nz-debates/20200901.txt

TUESDAY, 1 SEPTEMBER 2020
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
PRAYERS
SPEAKER: Mālō e lelei. Because it's Tongan Language Week later this week, I've asked Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki to say the prayer for us today in Tongan.
ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Mālō e lelei. Ke tau lotu. 'E 'Otua Mafimafi, kuo mau tā'imālie 'i ho'o 'ofá. 'Oku tuku homau lotó ka mau hū atu ke ke malu'i mu'a 'a e Kuiní mo tataki 'emau fua fatongia 'i Fale Aleá 'aki 'a e poto faka-e-'Otua, 'ofá pea mo e 'ulungaanga malú ko e 'uhí ko e mo'uí pea mo e melino 'a e fonuá. 'Oku mau kole 'a e ngaahi me'á ni 'i he huafa 'o Sisu Kalaisi ko homau fakamo'uí ka ko ho'o 'aló. 'Emeni.





PRIVILEGE
Misrepresentation—Reply to a Written Question
SPEAKER: Members, I have received a letter from the Hon Chris Hipkins raising with me a matter of privilege: the alteration and misrepresentation of a reply to a written question posted by the National Party on social media. The content altered a reply purporting to be from the Minister of Health and is, on the face of it, misleading. In normal circumstances I would be inclined to find that a question of privilege is involved and refer the matter to the Privileges Committee. The post purports to be authorised by the Leader of the Opposition, although she has assured me that she did not see it before publication. The general manager of the New Zealand National Party has taken responsibility for it. The post involved the manufacture of fake ministerial letterhead to lend authenticity to the misrepresentation. However, the Leader of the Opposition has apologised, I have been assured that the material has been removed from social media, and in light of the impending dissolution of Parliament I do not intend to take any further action.





TABLING OF DOCUMENTS
Pledge on Family Violence—Ken Clearwater, Vic Tamati, and Tim Marshall
Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): I seek leave to table a pledge made by Mr Ken Clearwater, Vic Tamati, and Tim Marshall, declaring Aotearoa New Zealand the family violence - free sanctuary of the world and "in partnership with SafeMan SafeFamily we will achieve this with a strategic cross-party plan aimed at making Aotearoa New Zealand Human Predator Free by 2050." 
SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? It is so tabled.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.





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 "if we were going to do something so significant as asking hundreds of thousands of people to be tested … we would not leave a message as significant as that to a website, to a Twitter account or Instagram", and that only Ministers should be relied upon to deliver "significant" COVID-19 updates?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): That wasn't quite the statement that I made. In a stand-up I was asked several questions about the testing message. My full response was, "You'll find that what we've said has been utterly consistent, and I can assure you that if we were going to do something so significant as ask hundreds of thousands of people to be tested, you would hear that from us and not from a Twitter post or an Instagram post or from a website. We would be sharing that information. And actually what I think is key here, you've heard utterly consistent messaging from the Director-General of Health, from all the Ministers who have taken to the podium." I stand by those statements. My point, of course, was that while we will, of course, not be the only source of information, if it was such a significant ask as to have hundreds and thousands of people requested to be tested, that is, of course, a message that we would have been sure to amplify and not leave to social media.
Hon Judith Collins: Is she saying that the New Zealand public cannot and should not rely upon the messages put on the official Government Unite Against COVID-19 websites, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram accounts?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No. As I said in my primary answer, my point was that of course there is more than one source of information, but if it were a message as important and as significant as an expectation to test hundreds of thousands of people in that way, that is something that we would not leave to a website or an Instagram or a Twitter post. It would be something that we would amplify if that was the advice of the Director-General of Health and something that Health wished to have as a message and request of the public.
Hon Judith Collins: So how many Government staff are currently working on communications for the all-of-Government response COVID-19 websites and social media accounts?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If the member wished to have an exact number in that regard, she would know to put that in writing or as a primary question. I can tell the member that, of course, the all-of-Government group and the Ministry of Health, as you would expect, are looking into what exactly occurred in order to allow incorrect information of this nature to have been made available to the public.
Hon Judith Collins: Why did it take her Government nearly four days to react and remove information it had published on its official COVID-19 social media accounts, asking everyone in South and West Auckland to get a COVID-19 test?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I've just said, the all-of-Government group in the Ministry of Health are looking into precisely what has occurred in this situation. As I said at the time, as soon as I was made aware of it, I directly alerted my team, who directly alerted the team who are responsible. That was on Sunday morning and, of course, it was removed that day. As I know all members in this House wish for members of the public to have information that is accurate and reliable, again I always implore all members, regardless of the side of the House that you're on, to continue to share messaging around getting tested, particularly for those who have cold symptoms or flu symptoms or are in any way associated with the sites or cases we're currently dealing with. Those are the individuals I seek the support of all members of this House to encourage to be tested.
Hon Judith Collins: Why was the same incorrect information asking everyone in South and West Auckland to be tested that had been posted on the official Government Unite Against COVID-19 accounts then posted on the Ministry of Health website on Friday?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Actually, I believe it might have actually been on the Ministry of Health website first, and, as I have said, the Ministry of Health and the all-of-Government group are currently looking into exactly what happened here. I think the important point to make here is this obviously was never the official advice of the director-general or obviously advice that ever came to Government or a decision that was ever made—something of that nature, you can imagine that we would have been amplifying. Again, you would have heard, I believe—25 August, I believe, it was from memory. [Interruption] The Minister of Health was very—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! No, I am going to ask both the deputy leader of the National Party and the Minister of Finance to be quiet. Invitations of the sort that were made, in my experience, lead to trouble.
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: It was, I believe, on 25 August—so, prior to that incorrect information being posted on that website—that the Minister of Health talked about the work that was being done to achieve 70,000 tests over a seven-day period, to make sure that we did have some asymptomatic surveillance but that we were primarily targeting those with cold and flu symptoms, and, of course, those associated with the cluster we had. That advice was shared alongside the director-general just the day before the unfortunately incorrect advice was posted by the ministry.
Hon Judith Collins: If she was so "incredibly angry" about the incorrect messaging on the official Unite Against COVID-19 social media platforms, why didn't she use her 16-minute preamble at the press briefing on Sunday to correct the record, and instead waited until she was asked questions about it from journalists?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I knew in the 45-50 minutes that I often spend in those stand-ups that certainly I would have the opportunity to correct that. Look, whether I included it in the preamble or otherwise, I knew that opportunity to correct that information would be provided. What I chose instead to do was use the preamble to share the correct advice and the correct information, which—again—is that with cold and flu symptoms, we want people to be tested—
Hon Dr Nick Smith: You should have been upfront.
SPEAKER: Order!
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —and anyone associated with any of the sites or contacts within our current outbreak, and I really would appreciate the support of all members in continuing to share that information and advice.
Hon Judith Collins: If she was so "incredibly angry" about the incorrect messaging on the official Unite Against COVID-19 social media platforms, why is it that, despite making it clear on Sunday morning that the messaging needed to be fixed, it was still up on social media platforms at the time of her Sunday press conference, and media outlets such as the New Zealand Herald received no formal correction notice from her officials?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I wouldn't necessarily expect a correction notice to be given to individuals around a corrected Instagram or Twitter update. I expect instead just the correct information to be posted. I understand that the post was taken down at 1.37 p.m. 
Hon Judith Collins: Does she stand by her statement on Sunday that "We are not asking every single person in west and south Auckland to get a test. That is not our ask … It's wrong. It was oversimplified, and we're working very hard now to deal with what that's created with the community."; if so, why didn't she start her press conference on Sunday saying exactly that?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, the suggestion, somehow, that we weren't willing to acknowledge the incorrect posting of information. We are constantly available, every day, to answer questions about our COVID response. We're here to be accountable on our COVID response. We never shy away from that duty. If the member somehow has an assumption that because I wanted to share correct information in my stand-up, as opposed to incorrect information, that is for the member's own interpretation. But I simply do not accept that we would ever put ourselves in a position to not front up, because we do it every day.




Question No. 2—Health
2. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Health: How many adults eligible for day-three testing in managed isolation have not been tested at day three from 8 June?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Health): For those that arrived in New Zealand between 18 July and 24 August, a day three test was recorded for 95 percent of those people. There are a number of reasons why someone might not be tested or have a test recorded, including them being an infant under six months old; people with physical or other needs that mean they cannot undergo a nasopharyngeal test; maritime workers who are arriving by air who are transferred directly to a ship; transit passengers who only remain in New Zealand for a short period of time; those with no national health number when they arrive, and so they are tested but their test is not recorded in the database; and, of course, those who refuse. It's important to remember that returnees are required to return a negative day 12 test before they can leave managed isolation otherwise they'll be required to stay longer—
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Not answering the question.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: —to manage any potential public health risk.
SPEAKER: Order! The Hon Nick Smith will stand, withdraw, and apologise. He's on his final warning for that interjection.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I withdraw and apologise.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In terms of the data prior to 18 July, officials are currently working to reconcile all arrivals from 10 April so that they will be added to the testing database. 
Dr Shane Reti: Is he saying, then, that he cannot tell us how many eligible adults were not tested in managed isolation at day three over the six-week period from 8 June to 18 July? 
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, I am saying that. That information was not recorded in a central database until the beginning of August, and they've been working their way backwards and they've got as far back as 18 July.
Dr Shane Reti: Are ministry statements correct that not only is day three testing not compulsory but the majority of day three tests are not even done at day three but days later, sometimes as late as day six and day 10?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No, the Government's requirement is on or around day three or on or around day 12. Sometimes there are reasons why it might be day four or day five. There are sometimes good reasons why it might be on a different day, but the fact is, people have two tests. Now, one of the things that the public can take confidence in is that we have been looking, overall, at the number of day three tests and the number of day 12 tests and we've seen a good steady number of tests happening during that time. The thing that the database is doing is making sure that those test results are matched to an individual person. That doesn't mean they haven't been happening; it just means that they haven't been happening in the way that allows us to report in the way that the member is asking us to.
Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: Can the Minister also confirm that, alongside a testing regime, we also operate a regime of health screening so those who arrive and are symptomatic are put in, for instance, if they are an Auckland arrival, the Jet Park Hotel straight away, which will also alter the day three testing numbers? 
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, those who are symptomatic when they arrive are moved directly to quarantine and are provided with additional support there. Even outside of the day three and day 12 testing, for those in managed isolation there are other health checks that take place, and if anybody starts showing symptoms at any time during their stay in managed isolation, then they can be tested. 
Dr Shane Reti: Does delayed day three testing increase exposure to unknown positives and increase the chances of a false negative? 
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No, because everybody who is in managed isolation is treated as if they have COVID-19. So they are in a level 4 - like environment.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: Can the Minister confirm that we have had no community outbreak within our managed isolation facilities to date, which shows the way in which we are managing these facilities and treating everyone as if they could have COVID is our strongest line of defence? 
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It is absolutely correct to say that there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that COVID-19 has escaped from a managed isolation or a quarantine facility.
Dr Shane Reti: Is it correct that from the start of the isolation strategy on 8 June at least two people have been at such a high risk for coronavirus that on arriving in New Zealand they've gone straight to quarantine and immediately had an early day three test, which returned positive?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I'm advised by the Minister responsible there that it would be more than that. People who show symptoms are often tested straight away, and, of course, as the Prime Minister and I have both just pointed out, they go straight into quarantine when they get here.




Question No. 3—Finance
3. GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy in the context of the global COVID-19 pandemic?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Last week, Stats NZ released its latest merchandise trade data for July, showing the continued strength of New Zealand's exports. Goods exports rose by $1.3 billion to $60.2 billion in the July year, up 2 percent on 2019. The increase was led by dairy, up 10.9 percent; meat, up 9.4 percent; and wine, up 6.4 percent. This growth occurred across various markets as well, with exports to China up 6.8 percent, the US up 6.1 percent, and Japan up 2.2 percent. As imports fell to $60.3 billion, the annual trade deficit of $115 million was the smallest since the October 2014 year. This impressive data demonstrates the ongoing strength of our exporters, despite the global impacts of COVID-19, and this is helping to drive our economic recovery. Their success is helping to provide jobs and help the country grow out of the COVID crisis.
Greg O'Connor: What reports has he seen on the performance of small businesses in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yesterday, Xero released its latest Small Business Insights for July, showing further signs of recovery across much of the small business sector. Although overall small business revenue was down slightly on July 2019, revenue in the manufacturing industry rose 13 percent, hospitality 6 percent, and retail by 6 percent. Small business employment continued to rise during the month, up 0.8 percent to be just 1.7 percent below COVID levels. Small business job numbers recovered 3 percent since their low point in April. This is further data that underlines the benefits for small business of New Zealand quickly getting on top of COVID-19 and opening up the economy more freely. With the latest outbreak in Auckland, I would emphasise the point made by Craig Hudson, Xero's managing director for New Zealand and the Pacific Islands, when he said, "it remains imperative to our nation's economic recovery that those who can shop locally and pay their bills on time, in order to support their local community and [its] business within it. Keeping money circulating in our economy will help to keep more people employed and more shop fronts open for longer."
Greg O'Connor: What reports has he seen showing the resilience of the New Zealand economy in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We're seeing positive signs about how robust the New Zealand economy has been through, for example, the wage subsidy. The wage subsidy extension began ending on 5 August. Between 5 August and 21 August, the majority of wage subsidy extension recipients completed their eight weeks of support. This represented 93,643 businesses, covering 325,426 jobs. On Friday, the Ministry of Social Development released the COVID income payment and jobseeker data covering that same period. Between 31 July and 21 August, jobseeker recipient numbers rose by 3,007, and COVID income relief payment recipients rose by 3,096. So with 325,426 jobs coming off the wage subsidy between 5 August and 21 August, only 6,103 went on to Government assistance over that same time. It is a tough time for those people who have lost their jobs, but the numbers bear out the importance of the investments that we have made to support households and businesses through the wage subsidy scheme.
David Seymour: Is the Minister aware of at least 45 businesses previously affected by City Rail Link developments who are now ineligible for the resurgence subsidy because they were delayed in getting the earlier subsidies by the effects of the City Rail Link on their business, and, if he is, what can he do about it?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In terms of the way that the wage subsidy payments work, if you're in receipt of one of them—for example, the extension—you can't be in receipt of another one, the resurgence, at the same time.
David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was about his awareness of a specific subgroup of businesses. Now, he's restated what the rules are; we all know that. It didn't address the question I asked about the specific instance and his awareness of it, or what he'd do about it.
SPEAKER: Well, I think there's a requirement to answer one part of the question. While the member might not be satisfied with the answer to the second part of the question, I think it was addressed.
David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I can't agree that it was addressed. You know, at what part did he address it?
SPEAKER: I mean, as I've indicated, it's not for me to indicate satisfaction with the answer, either the first part, which was not addressed, or the second part, which was addressed in a slightly roundabout manner. But in my opinion the Minister of Finance did address it.
David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: I just want to make it clear that the member has now twice, in a way which is out of order, disagreed with me. I hope that he's not going to do it again. It would be an unfortunate end to the Parliament.
David Seymour: I would never do that. I just wondered if you might consider granting the Minister an opportunity to further address what he started.
SPEAKER: Well, the Minister, if he wants to take an opportunity, is absolutely able to do it, and, unlike the member, he knows how to do it.




Question No. 4—Health
4. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Health: What was the testing capacity for coronavirus tests in Auckland immediately prior to the current spike from 8 August to 11 August inclusive, and how many tests were done in Auckland on each of those four days?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Health): The national capacity of the labs that serviced the Auckland region DHBs from 8 August to 11 August inclusive was an average of 11,841 tests per day, with a high of 12,744 on both 10 and 11 August. The combined number of tests completed across the three Auckland DHBs for each of these three days was 1,696 on 8 August, 925 on 9 August, 1,054 on 10 August, and 1,994 on 11 August. I would note that those dates include a weekend, when we do see lower testing numbers. The testing capacity has always been there, and it's been able to scale up quickly to meet demand. So, since 12 August, more than 9,400 people on average have been tested per day.
Dr Shane Reti: How does he explain answers to written questions that suggest the index case sample that started the current spike was received by the laboratory at 21.41 on Monday, 10 August and then took 18 hours to report a positive result the following Tuesday afternoon; and did that 18 hours cause a delay for how quickly contact tracing could be started?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I'm not familiar with those exact numbers, but no, I don't believe there was a delay. So I'd have to go back and double-check that.
Dr Shane Reti: Would health officials have been more successful at containing the latest outbreak and minimising the lockdown if reporting of the index case lab test, which normally takes around 3½ hours, had occurred on the day the sample arrived at the lab and not reported 18 hours later?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Not necessarily.
Dr Shane Reti: Does he believe that 18 hours is an acceptable delay for a positive coronavirus test to be processed once it arrives at the lab, given that every hour a positive case goes undetected the risk in the community increases?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It would depend on the number of test results being processed at the lab. Given the number of test results in question there, that kind of delay would be—if that's what it was, there would have to be another reason than simply there being too many test results to be processed. We did see up to a 48-hour delay during the peak, when we were getting, sort of, 20,000-plus tests per day being processed. Of course, it may have been that that test result was processed on a weekend, though.
Dr Shane Reti: How does he explain answers to written questions which show a case in managed isolation in Auckland that same day as the index case—Monday, 10 August—where the sample was received by the laboratory at 4.51 p.m., several hours earlier than the index case, and then took 30 hours to report the positive result at 11 p.m. the next day?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That would really be a question for the labs.
Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: Can he confirm that the case which was initially reported, and although not the primary cause of the outbreak—that case that was initially reported—was collected via a GP and then, of course, transported to a lab before being reported, and that, at the time of testing, there was no suggestion from the Ministry of Health that there were any delays in testing, because, of course, they were well below what is our actual testing capacity at the time?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, and I can say that the GP test results at that point were not being prioritised in the way that, say, managed isolation test results were being processed, because there was a lower risk.




Question No. 5—Finance
5. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by the quality of all the Government's spending allocated from the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I do stand by our fiscal response to this one-in-100-year shock. The money has been allocated and invested swiftly and responsibly to support businesses and households. As is normal, all of these allocations are subject to Budget scrutiny and, in relevant cases, due diligence and further negotiations.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he satisfied that adequate due diligence and judgment were applied by Ministers to the Government's decision to grant $11.7 million to the Green School?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That grant was part of the shovel-ready $3 billion fund. In total, that fund is something that the Government is pleased will be supporting a significant number of construction jobs all around New Zealand.
SPEAKER: No. Order! The question was not addressed.
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Can the member just repeat it?
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he satisfied that adequate due diligence and judgment were applied by Ministers to the Government's decision to grant $11.7 million to the Green School?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes. The ongoing process of that funding being agreed to and spent is the subject of due diligence and negotiations by Crown Infrastructure Partners, as is the case with all of these projects.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think the Government's decision to make this grant demonstrates effective prioritisation of taxpayers' money?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It is very important as we move to recover and rebuild from COVID-19 that we support our construction industry around the country. Individual projects within that have been advocated for, as is on the public record, by different Ministers. It is vital we do that. It's also vital that we support schools right across New Zealand to be able to build new schools, rebuild schools, and deal with a decade of under-investment in schools, and that's why on this side of the House we're very proud of our record of making sure that we have invested more than any other Government has before in the education system, after a decade of neglect.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: What weighting do party political endorsements receive in the assessment of shovel-ready projects?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Nineteen hundred applications were received for the Infrastructure Reference Group fund. Crown Infrastructure Partners shortlisted that down to just over 800. Ministers were then responsible for refining that down further to the around 150 projects that have been put in place. There was a variety of discussions about that. Minister Shaw is on record for his strong advocacy of the particular project in question here.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: So is it the case that a few million are set aside for Greens Ministers and a few million are set aside for New Zealand First Ministers, and does he, as responsible Minister, bear responsibility, ultimately, for all those decisions?
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That question began with a certain line to do with a certain project and a certain political party, and now he's sought to widen it, and he should not be allowed to make any old allegation he likes without one shred of evidence even in the question.
SPEAKER: Well, no, I've listened both to the question and to the answers that were given, and I'm convinced that, between the previous supplementary question and the answer from the Minister, it was expanded widely enough for that question to be relevant.
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In answer to the first two of those questions, no.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Has a contract been signed?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That is a matter for Crown Infrastructure Partners, who have the responsibility for the negotiation. That is exactly as it should be, because I'm sure the member on the other side of the House would not want individual politicians to be doing that kind of negotiation. Crown Infrastructure Partners are doing that work.
SPEAKER: Order! Order! No, no. I'm going to deal again with the fact that whether or not a contract had been signed was not addressed. Saying it's someone else's fault—there's only one person—well, there might be two people, with Mr Jones—responsible for that to this House, and the Minister of Finance is the one responsible at the moment.
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I am not aware of that, because it is a matter for Crown Infrastructure Partners.
SPEAKER: Thank you. That's much clearer.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: With respect to any of the criteria that he considered, did the experience of charter schools have any bearing on it?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Actually, it didn't in this particular case, but it is interesting those who suddenly have found a new-found interest in the promotion of public education, when actually the record was a decade of under-investing in that—
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Get off your high horse.
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —and preferencing charter schools. That irony is not lost on this side of the House.
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Before we have another supplementary, I'm going to remind the deputy leader of the National Party that it's been a long time since I've been on a horse. It may be something we share, but I wouldn't possibly comment.
David Seymour: Will the Government break its commitment to this Green School, given how easily it broke its commitment to students who were disadvantaged students in charter schools earlier in this term of Parliament?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I reject the premise of the second part of that question.
Hon Chris Hipkins: Does the Minister of Finance believe that students attending charter schools should have been learning in shipping containers, as they were under the charter school model?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The charter school model is a deeply flawed ideological experiment. On this side of the House, we are consistent in our support of public education and in fixing up the mess left by the National Party when they were in Government when it came to our schools.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Spent too much time with those crystals.
SPEAKER: Is the member finished?
Hon Members: Ha, ha!
SPEAKER: Well, normally, people stand up for their sparkly supplementaries, Mr Goldsmith.




Question No. 6—Defence
6. CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First) to the Minister of Defence: What support is the New Zealand Defence Force providing to the all-of-Government COVID-19 response through Operation Protect?
Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): Thank you, Mr—
SPEAKER: It looks very long, looking at it from here, but I hope it's not that long. Carry on.
Hon RON MARK: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The coalition Government recently announced a significant increase in the number of Defence Force personnel supporting the all-of-Government COVID response. In total, there are approximately 1,260 personnel either supporting or preparing to support tasks as part of the NZ Defence Force Operation Protect. This represents the largest military deployment since the Timor-Leste deployment, and, through the provision of disciplined, well-trained, professional personnel, the Defence Force is making a difference by supporting managed isolation and quarantine facilities, assisting at the maritime border, and providing planning and support to other Government agencies. And, of course, New Zealand can be rightly proud of how the Defence Force has stepped up at this time of the country's need.
Clayton Mitchell: What role do New Zealand Defence Force personnel have at the managed isolation and quarantine facilities?
Hon RON MARK: A force of up to 990 New Zealand Defence Force personnel has been generated for the managed isolation and quarantine tasks, with around 19 personnel at each facility once fully rolled out over the coming weeks. Across each location, Defence Force personnel are providing facilities management, administrative support, and, increasingly, scaled-up security support. The recent increases in Defence Force personnel deployed to the facilities will allow for the security of high-risk areas such as entry and exit points and public areas, reducing reliance on private security guards, and, of course, Air Commodore "Digby" Darryn Webb is currently head of the managed isolation and quarantine within the all-of-Government response.
Clayton Mitchell: What role do New Zealand Defence Force personnel have at the maritime border?
Hon RON MARK: There are 80 Defence Force personnel assisting Customs at the maritime border by maintaining security of entry points and exit points in relation to ports and ships that have arrived in New Zealand. They are providing information and engaging with people to ensure they understand the relevant isolation and quarantine rules; monitoring and, if necessary, directing the movement of persons at ports and on ships; and monitoring compliance at ports and on ships in relation to people disembarking, physical distancing rules, and rules in relation to the wearing of personal protective equipment. 
Clayton Mitchell: What proposals has he seen to further increase the New Zealand Defence Force role in the COVID-19 response?
Hon RON MARK: The discipline, rigour, and operational expertise in the New Zealand Defence Force provide—what they provide has clearly been needed, and they have proved their effectiveness. As I've said many times, I've consistently been highly supportive of the military's strong role as part of the COVID-19 response, as have my colleagues in New Zealand First. I was particularly impressed by the proposal put forward by the leader of New Zealand First, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, in which he suggested a new border protection force be established—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! The member knows he has stretched beyond his responsibilities as a member of the current ministry.
Hon RON MARK: Oh sorry, but can I finish?
SPEAKER: No, no, the member's finished.




Question No. 7—Education
NICOLA WILLIS (National): My question is to—[Interruption] 
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Once again, I don't know—
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I'm a victim. 
Hon Members: Ha, ha!
SPEAKER: Well, the member might see a conspiracy, but I don't.
7. NICOLA WILLIS (National) to the Minister of Education: Was he or the Ministry of Education consulted about any aspect of the application by Green School New Zealand for funding prior to its announcement; if so, did he raise concerns about providing Government funding for this project?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I had a conversation about the application with James Shaw towards the end of July and I gave him feedback that from an educational portfolio perspective the school would not be a priority for investment.
Nicola Willis: Well then, why did the project get funding?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I'm not ministerially responsible for that.
SPEAKER: Yeah, I should have cut off the—well, the member's used a supplementary, so it's all right. 
Nicola Willis: Was he aware of Treasury advice that "it would be inappropriate to announce or provide government funding for a project that does not yet have the necessary education approvals", and has the Green School met the legal requirements for registration?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No, I wouldn't have seen that advice because I was not one of the Ministers involved in approving the project.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: The second part of the question is his, though: is it registered or not?
SPEAKER: Well, if the member wants to find out if it's registered or not, she should ask that.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: She did ask.
SPEAKER: As part of a two-legged question, and we all know, and the member knows very well, there's only a requirement, when people ask an extra leg in a supplementary—which is, I understand, strictly not within order—there's no obligation to respond to it. There are two members standing—Ginny Andersen.
Ginny Andersen: What investment in property for other schools around the country is being funded through Vote Education?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: State schools around the country—
SPEAKER: No, no. That, again—I mean, it might be within the responsibility of the Minister of Education, but it's certainly not within the realms of the primary or the supplementary question.
Nicola Willis: Has the Green School qualified for legal registration as a private school, including meeting all requirements around suitable tuition standards and staffing standards?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I'm not aware of that. Of course, private schools have an application process that they have to go through. As Minister I don't make that decision. That decision's made by the Ministry of Education.
Ginny Andersen: What investment in property for other schools in Taranaki is being funded through Vote Education?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I'm very happy to say that over the past three calendar years, schools in the Taranaki region have received $68 million of Government property funding. In addition to this, they're getting $11.75 million from the schools investment package that we announced late last year.
Nicola Willis: Why did he not speak up for New Zealand State schools and oppose this decision when it came to Cabinet for approval?
SPEAKER: Order! The member knows that that's not correct.
Nicola Willis: Why did the Minister not take any steps to stop the Government providing $11.7 million to the Green School, which isn't even registered yet?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I've said before, I was not one of the Ministers involved in approving that project. I do want to make it clear, though, that the Government is not opposed to private schooling. It's interesting the Opposition now appears to be.
Nicola Willis: Has he taken any steps to address the concerns of school leaders across New Zealand disgusted by this decision, and do those steps include replying to the letter from Kealy Warren?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, absolutely. The Government's taking heaps of action to address the concerns raised by school leaders up and down the country who are worried that after a decade of being neglected, their school properties are in a state of disrepair. That's why this Government in our first Budget put several hundred million dollars into building new schools, put the largest single investment into school capital in Budget 2019—$1.2 billion of additional funding in there—and it's why we put $400 million into shovel-ready school projects for their upgrade works that's currently being spent as we speak.




Question No. 8—Finance
8. NICOLA WILLIS (National) to the Associate Minister of Finance: Does he stand by the entirety of his press statement on 26 August confirming $11.7 million in funding for Green School New Zealand, and on what evidence did he base each of the claims made in that statement?
SPEAKER: Hang on. I just want to warn the member—I mean, we're a long way away from the next Parliament, but it's pretty important. In both the last question and this question, she's reading questions which are slightly different from those on the Order Paper, but we'll go with it.
Hon JAMES SHAW (Associate Minister of Finance): Yes, I stand by my statement based on reports provided to me by the Infrastructure Industry Reference Group (IRG). That being said, understanding the depth of feeling in the community about this funding, were I to make this decision again, I would come to a different conclusion.
Nicola Willis: Is a contract in place for the Government's deal with the Green School, and has he taken any legal advice about his options for unwinding his mistake?
Hon JAMES SHAW: Well, Ministers cannot get involved in the contracting between the Crown and the various projects.
Nicola Willis: Did the Minister get involved in making clear his expectation that the Green School should achieve legal registration as a school prior to receiving taxpayer money, and, if not, why not?
Hon JAMES SHAW: I don't believe I did.
Nicola Willis: Did he meet with anyone involved in the Green School prior to or during the application process for shovel-ready funding, and, if so, who?
Hon JAMES SHAW: On 18 May, the Mayor of New Plymouth, Neil Holdom, came to see me in my office and introduced me to the people who've started the Green School. He was quite keen that we support the project.
Nicola Willis: Does he agree with Minister Hipkins that the Green Party had advocated "quite strongly" for the Green School, and, if so, why did he reject the Minister's advice that the funding should not go ahead?
Hon JAMES SHAW: It wasn't the Green Party; it was me, because it was a ministerial decision and not one that was shared with caucus, because, of course, as a Budget-confidential decision, Ministers are unable to share that outside of their offices. So I would say it's not accurate to say that the Green Party advocated for it, but I did personally.
Nicola Willis: Did any Ministers other than Minister Hipkins raise questions or concerns with him about the conditions for this taxpayer funding to the Green School, and, if so, what steps did he take to address those concerns?
Hon JAMES SHAW: I'm not aware of specific points that were raised. There was a very iterative process over a number of months of the whole IRG process, and many projects came and went during the course of that time.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to whether he wished he could draw upon the experience of the Transmission Gully contract fiscals, which means we're going to spend far more money trying to finish it than we've spent thus far because of the National Party's gross mistakes.
Hon JAMES SHAW: I think the member would be aware that the Green Party has had a long-held scepticism of major public-private partnerships, particularly the one around Transmission Gully. Given his experience in Government, he would be aware of that.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: You've made a clown of yourself, mate. You were clowns.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: The Government's too soft—too soft.
SPEAKER: Order! I think it's fair to say that I'm neither, and I will ask the Deputy Prime Minister to withdraw and apologise.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I apologise and withdraw for the insinuation that you were a clown, sir. I didn't meant it in any way, shape, or form.
SPEAKER: Now, because we have another member here who has added embellishments to his withdrawals and apologies and suffered for it, I'm going to give the Deputy Prime Minister a requirement to withdraw and apologise without the embellishment.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I withdraw and apologise.
SPEAKER: Thank you.




Question No. 9—Research, Science and Innovation
9. GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Research, Science and Innovation: What recent announcements has she made about progress on the COVID19 vaccine strategy?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Research, Science and Innovation): On Thursday last week, I joined the Prime Minister at the Malaghan Institute in Wellington to provide an update on progress made on New Zealand's vaccine strategy, with additional funding going towards securing access for vaccines when they become available. In keeping with our "going hard and going early" approach to COVID-19 in New Zealand, we have been engaged with the global search for a vaccine since the early stages, and we are now well connected to all parts of vaccine development, distribution, and use. The contribution is in the order of hundreds of millions of dollars and will help secure access to promising vaccine candidates. This funding is in addition to our contributions for the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations in the global COVAX Facility announced in May. Securing early access to a vaccine will be critical not only for our own population but for our Pacific neighbours as well, and we're working hard to ensure that New Zealanders can get vaccinated as soon as one becomes available. 
Ginny Andersen: How will domestic capability and manufacturing contribute to New Zealand accessing a vaccine?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: New Zealand's science and vaccine manufacturing sectors have an incredibly important role to play in ensuring New Zealanders get early access to a vaccine. Locally, the Vaccine Alliance Aotearoa New Zealand will receive $10 million to lead COVID-19 vaccine research through a vaccine development and evaluation platform. This will see the brightest minds from the Malaghan Institute of Medical Research, the University of Otago, and Victoria University of Wellington work together to support global efforts to develop vaccines that are safe and fit for purpose. BioCell will receive $3 million to upgrade its existing facilities so it's in a position to scale up and support local and global vaccine manufacturing. Depending on the chosen vaccine, this could see up to 100 million vaccines manufactured annually right here in New Zealand—an important contribution to the global effort. New Zealand is well placed through the efforts of our researchers and Medsafe to leverage our expertise and to ensure that everybody can access a safe and effective vaccine as soon as possible. 
Ginny Andersen: How will New Zealand's relative success in dealing with the coronavirus mean we are at the back of the queue for the vaccine?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: No. Our relative success to date in keeping COVID-19 contained in New Zealand does not count against us when we aim to secure a vaccine to keep our population protected from COVID-19. Our vaccine strategy has been developed with this in mind, and this latest boost in funding is key to being part of and contributing to global efforts. This is a novel approach to securing vaccine access, but new and innovative approaches are required to ensure that New Zealand does not get left behind. We know that vaccine nationalism is the inhibitor to progress in our search for a vaccine, so our multilateral approaches with leading international organisations and in partnership with our Australian neighbours mean we are well placed to secure supply as one become available.




Question No. 10—Housing (Public Housing)
10. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing): Is he confident that the Government's emergency housing policies are fit for purpose; if so, why?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)): When we came into Government, we said that those in genuine need of emergency housing should come forward and they would get support. Since then, we have built more State houses than any Government since the 1970s, funded over 2,000 Housing First places, and piloted and rolled out the Sustaining Tenancies programme. Our emergency housing policies are constantly under review to ensure that vulnerable New Zealanders' needs are being adequately met. This Government inherited a housing crisis from a predecessor who refused to admit one existed.
Hon Louise Upston: Who is responsible for placing families with kids into emergency housing, when it was reported that houses in the scheme were without stoves and ovens and that houses were essentially building sites?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: That is an operational issue, but the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) does most of the operational issues in terms of determining who gets an emergency housing Special Needs Grant placement.
Hon Louise Upston: Is he saying it's acceptable for a family with children to be placed in a house without a stove or oven?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: No, and that's why I've asked officials to see what work can be done around the placement process to ensure that properties are adequate for the needs of the people who are being housed. I think the member might be referring to a media report where private properties were used. That system was used between January 2018 and June of this year, and was primarily used because some of the accommodation that we were supplying, like motels, was not adequate for larger families.
Hon Louise Upston: Does he consider the taxpayer funding of up to $3,000 per week for uninhabitable emergency housing good value for money, and, if not, how much money has been spent on uninhabitable emergency housing?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: We always want to make sure that people are in appropriate housing, whether it be transitional housing, emergency housing, or social housing. I am disappointed that on a small number of occasions when private market rentals were used, some of that may have been inadequate—there are reports of it being inadequate—and that's why we've asked officials to make sure we look at the placement process to ensure that the properties are appropriate for families that use them.
Hon Louise Upston: On how many occasions did this happen, and how much money was spent on it?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I don't have that figure on me. What I would tell the member is that during the period where private rentals were used in Auckland, only 13 percent of emergency housing Special Needs Grant people that were looked after were looked after in private market rentals—I think the figure is just a little short of 1,100—and, again, it's disappointing to see a small number of those where some of those properties may not have been adequate.
Hon Louise Upston: Was he aware that after the scheme was extended in 2018, it was reported that once a provider joined the emergency housing scheme through providing a motel or hotel, it could then rent out extra rooms or houses into the scheme, and that the status of those would not be checked; and, if yes, is the scheme working as intended?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Well, as the member would know, the scheme is no longer in place.
Hon Louise Upston: Can he confirm whether every emergency housing provider is inspected to ensure that emergency housing places funded by MSD meet basic living conditions; and, if not, why not?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I repeat to the member: I've asked officials to look at the placement process to ensure that all properties are adequate for the people who are placed in those properties.




Question No. 11—Health
11. MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill) to the Minister of Health: What reports has he seen on New Zealand's COVID-19 contact tracing systems?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Health): Last week, I released the final report of the Contacting Tracing Assurance Committee. The report recognises the progress that's been made on New Zealand's COVID-19 contact tracing systems, and it concluded that New Zealand is now in an increasingly strong position, with an improved contact tracing regime. More than three weeks on from the Auckland outbreak, contact tracing continues to be effective. As of yesterday, teams have identified 2,743 close contacts, of which 2,676 have already been contacted and were isolating. That's a very high strike rate and, while the figures vary day to day, the teams are consistently performing at around or above the 80 percent benchmark of close contacts identified and contacted within 48 hours.
Michael Wood: Has the Ministry of Health met the recommendations of the Verrall audit of the contact tracing system?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Dr Ayesha Verrall's audit included eight recommendations to strengthen the contact tracing response to COVID-19, and the ministry has implemented all of those recommendations, and that was what was found in the audit report of July 2020. Those actions include things like increasing public health units' capacity for contact tracing case management—we're seeing the results of those; establishing a national close contact service within the ministry to provide leadership and surge capacity, and we're seeing that working; implementing a comprehensive IT solution, the National Contact Tracing Solution, across the system—that's been implemented and it's working; and developing and implementing a monitoring framework to track and report on progress.
Michael Wood: How is the national contact tracing centre supporting quick turn-round between a newly identified contact in relation to a confirmed case and isolation and testing?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The National Contact Tracing Solution is an information technology solution that ensures that the oversight and management for all COVID-19 cases and close contacts are drawn together. All public health units have now moved on to that single cloud-based platform. Since the resurgence of COVID-19 cases in the community, the National Investigation and Tracing Centre and the public health units have been able to test the capability of the system to respond to a community outbreak, and it has performed incredibly well.




Additional Question—Leave Not Put
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I thought, seeing as there's no question No. 12 and we're all accountable, I'd seek by way of the leave of the House the National Party a chance to ask me some questions because they've barely asked me a question for the last three years or this year. So perhaps I could move that, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: Order! There are methods for Ministers to move things, as the Deputy Prime Minister is well aware of. If he chooses to move something, which would probably involve a suspension of the Standing Orders, it's his right to do so, but I think he also knows that it is not his role to seek leave for another party to do anything, no matter how much he desires it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I signify that I'd be very happy for me to do so?
SPEAKER: I think the member has already done that in a way which is out of order.





URGENT DEBATES DECLINED
Cyber-security—Activation of National Security System
SPEAKER: I have received a letter from David Seymour seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the activation of the National Security System in response to cyber-attacks. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. The test for whether a particular case requires the immediate attention of the House is a high one. I am not convinced that this matter is urgent enough to warrant a debate today. The application is therefore declined. 
In accordance with a determination of the Business Committee, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.
The House adjourned at 2.59 p.m.