that's through deeds and actions, by being consistent in your responses to people, and also by being reliable so that people know when times are tough, you will always act in a consistent way—you are reliable in that regard—and by doing that you build trust. Trust is really important because there are some times when, as a leader, you have to take tough decisions that your community may not necessarily agree with but that you know are acting in the best interests of your community. 
But, most of all, good leadership is about love—about love for the community; about loving the community enough to take the right decisions when you need to; about how, even when people are feeling a little concerned, they trust, they respect, and they know that you are acting in their best interests, and they know that, above all, you have their best interests at heart.
I think, right now, we need to look to our leadership and ask our leaders and those who want to become our leaders whether they have those three elements as a core of their being. Do we respect them? Do we trust them? And do they have love and compassion for us and the community? I have to say that I want to acknowledge our Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern. She's an absolute—absolute—example of what extraordinary leadership is and what it can achieve in our most difficult times.
As I sign off, I do want to say to our Muslim communities, especially to those at the Linwood Islamic Centre: I hope to see you all soon, and you remain in my heart. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I don't agree with everything that the Hon Poto Williams, the former speaker, just said, but I do generally echo and agree with her sentiments, particularly around sending aroha to our Cantabrian whānau, and salaam alaikum to our Muslim brothers in New Zealand at this very tough time. I too have been quite moved by the grace and the compassion and the raw emotion that has been on display in Christchurch in the last couple of days.
But I want to talk, in my remarks, about infrastructure, and I want to talk about transport in particular, because there was quite a revealing moment in question time today when the Hon Judith Collins was questioning the Prime Minister about various matters. She made a passing reference, towards the end of one of her supplementary questions, about how the National Government—well, National Party; Government, hopefully, one day soon—wanted to use money from the COVID fund just on roads—just on roads. I thought it was a revealing insight, and I want to unpick it.
Firstly, it's contradictory.
Hon Member: Tunnels—tunnels.
CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, tunnels. That's right. We are going to build some tunnels. That's exactly right, and I'll come to the tunnels in a moment. But, firstly, it's contradictory, because it was only in January and February that the Government rocked up, through the New Zealand Upgrade Programme, and went on what they described as a road-building bonanza. There was an orgy of roads, and after having spent two years with Phil Twyford creating, in the Prime Minister's own advisory council's words, an infrastructure crisis, stopping all the four-lane roads the National Government wanted to build, the Government turned up and realised they'd lost the political battle when it comes to expressways and roads and decided to bring back all the projects that they'd cancelled in the first place, like Ōtaki to north Levin, for example; like the Tauranga Northern Link, for example; like the four-lane road from further up the line up to Ōmokoroa, for example; like the four-laning of Whangārei to Marsden.
All projects that Phil Twyford spent two years saying were uneconomic and bad ideas, the Government is now funding again, and they've added a couple of cycle lanes next to them to appease the Greens, to keep them happy. We've got the extraordinary situation of the Associate Minister of Transport, who put on her Green Party hat to write an op-ed for The Spinoff about how dumb the Government's package was. So the first point is it's a bit contradictory for the Prime Minister to just say all we want to do is spend money on roads, when the Government itself has, essentially, given up the fight when it comes to four-lane expressways.
The second point I want to make is it is factually inaccurate. If you look at the transport package announced by the National Government, we're incredibly proud of it because it is multimodal. It's not just roads; it is four-lane roads, of course, because as I always say to my friend Julie Anne Genter, they're the safest roads in the country. Just one person has died on a four-lane expressway, at a national road of significance. But we also want to expand rail to Auckland Airport. We want to expand the Auckland rail line down to Tuakau in the Waikato, which I know has strong support from that part of the country. We want to expand rail up to Onehunga from Auckland Airport. We want to expand our bus network in both Auckland and Wellington. We want to spend more money on trains in Wellington for the Wellington metro rail network and expand the connections to Palmerston North and Wairarapa as well. So it is just factually inaccurate.
The third point I want to make is the really important point, which is about what is the right policy response to COVID. Our view in the National Party is that we are going to borrow money. There's no doubt about that. COVID has knocked the socks off the New Zealand economy, and we are going to borrow money for some time to come. The question is what you do with that money, and our view is that if you're going to have intergenerational debt as we are going to have, you should invest in projects that will have an intergenerational benefit, particularly with interest rates so low. The time is now to invest in projects that will really move the dial—not borrowing for operational spending, although we're going to have to do a bit of that too.
Let's borrow for the major transformational projects that will really change the nature of New Zealand. Let's do the second Mount Vic tunnel. We're going to do it. Let's do Pētone to Grenada. Let's do the Cross Valley Link. Let's do the four-lane road from Whangārei to Auckland. Let's do the third and the fourth main rail lines in Auckland. Let's do the four-laning from Christchurch to Ashburton. Let's do these projects, because if we're going to borrow intergenerationally, we may as well get projects that have an intergenerational benefit.





PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you, Mr Speaker. What a privilege it is to have the opportunity this afternoon to talk in the House. I too want to mirror the sentiments of colleagues and acknowledge the victims, the families, and those suffering across the world for the events of 15 March, which will forever be etched into the memories of many, if not everyone.
I heard the Minister of Finance, the good member of Parliament for Wellington Central, speak, and it made me think of 15 March, the Friday. We were having our catch up, and he said, "I think I'd better come a bit earlier—what's happened in Christchurch." I said, "Come up to Newtown."—where the electorate office is. We thought, look, let's walk across the hill, because in Kilbirnie is the city's mosque, and we were able to go there, listen—we didn't talk; it was a rather tense, sombre mood. We were there for quite some time, because, during that walk over the hill, we got the true extent of what happened. I won't say the rest is history, but the rest certainly formed our history, and I want to acknowledge our Muslim brothers and sisters, whānau in Aotearoa New Zealand this afternoon.
Look, folks, I heard the previous speaker, Chris Bishop. I lost him on the word "road", regained consciousness on "multimodal", and then fell asleep again. But, look, can I just say I always get rather hazy and blurry when they talk about roads—that just seems to be their sole policy—but today I wanted to talk about people, because people are what make me tick. It's been great to be able to spend much more time in the electorate office and talk to people. We've got good, strict conditions in the electorate office, but, whilst the door is locked and it looks closed, we're very much open for business.
I want to acknowledge one set of people, and that's our public servants—often those who get forgotten about. But let me tell you, considering I represent a whole lot of them, they certainly are not shy to tell me what they think, despite couching it with "Although I have to be neutral", and there they tell me the rest of their story about what should happen, what could happen. But what they do tell me is that the best economic response is a strong health response, and that's come through loud and clear. I am proud of this Government's strong health response and to have that mirrored and reflected in feedback from Wellingtonians, at least, to say, "We agree with you. What you're doing is right, but life is tough." I know for many of them they are working from home, as Government departments reorganise themselves. What that does do is it means that local businesses in our suburban communities are benefiting from their contributions. I know in Island Bay, certainly the cafes there responded well to servicing public servants for their coffee and scone at morning tea time, allowing them to write the very reports for this Government and get business moving as their normal day took place but in a quite different format.
The other group of people I want to acknowledge is staff—our staff—and I acknowledge those in all the electorate offices, in fact, because they are the ones who get the correspondence, log it, process it through, and ensure that those responses—and they are many. One of things I often look through is just the personal stories—and I'm not going to share those—that they share because they are in sheer need of help. Be it an immigration issue, a health issue, or a job issue, what they do say is that "We're happy, and we like your response in terms of what you're doing." So that reassurance is absolutely brilliant.
I want to finish there and say, look, this is a Government that I'm proud to be part of. We've got a five-point plan in place, and I'm going to be back to talk about that.





NICOLA WILLIS (National): This is a speech for the parents and families in Auckland who have just completed another day of home schooling; for the students in Auckland who are now looking down the barrel of 40 days in the classroom lost—20 percent of their normal school year—for the mums and dads who are frustrated, who are stressed out, who are worried about their kids falling behind or being depressed and anxious; and for the teachers, who are juggling to keep it all going.
They have given so much, and they have done so willingly. They have gone into lockdown because it is the right thing to do because they want to keep COVID out of our community. But what do they ask in return? They ask for a Government that will keep our border safe. They ask for a Government that will keep COVID out of our communities. And what have they been given? They have been given a Government that has stacked up slip-up after slip-up after slip-up, that has stacked up failure after failure after failure—words where action has been required. Where they said they'd provide personal protective equipment, they didn't. They said that everyone leaving managed isolation on compassionate grounds would be tested, but, instead, 51 of the 55 were not. They said everyone would be tested on day three in an isolation facility, but we now find out it's not required and thousands haven't had it. They said that the staff in managed isolation facilities would be tested, but it turns out six out of 10 were not, and it turns out some of them were going to work sick. That is a failure of the system. It is a monumental failure. New Zealanders have been let down by a Government who talks tough—oh yes, they talk tough—but who have failed to deliver on the border.
And then today, we have the ridiculous spectacle of the Prime Minister refusing to accept responsibility. The words were: "It doesn't mean anyone has failed. It doesn't necessarily mean there's a failure at the border." Well, this is farcical. New Zealanders are being asked to maintain the fiction that somehow COVID is in the community through an immaculate infection, through an infection that has come from nowhere, seemingly, that has come in without any human host—that has simply appeared in South Auckland from nowhere. Well, we are being asked to focus on the science, and we're being asked to be evidence-based. Well, the science says that if you go a hundred days without COVID in the community and then it appears, it came from a human being who had COVID and who was able to infect another human being. It came from a failure that allowed that to happen. And we have seen sloppiness at the border; we have seen detachment from what is actually happening on the ground. Ministers who provide strategies on high, who wave around pieces of paper saying that things will happen, who say that they've asked for testing to happen—but, in fact, they don't follow up. And all New Zealanders ask is check, audit—if you say you're going to test, do the testing. If you say you're going to do something, not only do it but check that it's been done, audit that it's been done, because they are giving so much. The sacrifice from New Zealand families is real, it is palpable, they are losing income, they are losing jobs, they're at home with their kids trying to home school, and all they ask of their Government is do the job. Do what you say you will, follow up, and don't deny responsibility; there's no such thing as an immaculate infection.
So here on this side of the House, we have been clear: we propose a national border protection agency. We propose one entity that takes accountability, that takes responsibility, that follows Dr Shane's advice on the testing, that puts in place the strategies that will keep our border secure, and that ensures that we don't have these incursions into the community again. Here on this side of the House, we're not going to be sloppy as to keep on mucking it up, then appoint Heather Simpson and Brian Roche to fly in and sort it all out. No, no—we will be confident. New Zealand families have sacrificed for this Government's strategy, and all they ask in return is for competence: don't just talk about it; deliver.





KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. We only need to look at other countries to know what things could have been like in New Zealand. We only need to look at other countries to see what it could have been like if we didn't act fast, we didn't go hard, and we didn't go early. This Government supported businesses and saved jobs. Those aren't my words. Those are the words that have been said to me from almost every business owner I have visited throughout the Wairarapa electorate. The actions of this Government over lockdown and support for them saved jobs and kept those businesses open. What could have been if a different approach was taken? That is the question that I have been reflecting on. 
It is because of this approach that this Government has made that saw New Zealand come out of lockdown the first time quicker than any other country that we compare ourselves to. It is because of that approach that saw the economy perform better in June and July compared to June and July last year, and it was because of that approach that we are now acting quickly and effectively in this second wave. We acted hard and we deployed more resources, we ramped up processing, and we have ramped up testing. It's got to the point now where over 90 percent of tracing is meeting the gold standard. We only need to look at Victoria to see what could have happened if we did not take that approach, and it's fair to say that we only need to look at the comments and the approach from the National Party to see what New Zealand would have been like if they were in charge. 
During the Epidemic Response Committee, the National Party repeatedly called for New Zealand to follow Australia's lead. They repeatedly called for New Zealand to release our restrictions at the border. In June, they called for restrictions to be eased. They said that the border restrictions were untenable. They said in July that the border should be open to workers, they said that they should be open to investors, and they said that it should be open to international borders. Each and every one of those suggestions flouted the expert advice. The science-based advice that this Government was following, that party disregarded. They wanted to take cheap political points, and it failed. At no point has their approach seen a rise in the polls, because New Zealanders know that this Government and its approach to an effective health response to COVID19 is the best economic response that can happen. 
Yet, today, we heard even worse. We heard the leader, the Hon Judith Collins, say that the South Island should be in a different alert level than the rest of New Zealand—completely disregarding every single piece of expert advice that the Government has followed to get us here, to this point. Because she knows that if different parts of the country, like the South Island, were in a different alert level, that would mean the end of regional travel.
Hon Damien O'Connor: Hasn't she heard of planes?
KIERAN McANULTY: "Has she not heard of planes?" is the question that my friend and colleague the Hon Damien O'Connor has asked. I bet she has, but she doesn't care, because she's desperate. She's reaching out for some relevancy, and she's coming out with this tripe—the same sort of stuff that we've heard throughout lockdown.
It is a fact that the reason we are where we are in the country at the moment is because of the hard work of New Zealanders and because of the approach of this Government. It is, I think, disrespectful of the Hon Judith Collins to suggest that the only reason we are here today is because "we are surrounded by a moat"—completely disregarding all the hard work in this country. 
Well, I will put it to her and this House—let's compare ourselves to Ireland, a country where my family and many other members in this House are from. It has a similar population, another country that is an island. They have 28,000 cases and 1,700 deaths. If we followed the National Party's approach, that could well have been us. So I say to the people of New Zealand, disregard the politicking of the National Party and listen to what Robert Patman has to say: "Opposition for opposition's sake is not the answer in a major health crisis."





Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to follow up on some comments from some of the earlier speakers in this general debate, which really—although COVID is a significant part of what the country is facing at the moment, we do have some long-term challenges that we must also continue to focus on. 
So I commend New Zealand First and the Greens raising the issue of sexual violence, and particularly sexual violence on children, but what I do ask is that the Minister for Children, the Hon Tracey Martin, corrects her statements in the House this afternoon about written questions from the Opposition, because she has clearly been inaccurate. I look forward to her correcting her statement about the last question being received from the Opposition in August 2018. I've got a whole stack of them here that are clearly well after that date. 
But the point of this—it's again, an example where there's been talk of the importance of protecting, in particular, children from sexual violence. It absolutely staggered me and staggered the Opposition this weekend to find that the Government—Labour, New Zealand First, and the Greens—had stripped New Zealand's most significant national advocate for the survivors of sexual violence, Louise Nicholas, of any funding. It absolutely staggers the Opposition and staggered New Zealand from one end to the other, because any time you think about sexual violence in New Zealand, the one name that comes up time and time again is Louise Nicholas, a woman who has tirelessly worked with the most vulnerable victims of New Zealand, whether they are children, whether they are men, women, and single or multiple sexual violence assaults. So it's staggering that in this House, two of those three political parties have talked today about the fact that we need to address this long-term challenge, and the one person that is trusted more than anyone else in New Zealand, this Government has stripped of funding so she can't work with the most vulnerable New Zealanders.
Hon Andrew Little: The member's wrong.
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: So I've got some questions that I want the Government to answer. Andrew Little says I'm wrong—great. Here are some questions for Andrew Little. What involvement have you had—Andrew Little, Carmel Sepuloni, Poto Williams—in the decision to cease funding for the one national advocate for sexual violence survivors?
Hon Andrew Little: Put down a question.
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Actually, what's happening is unfortunately we're still seeing a growing number of sexual violence assaults—
Hon Andrew Little: Why is the member avoiding the issue?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: —a growing number. And Minister Andrew Little doesn't want us to talk about it—doesn't want us to talk about it. This is the second to last week of the Parliament sitting, so absolutely this is the perfect opportunity to ask the Government: why are you not supporting a national advocacy service by Louise Nicholas? Because I suspect—here's what I suspect: I suspect she's asked the Government a few too many hard questions, or has it got anything to do with the fact that she publicly criticised the Labour Party in their own response about sexual assault within their own party? Maybe. What is absolutely critical in New Zealand is that the public have a voice they trust, and that side has just silenced them—has just silenced an advocate for sexual violence survivors. So it was pretty disturbing for Opposition members to read that. 
The interesting thing is—the part that's even worse than that, and I come back to the Minister for Children because there will be no advocacy for children under the age of 18 for sexual violence assault—zero. A Government department can't do it themselves, and the critical part of a national advocacy service is the independence. But I don't think the Government likes it. I don't think the Government likes independence because they're challenged, questions are asked, and they don't like the questions, which is why National will fully support Louise Nicholas' advocacy.
The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.
SPEAKER: In accordance with a determination of the Business Committee, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 1 September 2020.
The House adjourned at 3.58 p.m.