ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Question 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 is equated 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 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 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 and seek for 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. The Hon Judith Collins.

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. Judith Collins.

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 that 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 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 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 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.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes—thank you. Your education of me continues.

8. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Research, Science and Innovation: 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.

© Scoop Media