nz-debates/20200429.txt

WEDNESDAY, 29 APRIL 2020
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Prayers.
ORAL QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Finance
1. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the Government's economic response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): On Monday, international credit ratings agency Moody's released an in-depth analysis of New Zealand, following its recent decision to reaffirm its highest Aaa rating on the economy. Moody's said that New Zealand's low Government debt puts us in a position to invest in infrastructure, housing, education, and measures to support families. The report says that the lasting effects of COVID-19 will be more limited given the degree of policy response that the Government has announced. Moody's added that notwithstanding the significant disruptions stemming from the current economic shock, we expect the New Zealand economy to remain resilient in the face of shocks. I welcome this acknowledgment of our fiscal position and ability to invest in the country's recovery.
Kiritapu Allan: What reactions has he seen from business to the Government's economic response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I've seen many reactions from businesses about the significant difference that the Government's support measures have made for them during these difficult and uncertain times. I will just choose a couple of them. 
One small manufacturing business contacted the Government saying, "When faced with lockdown, our biggest worry was keeping and paying our staff. They are our biggest asset, and we appreciate them all very much for their productivity and for making our workplace a happy place. So when the wage subsidy was announced, we were stunned and relieved. I cried when the money showed up in the account, because we worked so hard to build this business up and the fear was real that we could lose everything that we had worked for."
A small family-run transport firm said, "We'd like to thank the Government for in some instances being willing to signal direction before a solution is in place. An example of this that has proved very helpful was the early notification of the wage subsidy for essential workers who are stood down because of being vulnerable, ill, or looking after a vulnerable family. Because we knew that that undertaking had been made to work, we had confidence to support these workers."
There are many different experiences for business, and I acknowledge that not all of them are satisfied with the Government's response, but we believe we are doing everything we can to cushion the blow of COVID-19.
Kiritapu Allan: How will the Government continue to support the economy to recover from the effects of COVID-19?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We've always said that the measures we have put in place thus far are only the beginning of the Government's commitment to support the economy and the people of New Zealand. We have been, and will continue to be, adaptable in our approach to suit the situation as it unfolds. Over the coming weeks, we will see the Budget and further explanation of the three waves of response that we have. I can assure New Zealanders that we will continue to provide further support for businesses and households as we look ahead. We will kick-start the recovery, and we will rebuild the economy on a sustainable path for the long term.




Question No. 2—Prime Minister
2. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government's statements and actions?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, particularly the Government's work to prevent and respond to COVID-19, whether it's the work that Minister Little is doing, for instance, on issues around commercial lease arrangements, or our announcement today from Minister Faafoi which saw a $15 million investment in rural network capacity that will help lift the development and wellbeing of isolated communities as New Zealand's economy begins its recovery from COVID-19. As I said yesterday, we need to continue our collective approach in all areas to make sure we stay safe and we save lives, but also livelihoods.
Hon Simon Bridges: Will we come out of level 3 in a fortnight so tens of thousands more New Zealanders can get working again?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I can assure the member I am as eager as he is to see us return to normality as soon as possible. But what I'm also eager to do is make sure that we do not come out and then find ourselves yo-yoing back into restrictive measures at levels 3 and 4 again. That would be damaging for New Zealand's economy; it would be damaging for New Zealand's health. What we want to do is be considered, be clear, and be confident. No one wants a second wave.
Hon Simon Bridges: Why is it that so many tens of thousands of workers can't work under level 3 when they can demonstrate that they can do it safely?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: What we had to, of course, consider—with the advice that we received from the Ministry of Health, from epidemiologists, from the technical advisory group—were measures that would make sure that in the short space of time we're in this waiting recovery room, we can assess whether or not we've stamped out all of the embers of COVID-19. Now, until we have that assurance, we have to make sure we still limit people's contact as much as possible. We found balance. We wanted people to engage in retail, so we've asked that people do it without contact with each other, because if we find those embers of COVID are still present, the last thing we would want is for someone, for instance, to have gone back into opening up their shop, have had hundreds of customers coming through and contact with them, and then we have an exponential spread of COVID once more.
Hon Simon Bridges: Does she think the 7,000 Kiwis going on job seeker support—or the dole—a week has peaked yet?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I'm loath to make any predictions over what will happen with those accessing our benefit system presently. What I will say is that we have been very focused on trying to prevent that. The wage subsidy, which has cost, collectively, over $10 billion to date, has kept over a million Kiwis connected to their employer and to their work, and that is our goal. With those who are coming on to job seeker support, you will have seen yesterday the Minister for Social Development launching an initiative focused on connecting employers and a potential workforce to try and get them into work as soon as possible. Despite the COVID environment, we still have job vacancies. In fact, I shared the example yesterday of those who have come from tourism moving into food production and processing. We now have some industries that previously relied on migrant labour with a much higher rate of domestic labour in those jobs. We need to keep up that job placement, and that is what we're focused on.
Hon Simon Bridges: What does she estimate new unemployment growth weekly will peak at, and when?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We have no such estimates. What we have had is Treasury running a range of scenarios, and this wasn't specific to the drawing down of job seeker, but their scenarios talked about levels of unemployment. They range anywhere between 8.5 percent and well over that. That was the lowest rate they predicted. But, of course, all of that is variable depending on how long we'll stay in restricted measures and also how much investment the Government makes. And that is why we have invested.
Hon Simon Bridges: What, then, do those scenarios tell us about what unemployment will hit when the 12-week wage subsidy ends?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Actually, what it tells us is that we would do well to focus on getting out and staying out of restrictive measures, because that's one of the significant variables. The second is the amount of investment coming in from Government, but I wouldn't limit that just to a wage subsidy. I think what we're all aware of is making sure that, yes, we keep people connected to their employer and to work, but also there will be some sectors that are gravely affected on an ongoing basis, so we will need ongoing, specific, and specially designed responses for those scenarios.
Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept that by staying at level 3 without the provision of more business support than is currently being provided, many tens of thousands more businesses than would otherwise be the case will go out of business, resulting in tens of thousands more on job seeker support?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As the member I'm sure will agree, we have acted quickly in being responsive to what we are seeing and hearing in real time from our small businesses in particular, but also the business community. And that is why, of course, we moved so quickly on the wage subsidy. It's why we've moved quickly on the two tax packages we've already put in place, which are multi-billion dollar packages. And it's also why even, for instance, today we've announced, even before final decisions have been made, Cabinet's intention to work up further options to embed our view that the burden for those in commercial leases needs to be, as much as possible, more evenly shared, and that's something that Minister Little is working on. And we've flagged that even before that work has concluded.
Hon Simon Bridges: Isn't it better to keep a business in business and its workers in work with Government business support now than to see the business go to the wall and the workers go on the dole and Government trying after the event to come up with new jobs?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That's exactly why we have the wage subsidy.
Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept we've had one of the strictest lockdowns, on the one hand, in the world but the lowest levels of Government business support, again, in the world, and what is she going to do about that?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No.
Hon Simon Bridges: Why isn't the Government providing more business support now, whether for rents or rates or other business costs?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I wouldn't trivialise the over $10 billion that has already gone into the wage subsidy. I equally wouldn't trivialise the support and guarantee that we've provided through the business finance guarantee. I also point to the significant support provided through the two business tax packages—in total, over $5 billion worth of investment and support provided through those. And as I've already said, we continue to work to be as responsive as we can to the different needs we're seeing arise, and that includes the forward signalling I've given today on the extra work we're doing on commercial leases.
Hon Simon Bridges: Does she understand that waiting until Budget 2020 on 14 May will be too late for many tens of thousands of businesses and many tens of thousands of workers?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I notice the member in the House referring to Budget 2020 as a milestone for business support. I would like to correct him, based on the evidence that we have rolled out packages all the way through to respond to need. It hasn't been a matter of waiting for Budget 2020; we will continue to announce initiatives to support businesses now.
Hon Simon Bridges: Only because we're pushing you to.
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: And regardless of what the member may believe, we're doing it based on what we hear, what we see, and what we know.




Question No. 3—Finance
3. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Rt Hon Winston Peters' statement yesterday, "All the rules on fiscal prudence are now obsolete"?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I agree that in the face of a one-in-100-year shock, every country around the world has to reassess its fiscal rules. Our Budget Responsibility Rules foreshadowed this by saying that the rules would be met other than in the circumstance of a major global economic shock, which is clearly now occurring. The spending we have undertaken so far has been to support households and businesses through the shock, and we will continue to do that in a compassionate and responsible manner. 
Hon Paul Goldsmith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I don't think he—did he actually answer the question?
SPEAKER: He certainly did. 
Hon Paul Goldsmith: OK, all right.
SPEAKER: He probably answered it and then said far too much afterwards.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think this basic rule still applies—that money borrowed must eventually be paid back?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Obviously, when the Government borrows money it's fully aware of the fact of what might need to happen at the other end, and traditionally, over the last few Governments, New Zealanders have done reasonably well in paying down the debt that has been built up in previous times. I would caution the member on going down this particular path of questioning, given the everyday occurrence of his party requesting that more money be spent. We are spending money in a compassionate and responsible way.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think New Zealanders would be happy at the thought of Shane Jones operating without the rules of fiscal prudence operating?
SPEAKER: Order! Order! That's not an area the member has responsibility for.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Minister of Finance received any submissions or representation from any finance spokesman around the world, let alone New Zealand, who doesn't understand that statement—that the rules of fiscal prudence under COVID-19, and for the first time in a century, are now obsolete?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It would be clear from the comments of Treasurers, Ministers of Finance, central banks, commentators like the Financial Times—not exactly harbingers of the socialist order—who are all saying that now is a one-in-100-year shock. It requires all Governments around the world to reassess their rules. In New Zealand, we are making sure that we spend compassionately and responsibly.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he agree with the principle that money spent on poor-quality projects or programmes is money that can't be spent on useful programmes or projects, or money that doesn't need to be added to the national debt?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In general, yes I do, and I recall the flag referendum in that regard.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: How much money has been spent on the COVID response so far—that is, money out the door as opposed to money announced?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Twenty-two billion dollars' worth has been announced. Of that, we know that around $10.6 billion has gone out in the wage subsidy scheme. We also know that the money that was devoted to the increase in our benefits has gone out the door. I'm very pleased to announce that on 1 May, on Friday, the doubling of the winter energy payment will commence.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he agree with Winston Peters that it makes sense to manufacture products in New Zealand if they could be made within 50 percent of the international price?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I do believe—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If a member, in a question, seeks to use a quote, then he should be required to use it accurately. I never said 50 percent; I used Business and Economic Research Ltd's figure of 15—one-five—percent.
SPEAKER: Right, OK. I think the question, as adjusted by the right honourable gentlemen, is now clear. The Minister of Finance can now answer it.
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I think it's incredibly important for New Zealand, in the face of this significant shock, to take stock of what we do and what we make in our country. We need to make sure as a country that we continue to trade and get the lift in living standards that comes from that. Any Government that does not take into account the significant disruption when it comes to what we manufacture in New Zealand would not be doing its job properly.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why would we shift New Zealanders away from industries where we are international leaders to industries where we can't compete?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I don't believe that's the intention of the Government in any way, shape, or form.




Question No. 4—Education
4. KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What steps has the Government taken to ensure children and young people in early childhood education and schools can continue to learn from home while COVID-19 containment and elimination measures remain in place?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I'm very pleased to say that the education sector has been rising to the challenge of COVID-19. The Ministry of Education worked with schools and early learning services to quickly assess the need for additional technological support, including additional modems, internet connections, and devices. The Ministry of Education ordered routers, modems, and devices, in so far as the market is able to deliver them—we do have a supply constraint there. We've worked with telecommunications providers to remove data caps for up to six months so that households can access the broadband connectivity to stream content. As of Friday, 24 April, we have sent out 170,000 hard packs of materials—that's printed materials and other equipment students need to learn from home—and, of course, we have got two learn-from-home TV channels up and running, one in English and one in Te Reo Māori.
Kieran McAnulty: How many devices, modems, and hard packs has the Government delivered to New Zealand homes to date while in level 4 and now level 3?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Around 149,500 of the hard packs of materials were distributed during the level 4 lockdown. Further distribution has continued this week so that we're now up to that 170,000-plus figure. Overall, 10,900 packs have been distributed to early learning and 120,000 packs for students studying in years 1 to 10. We have 6,391 packs so far distributed to those studying for NCEA—that number is the one that has taken the longest to grow, and it is now increasing much more rapidly. Around 32,500 of the packs that have been sent out are in Māori language, Māori medium. And in terms of devices, 5,338 devices have been distributed by the Ministry of Education—that's on top of the roughly 12,000 devices that have been distributed by schools—7,595 modems have been distributed, and our efforts to get that technology out to people continue.
Kieran McAnulty: How many people have tuned into the Home Learning Television channels?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It'd be fair to say that I've been heartened by the number of people who have been watching the home learning channel. It's good to see familiar faces—Suzy Cato, Jason Gunn, Michelle Dickinson, among others—fronting TV shows.
Hon Member: Bring back Jacqui!
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Ha, ha! No, there are no plans to bring back Play School.
SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Bring back Ms Dean.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I am pleased to say that last Thursday—so, overall, we've had about a million people tuning into the learning from home TV channels. Last Thursday, we had 150,000 New Zealand viewers tune into the TVNZ home learning channel, but a further 7,000 watched it via live stream, and, of course, more people are also watching it using the on-demand platforms.
Kieran McAnulty: What support is being provided to assist schools to set up and make the best use of distance learning?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It is an enormous challenge to get the entire education system working on a distance learning platform in such a short space of time. Around 800, or around a third, of schools and kura have been accessing professional learning and development for online learning so that they can sharpen up their skills around that. We've established the connected learning service, which has got a help desk and also provides additional support to teachers as they set themselves up for online learning, and alongside this we're supporting teachers with online learning resources, and advice is being made available in both English medium and Māori medium learning from home websites.




Question No. 5—Health
5. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Health: What percentage of COVID-19 close contacts identified between 18 April and 24 April were successfully contacted, and how many of those contacts were made within three days?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): The latest national data available for cases notified is to the period 18 to 20 April. For this period, 100 percent of close contacts were followed up within three days. National data collected from all public health units requires manual collation from a number of sources. Therefore, there is a time lag between activity and reporting. The close-contact data for probable and confirmed cases notified 21 to 27 April will be available in coming days.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: If the gold standard for close contacts is so important, why is it not possible for the Minister of Health to advise this House of more recent data on performance?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I would note that the 100 percent record is quite impressive. The data that we are getting through shows that the primary healthcare follow-up from the public health units is indeed meeting the standards that we would hope to be gold standard treatment. The challenge that we have currently is that people are not necessarily coming forward soon enough for testing once they have symptoms, and so I would encourage the public to come forward and get tested, because that is so important to our COVID effort.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: When he said that 100 percent of close contacts between 18 and 20 April were followed up, does "followed up" mean successfully contacted?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: That is what I have been advised by the Ministry of Health.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Have the situation reports from the Ministry of Health to him, that have been released to my office, had information removed from them prior to release?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Not that I'm aware of. I would assume that—
Hon Member: Do you mean the SITREP?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: If the member's talking about the situation reports, they go out quite widely. Unless there was commercial information or any other very specific reason, I would expect that the member would receive those reports in their entirety.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Why, then, do those situation reports not contain the very information that he claims is so important to continue suppression of the virus?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I think the member's aware that, historically, that information was not centrally collected. We as a Government have put in place a system that no Government before has put in place. We have gone from a situation where there was only local-level activity to one where the Government has put $70 million into public health and contact tracing. We've seen the National Close Contact Service established, with a staff of more than 200, a new national IT solution set up, and we're adding surge response to increase staffing in our public health units by up to 300 fulltime-equivalent staff. That represents a huge scaling up of our public health capacity, and I want to thank all of those working at the front line for making this possible.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: In respect of that IT solution, can he confirm that all 12 public health units are using the national electronic platform for contact tracing?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I can confirm that the intention is for all of them to use it; I can find out for the member whether they are all on the system. If he wants to put a question down in writing, I can get back to him on that.




Question No. 6—Education
6. Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Education: Is he confident that schools and early childcare education providers have adequate support to ensure they are safe and feel supported to address the impact of COVID-19?
SPEAKER: Well, it's not quite what the question said, but all right. Away we go.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Yes, although as with any system that has been implemented rapidly and at large scale, there's always room for improvement, and we continue to identify improvements and make them where we can. The Ministry of Education has been sending out nearly daily special bulletins to early childhood education providers, home-based providers, and schools and staff, with supporting guidance and information to help them reopen and put in place public health measures. We know that some early childhood services wish to change their operating hours during level 3, depending on the needs of their community. We also know that some have decided not to open for physical attendance for a variety of different reasons. The Government understands and has taken a very compassionate approach, which will not affect their education funding during this time.
Hon Nikki Kaye: So does he accept that there is a proportion of early learning centres—but also, potentially, schools—that have low attendance because they have some unanswered questions around safety?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Government's guidance has been very clear that the people who should be making decisions about whether children are attending school or early learning services are their parents.
Hon Nikki Kaye: What does he see are the criteria for full nationwide opening of schools and ECE, and does he believe that parents and educators should know before 11 May?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Broad guidance for the shift from alert level 3 to alert level 2, when that should happen, has already been published, and work is under way now with sector leaders to provide further detail on the shift from level 3 to level 2, as we did when we shifted from level 4 to level 3. We'll continue to refine those guidelines based on the feedback that we get from people working in the sector. We'll continue to run through that same process for an eventual shift from level 2 to level 1.
Hon Nikki Kaye: In light of his answer yesterday that questions about the analysis of schools impacted by COVID-19 incidents should be directed to the Minister of Health, can he confirm that he's had no briefings or asked any questions on these schools?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I listened to the answer delivered on my behalf yesterday, and I don't believe that's an accurate reflection of what the Associate Minister said on my behalf. I believe the member's question referred specifically to a case relating to a school and the public health contact tracing measures that were put in place, and that is appropriately a question for public health officials. Both myself and the Ministry of Education have been keeping in contact with public health officials to ensure that the guidance that we're supplying to schools and early learning services is based on the very best information possible.
Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: Can he confirm that the Director-General of Health today spoke publicly about the Ministry of Health's intention to look more closely and undertake some research and analysis around the Marist cluster specifically, given that one of the more recent confirmed cases was actually someone who has exhibited the symptoms of COVID-19 for a long period of time, and that will teach us something about transmission between teachers, young people, and staff, and will be used as the basis of evidence and a body of information for the ministry?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, I can confirm that. One of the clear pieces of guidance that has been supplied to the education sector already is that anybody exhibiting any symptoms at all should stay home and should get tested. One of the issues here was that people who exhibited mild symptoms didn't necessarily follow that guidance, and, therefore, that particular cluster has dragged on longer than it might otherwise have.
Hon Nikki Kaye: With regard to the Prime Minister's statements, does he accept the criticism that, potentially, the Government has been slow on the analysis of those schools that had COVID-19 incidents?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No.




Question No. 7—Regional Economic Development
7. Hon TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: What role is the Provincial Growth Fund intended to play in the Government's economic response to COVID-19?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Minister for Regional Economic Development: On behalf of the Minister, if there's any good in a crisis, it's that it shines a light on what is a good idea or not, and COVID-19 has demonstrated that the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF), with its attempt to build and expand infrastructure, to expand development, and to create real jobs and real wealth in exports, has been confirmed as a brilliant idea. Now, the Provincial Growth Fund's success so far, with over 470 projects across our regions supported—
Hon Jacqui Dean: Not for South Canterbury or Central Otago.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —including in the electorate of the member screaming out there, wantonly not knowing what's going on in her own electorate. Our regions being supported means our regions are now better placed to deal with economic adversity such as our nation currently faces. And can I also say the brilliance of this idea is confirmed by the number of people from the National Party barging their way to be represented at every announcement, in terms of electorate constituencies, whilst coming down here and pouring cold water on that brilliance.
Hon Tracey Martin: Will the Provincial Growth Fund be engaging with the regions about the repurposing of the fund and those regions' post-COVID-19 priorities?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: A brilliant question. On behalf of the Minister, most certainly. Top-down, Wellington-led processes have never served the regions well. The PGF has always prioritised engaging with those in the regions—
Hon Paul Goldsmith: It's come from the top.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —as they know best what makes this economy tick, not people from Epsom who never ran a business in their life—have never even run the school tuckshop and then front here as some sort of economic expert. How paradoxically stupid is that? There will need to be tough decisions made in the new reality we're faced with, which means that some projects are no longer viable, particularly in areas such as tourism, but these decisions will be made together with those affected, not dictated by some distant bureaucracy or some outdated neoliberal stupidity.
Hon Tracey Martin: How has the Provincial Growth Fund supported regions to deal with crises like COVID-19?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Through the establishment of the PGF, there is now the framework and relationships in place for central government and the regions to work together to boost prosperity. The PGF has also provided the impetus for those in our regions to cooperate—
Hon Paul Goldsmith: How many jobs?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: And the member says "What bull." I'm asking him to find one district councillor, one mayor in any part of the provinces of this country, that's not supporting the fund. That's my evidence, not somebody parked up in Epsom who knows nothing about business and never will because he's never been engaged in business. [Interruption] Yeah, both of those members have a similarity: they're cloned in terms of their inexperience. I want to say the PGF has provided the impetus for those in our regions to collaborate, identify obstacles to greater productivity, and in doing so improve the lives of their people. And can I say something: out there in the provinces, there are people who've got hope for the first time because they know that their place in our society is as important as in central Wellington or in central Auckland, or, dare I say it, in Epsom, which exports very little and relies on the rest of the provinces to keep them alive.
Hon Tracey Martin: What can New Zealanders do to help the regions as we begin the post-COVID-19 recovery?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Minister, our regions have fantastic people, products, and services.
Hon Simon Bridges: Name five.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Name five? Well, Southland, for example, has about—
Hon Simon Bridges: That's not a person.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Excuse me. Five people?
Hon Simon Bridges: I want names.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, I thought you wanted to know five provinces.
SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. It has got to the point of getting a bit noisy and a bit silly. I think the Minister acting for the Minister for Regional Economic Development was accurately answering an interjection, and it gets a bit unreasonable when he's then screamed down for doing it. So if people don't want their interjections answered, then they shouldn't make them.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Our regions have fantastic people, products, and services. Right now, we can only access those in a limited way due to the lockdown, but it's great to see people taking the initiative during this time to highlight high quality New Zealand - made products on social media. And, dare I say it, out in the provinces, when you've got a close down, for example, in tourism, there are alternative employment streams beginning to open—
Hon Simon Bridges: Winston's larder.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —and we are super supporting those. The difference, Mr Bridges, is of course there are members of the National Party who every day get up in the morning and say, "Thank God for New Zealand First and the Provincial Growth Fund."—
Hon Simon Bridges: Name five.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —because they're getting nothing from the National Party at this point in time. Five? I can name half the caucus.




Question No. 8—Health
8. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements and actions regarding the coronavirus outbreak? 
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): In their full context, yes, except for those actions taken in a personal capacity for which I have already apologised to New Zealanders. In particular, I stand by the decision to go hard and go early to combat COVID-19, which, thanks to the support and sacrifice of New Zealanders, has seen us manage to stop community transmission and eliminate the unknown spread of the virus for now. 
Dr Shane Reti: Does he stand by his statement that the coronavirus response has been textbook, given the Epidemic Response Committee heard from community in-home providers that vulnerable people have refused care because the provider did not have personal protective equipment (PPE)? 
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I would say that we have moved to nationalise the distribution of PPE. Previously, that was provided by the private providers that did this service. They were responsible for their own health and safety plans and for securing their own PPE. When this became a challenge, the Government has moved to set up a national distribution service, which is new, and I have requested a rapid stocktake to ensure that that PPE is getting to where it needs to go. 
Dr Shane Reti: Prior to the national distribution service, was PPE management textbook? 
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I think it's very evident to people that while, by and large, things have worked as they have intended to the whole way through, setting up a new system—if you read any textbook—is liable to have a few challenges in it, and we have heard, certainly, anecdotes of PPE in the early stages not getting to where it needed to go. That's why I'm seeking the reassurance, since we have stepped in, to make sure that the system is working as it should. 
Dr Shane Reti: Can GPs expect any further financial support from the Government, and, if so, what date can they expect to receive this? 
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: What I can tell the member is that the Government has already put $45 million into primary care as a part of our COVID response. Health officials are continuing to look at what further support might be appropriate to assist health and disability providers to meet the costs of preparing for COVID-19. 
Dr Shane Reti: On what infectious—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order! The pair of you. Start again, Dr Reti. 
Dr Shane Reti: On what infectious disease basis were cruise ship passengers, who disembarked after self-isolation was compulsory at airports, allowed to disembark at ports such as Auckland without self-isolation—on what infectious disease basis? 
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: If the member has specific examples that he wishes to bring to me, I will happily consider them. I suspect he's referring to the earlier stages of the pandemic response. I think what we've seen with everybody in their bubbles over the recent period is that we now have the transmission rate of the virus down to below half a person per case. It has been a very successful response. I'm very happy to answer specific questions from the member if he wants to put them in writing. 




Question No. 9—Small Business
9. Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) to the Minister for Small Business: What official estimates has he received, if any, of small-business failure as a result of the level 3 and 4 restrictions?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister for Small Business: On behalf of the Minister, I refer the honourable member to my answer to the primary question yesterday, the same question. This answer has been reconfirmed with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment today.
Hon Todd McClay: Does he stand by the statement of the Minister of Finance to the Epidemic Response Committee on 1 April that "Wages are the biggest expense that most businesses have, but second only to that is rent … We're working with the small-business sector on the shape of a package to deal with that," and if so, why are small businesses and landlords still waiting for Government support more than four weeks later?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I always agree with the Minister of Finance; I find that to be a particularly important part of my role! Following on from that statement, there was an announcement of a package of initiatives, including the $3.1 billion loss carry-back scheme. As to the second part of that statement, yes, indeed, we do continue to work with small businesses on what other support we can provide.
Hon Todd McClay: Thank you. Does he agree with the Rotorua small-business owner Reg Hennessy who said yesterday in the committee, "We are all in this together. It doesn't matter whether as landlords or us as business operators. We need something to work for both the landlord and the tenant together.", and if so, when will the Government do something to fix the growing commercial rent problem faced by small businesses and landlords?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As the Prime Minister said earlier today, and Mr Little said in the House yesterday, that work is actively under way.
Hon Todd McClay: Does he accept that many more small businesses will fall over if the Government fails to announce a substantial commercial rent and cash-flow relief package soon?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We're working every single day with small businesses and their representatives to ensure that as many of them as possible are able to continue to operate. I absolutely recognise that for those small and medium enterprises who haven't been able to open back up under level 3, there is a significant amount of stress and concern. That's why we put in place the initiatives we have, in particular the 12-week wage subsidy scheme, that was paid upfront to allow businesses to be able to take some time to plan. And, as I've said in all of my answers on the question today and yesterday, we continue to work with small businesses on what other support we can provide.
Hon Todd McClay: Why has the Government given $50 million in addition to the wage subsidy in relief for the media but not delivered any specific direct financial assistance for small businesses or landlords?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The support package announced by Minister Faafoi for the media was an important element in making sure we continue to have a range of voices within our media. I think the member would recognise that that's important for our democracy to have those voices available. It's not mutually exclusive. In the meantime, there have been significant packages announced that benefit small businesses.




Question No. 10—Health
10. GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister of Health: How has New Zealand ramped up its testing for COVID-19, and what is the current daily capacity?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Testing is one of the key health measures we can take to stamp out COVID-19. New Zealand began testing on 31 January and has steadily increased capacity ever since. We've now 12 labs conducting tests and have completed more than 128,000 tests. Our daily testing capacity stands at more than 8,400. New Zealand has developed a world-class testing regime, and I encourage anyone who has COVID-19 symptoms to seek medical advice and get tested.
Greg O'Connor: What progress has been made in testing for Māori and Pasifika people for COVID-19?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: It's important that we test as broadly as possible. We want to see testing in all communities and across all ethnic groups. The most recent data I have available shows that Māori make up 16.1 percent of those tested. For Pacific peoples, the number is 8.2 percent. Those numbers are important and encouraging because we know that Māori and Pacific people have some of the poorest health outcomes in New Zealand.
Greg O'Connor: How does New Zealand's rate of testing compare internationally?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: New Zealand has now tested 23 people per thousand of population. That puts us comfortably in the top ranks internationally. For example, I'm advised that in the UK, seven people per 1,000 have been tested. In South Korea, that number is 11, and it is 14 in Singapore. Germany, which has been widely praised for its testing, has tested 25 people per thousand. The volume of tests being conducted in New Zealand and the low rate of positive results shows our approach to COVID-19 is working, and we need to hold the course.




Question No. 11—Transport
11. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of Transport: Can he confirm the reported statement he made to Sounds Air Managing Director, Andrew Crawford, on 18 March that "We're not going to let you guys down, we're going to support the rural networks, you're a key part of the infrastructure of this country", and if yes, what has he done to deliver on these commitments?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education) on behalf of the Minister of Transport: On behalf of the Minister of Transport, yes, and as part of our $600 million aviation support package, the Government's already provided support to airlines to fund air freight on the rural networks, including Air Chathams, Barrier Air, Fly My Sky, Island Air Charters, and Air Napier. While these measures directly support airlines, remote communities, and exporters, we've also stepped in to fund things like air traffic control and security screening, things the aviation industry would normally pay for themselves. We've also halted any increases to fees. The Ministry of Transport is continuing to work with Sounds Air about what a package would look like for them.
Stuart Smith: Why has there been no progress and minimal discussion with Sounds Air over the six weeks since he made that statement of support?
SPEAKER: I'm going to ask the member to rephrase it to take the assertion out.
Stuart Smith: Why has there been no progress and minimal discussion with Sounds Air over the six weeks since he had assured support for Sounds Air?
SPEAKER: OK, well, I'll add a "reported" in there, and then it's probably OK.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I disagree with the assertion in the member's question. I can say that the ministry met with Sounds Air on 24 March. Sounds Air provided the ministry further information in the middle of April. The ministry requested further information from them. They had a further discussion with Sounds Air on 20 April; further information was provided by Sounds Air from that date. On 23 April, Sounds Air supplied more information to the ministry. The ministry met with them on 23 April, and they've had further contact on 28 April.
Stuart Smith: Is it fair for the Government to provide $900 million of financial support for Air New Zealand within one week but to leave regional airlines like Sounds Air teetering on the brink of receivership?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I reject the premise in the member's question. Sounds Air have already benefited from the wage subsidy, as many other businesses up and down the country have benefited from that, and discussions between Sounds Air and the ministry are continuing around what an additional support package for them might look like.
Stuart Smith: Will the Minister guarantee continuity of air services to the capital for the communities solely dependent on Sounds Air—for Blenheim, Taupō, Picton, and Westport?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I can guarantee them that the ministry will continue to talk with Sounds Air around what a support package for them will look like.
SPEAKER: I'm just going to look at—Ms Kuriger, I thought your questions are finished. Do you agree with me?
Barbara Kuriger: Was that four?
SPEAKER: Yep, OK.




Question No. 12—Commerce and Consumer Affairs
12. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What changes to commerce regulation has the Government made in response to COVID-19?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Our Government recognises the severe impact of COVID-19 on businesses and consumers, and we've moved quickly to ensure that regulation can support both the response and recovery. In particular, we've provided a temporary exemption from parts of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act to support the bank mortgage deferral scheme, which will give consumers and businesses much-needed flexibility with their mortgages. We've also issued a Government policy statement on essential goods and services to enable businesses to work collaboratively, to maintain confidence in supply chains to get household supplies to consumers during the COVID-19 lockdown. We've also pushed out the implementation of new regulations to give businesses and institutions more time to both respond to the effects of COVID and adjust to new regimes. And we're also making changes to the Companies Act and other corporate governance legislation to provide relief for businesses from potential insolvency and some reporting requirements. All of these measures are designed to help businesses facing difficulties due to COVID-19 to remain viable and to keep New Zealanders in jobs.
Kiritapu Allan: How is the Government supporting companies that are facing insolvency because of COVID-19?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: We are implementing a number of measures, and these include giving directors of companies facing significant liquidity problems because of COVID-19 a temporary safe harbour from insolvency duties under the Companies Act. We're enabling businesses affected by COVID-19 to place existing debts into hibernation until they're able to start trading normally again. We're also giving the Registrar of Companies the power to temporarily extend deadlines imposed on companies, incorporated societies, charitable trusts, and other entities under legislation, and we're also giving temporary relief for entities that are unable to comply with the requirements of their constitutions or rules because of COVID-19.
Kiritapu Allan: Why did the Government issue a policy statement on commercial cooperation during COVID-19?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Level 4 required flexibility in how businesses worked together, shared resources, or took cooperative measures with other businesses under level 4. The policy statement was issued to make sure businesses can work together in ways that allow them to provide things like food and other grocery products and other essential goods and services that New Zealanders needed, in a fair and equitable way. The Government recognised that going into alert level 4 was not the time for strict competition rules to get in the way of the common good of making sure New Zealanders got access to essential items that they needed. We also made it clear that this did not mean that COVID-19 could be used as an excuse for non-essential collaboration or anti-competitive business practices such as price fixing.
Kiritapu Allan: And what other changes has the Government made to protect business and consumers during COVID-19?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: We were aware that in a minority of cases, some retailers or businesses were taking advantage of COVID-19 to inflate the prices they were charging for essential goods. That is why we set up the  email address: to give people a simple and effective tool to report any instances of price gouging. This tool proved highly successful, with over 3,500 emails being received and investigated by officials. In many cases, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment officials contacted retailers directly, and many of those cases resulted in prices being lowered. When genuine instances of price gouging are identified, referrals will be made to the Commerce Commission to deal with under the Fair Trading Act.
 





SPEAKER'S RULINGS
Seating Changes—Request to Use Disinfectant
SPEAKER: Before I call order of the day No. 1, I just want to say that I have noticed while I've been sitting here there's been some changing of seats between members, which, of course, is allowed, but members were requested, if that did occur, to always disinfect the surfaces as they shift. I've noticed it's happened on both sides today.
There's a real danger with this place that it could become a hot spot and a vector for COVID-19 to get around the country. So I would like people to comply with the written request that they've received. I'll say that I've looked in two directions, and I'd ask those members to do it.





Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Perhaps you might consider locating more of the disinfectant materials around the Chamber. 
SPEAKER: Sure.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I think there are three stations in the Chamber.
SPEAKER: I'll be happy to replace the one that was behind the Leader of the Opposition and taken away by his members yesterday.
Hon Members: It's still there.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh, it's still here. Sorry—I hadn't seen it there. So there's four—that's right—except that—
SPEAKER: There's one in each quadrant.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Yes, I know, but it requires significant movement, which I'm sure you'd be upset about. And quite often—
SPEAKER: I'm very happy to—
Hon Gerry Brownlee: —the proximity is closer than a metre.
SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. I will be happy to double the numbers in order to save the members moving 3 or 4 metres.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is a completely disingenuous comment from you and quite unnecessary. The reality is that we are seeing people wandering in this Chamber in a closer proximity than 2 metres of the other. The most senior member in the Chamber left today and had a conversation within about a metre of another person inside the Chamber. Similarly, when the second most senior member left the Chamber, a similar exchange occurred. Now, either we're doing it properly or not at all. And having more opportunity to wipe down—
SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. We've had enough. We're not going to have an inquiry into it, and the second most senior member in the Chamber hasn't left yet.





ANNUAL REVIEW DEBATE
In Committee
Debate resumed from 28 April on the Appropriation (2018/19 Confirmation and Validation) Bill.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): The House is in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2018/19 Confirmation and Validation) Bill. All annual reviews are available for debate, but only specific Ministers will be available each day to respond. The Government has indicated that the Minister for Social Development—who I see is in the Chamber—and the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety will be available today. The time remaining in this debate is three hours and 19 minutes. Kiritapu Allan moved that progress be reported, and the call is now available to her if she so wishes. 





Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Madam Chair, I won't speak for long today in order to ensure that there is time for robust discussion. However, I do want to give a brief statement to acknowledge what has happened in the last year in the social development space, and, in particular, the support that has been provided to New Zealanders in response to the unprecedented impacts of COVID-19.
As I'm sure you would all agree, the team at the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) and all of our NGOs have gone above and beyond in the time of crisis. I want to acknowledge Debbie Power, the chief executive of MSD, all the MSD staff, our essential social services, and our community groups who are all working to ensure New Zealanders are getting the support they need during the lockdown period.
I'd also like to extend my thanks to my colleagues the Hon Grant Robertson, the Hon Stuart Nash, the Hon Phil Twyford, and the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway for their support in the design and implementation of the wage subsidy and leave payment schemes, as well as staff at Inland Revenue, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and Treasury. 
It's been a big year for our welfare system so far, and because of some of the changes we have already started making, our system is fairer and more accessible for the New Zealanders in need of support. Budget 2019 saw an investment in 263 additional employment-focused front-line staff and invested in programmes that support people into work, upskilling, and training. As you will have seen in the select committee report in the 2018/19 financial year, MSD had nearly 25,000 people in employment programmes. For the first time in our history, we have now indexed main benefits to average wage increases. We repealed section 192 of the Social Security Act 2018, or what was formerly section 70A, which reduces a client's benefit if they do not name the other parent of their child and increased main benefit abatement thresholds to match increases in the minimum wage over the next four years to enable people to earn more before their benefit is reduced.
Building on this, we have continued to improve support through our welfare system in response to the impacts of COVID-19. We removed stand-down periods to ensure people out of work could access support as soon as possible. As part of our $12.1 billion phase one economic stimulus package, we invested main benefits by $25 and will be doubling our winter energy payment for 2020. This package was about protecting New Zealanders' health, protecting the vulnerable, protecting livelihoods, and ensuring the quickest recovery possible on all fronts.
Last year, MSD worked with approximately 1.25 million people. These are a huge range of New Zealanders, including disabled people, those with health conditions, those who are out of work, older New Zealanders, sole parents, students, and low-income working families. We know that this year MSD will be working with even more people. Over the last week, to Friday 17 April, 7,600 more people have signed up for our jobseeker support. The increase in benefit numbers that we are seeing was expected. It's a global phenomenon. We're already seeing dramatic increases in unemployment in countries around the world, countries like Australia, the UK, and the USA.
One of the most important schemes we as a Government put in place was the wage subsidy. This has supported around 1.7 million New Zealanders. The wage subsidy has enabled New Zealanders to stay connected with their employer during this difficult economic time, helped businesses survive through the lockdown and beyond, and ensured families still have a similar level, or a level, of income. We've also already been helping New Zealanders back into work. Before New Zealanders went into level 4 alert, the Government worked quickly to stand up rapid response teams from MSD across the country to work in regions immediately affected, like Tai Rāwhiti. These teams have been helping to connect people out of work with employers in some of our most hard-hit sectors. In alert level 4, MSD's employment focus continued. MSD placed 6,648 clients into employment in March, and so far, despite it being a difficult month, this month MSD has placed 2,478 people into work.
Yesterday we announced a new suite of employment services to help New Zealanders with their job hunting. This includes a Keep New Zealand Working online recruitment tool that connects jobseekers directly to the employer—[Bell rung]
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Another call?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Yes please, Madam Chair—making it quicker and easier for people to find work, and 35 new employment centres across the country. MSD has gone to great lengths to also adapt its core services to ensure it continues to be responsive to people across COVID alert levels. They have streamlined benefit application processes so people could apply and be approved online or over the phone, and continued to redeploy people into work where possible. Since 18 March an additional 279 front-line staff have been employed. 
We are at a place now where we have a welfare system that is ready to support New Zealanders impacted by COVID-19 and ensure those who are able can get back into employment. We are focused not only on providing support and financial assistance for those facing hardship during this time but also on re-engaging people with employment opportunities. So far we have been able to respond to the needs of New Zealanders by working hard and being adaptable, and we will continue to develop our medium- and long-term response with the same dedication and resilience to keep New Zealand working. Thank you, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Just for the benefit—before I call anyone—of those who weren't in the House yesterday: I am in the Chair, the Mace is down, and we have the Minister sitting in their own chair in order to maintain safe distances.





Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate the explanation. I think what it is also useful for, an explanation for those who are watching Parliament this afternoon, is this is a debate on the annual review of the entities, in this case on social development. It is to the financial year that ended 30 June 2019, so I will be focusing my comments on that. This is not a debate—for people watching—on the COVID-19 response, although I do want to just put on record my thanks and the thanks of the National Party MPs for the incredible work that the front-line Ministry of Social Development (MSD) staff have undertaken during this period of time.
But going back to the annual review, it is the year in review to 30 June 2019. This is the opportunity for the House to ask the Minister questions, ask the Minister—who would normally be sitting in a different location for this exercise—just to explain some of the performance of the entity and the performance of the Government in the year of review. So in order to provide some context, I just wanted to put some figures on the table. The figures have clearly changed since then and they have continued to get worse well ahead of COVID-19, so I just want to make sure that that context is set.
So this is looking at 30 June 2019. Some of the areas of questioning that the Opposition was deeply concerned about was the rise in the number of people on the jobseeker benefit. That is a concern because one of the things that we value is the opportunity for individuals to be in the driving seat of their own lives, and the full understanding that being in work, being in employment, provides them opportunities to lead their own lives. So we constantly heard the Government talk about the fact that the economic times are good. I'm pleased that the National Government provided that opportunity when they came into office. So then what's puzzling, and what we were trying to interrogate in the annual review, was why then there's been a significant number in jobseekers and an equal increasing number of those receiving hardship, both in terms of housing but more concerning in the area of food hardship, but I'll come to that in a later address.
I want to focus my first contribution here on jobseeker numbers. So 30 June they had gone up 13,000, nearly 14,000, which is an increase of 11.2 percent on the year before. That is a significant number. So that is 14,000 additional New Zealanders who were receiving the jobseeker benefit, or for those who are more familiar with what's previously been called the dole. It has meant that there was an increase in the proportion of the working-age population going on to the dole, and the concerning part about that is it's in the middle of strong economic times. And the Labour-led Government continues to talk about the fact that these were strong economic times, but, actually, in terms of unemployment data and the number on jobseeker benefits and the number receiving hardship grants, it doesn't stack up.
If we look, for example, at Northland, that was an area that I spent quite a lot of time in the last three years of the National Government looking in very deep ways about how we could lead place-based initiatives and allow local communities to drive their own solutions to local problems. Their unemployment rate was 8.7 percent. Unfortunately, now, nine months later, it's at 10 percent. So it's populations like that where there's a significant impact on the individuals, on their families, particularly their children, and I know the Prime Minister has talked about her commitment to lift the number of children out of poverty—60 percent of the children who live in material hardship come from benefit-dependent homes. So you cannot talk about lifting children out of poverty without having a focus on the number of children who live in benefit-dependent homes, and that's why, on this side of the House, we continue to be deeply concerned when people are out of work and when they are on the jobseeker benefit. As I said, these figures were from the last financial year, which was 30 June. So we're not talking about the current crisis.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I really do need to just say that I was given the advice that we were to cover off our COVID-19 response during this debate and that that was able to be included. That's the second time that that member has alleged that I have gone off script, and I don't believe that that's the case.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well, this is a wide-ranging debate. I don't really think there's a point of order here. We are actually in an annual review. It does look back and it does look forward, and the Business Committee have made it very clear to presiding officers that they are quite prepared for COVID-19 to be discussed, but that does not stop the normal process of an annual review debate, and that's exactly the speech that the member has just made. I would remind all members that this is to be an interactive debate, but I was just about to call the bell. Have you completed?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: No. Thank you, Madam Chair. The other thing I do want to put on record is that the Parliament isn't functioning in its normal capacity. We are at level 3. There is a restricted ability for the Parliament to scrutinise the annual reviews. The time allocated has been reduced by half. So, Madam Chair, and to those watching, I am very deliberate about focusing the efforts on the annual review—$30 billion is what's spent by MSD every year, and the Minister for Social Development doesn't seem to think that scrutiny of that amount of taxpayers' money is to be valued. So I will proceed. 
The other areas that I'm interested in responses from the Minister are around employment initiatives, and I'll just give two examples, one of which is the much lauded Mana in Mahi. The Prime Minister herself launched it, and, when she launched it, she referred to 4,000 places. It was interesting, in the annual review, though, we then found out that only 2,000 were funded. So the 4,000 quickly became 2,000, of which only a very small number of places had been filled. What's more concerning—and the bit that I want the Minister to answer—is what actions have been taken to ensure an initiative like this, which is about supporting young people into employment, is actually delivering. Unfortunately, what we saw, and what we saw back last year, was only a 65 percent retention rate. What we've seen since then—since the Minister wants to talk about more recent figures—is that, unfortunately, only one in four is now completing. This is an initiative that the Minister is lauding—or one of her ministerial colleagues is—in terms of the answer to getting thousands of New Zealanders back into jobs, because they have lost them already or they may lose them in the coming weeks. So if Mana in Mahi is the answer, I think that we should be concerned. 
It's our job as Opposition. We want to be constructive. We want to support the Government in ensuring there are more people who are connected to employment. So, Minister, when is the 4,000 promised going to be delivered? Are they being funded in the Budget? What is being done in terms of improving the retention rate? Why is it that so many are returning to benefit? Why is it that there are now 10,000 more young people under the age of 25 on jobseeker benefit than there were?
Hon Member: How many?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Over 10,000. That's young people under the age of 25. The evidence tells us—and I'm sure the Minister has read this research—the younger someone is when they go on benefit, the longer period they spend on benefit. If they go on a benefit under the age of 20, on average they will spend 14 years on a benefit.
One of the other elements, in terms of employment initiatives, is Work the Seasons. I've been in contact on multiple occasions with a private provider who does exactly those placements around Work the Seasons, and there has been an unsatisfactory answer in terms of the success of Work the Seasons, so I'm hoping the Minister will be able to answer questions around that, as well, to respond to how many jobs, how many placements have been successful, how long have people been in the employment, how many have come off jobseeker benefit into seasonal workplaces? Because, again, the $100 million that has been committed to as COVID-19 is all around a redeployment plan that's redeploying people into these seasonal jobs. I'm interested to know why 28 percent of that has gone into one electorate alone—not even a region. 
So there are a number of questions there that I am keen for the Minister to answer. I've got so much more to go, but I shall leave it for there and wait for some answers.





SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you, Madam Chair. We're doing, obviously, the annual review debate. As my colleague the Hon Louise Upston has mentioned, it is primarily looking back, but I'll signal to the Minister in the chair, the Minister for Social Development, that, a bit like herself touching on COVID, I want to look at the past in order to represent the current situation and then to look forward to how we might respond. Being an annual review, it's also thematic, so we're looking at the wider aspect of social development. I'm sure it's particularly good news to the Hon Kris Faafoi that I'm going to turn my attention to social housing and address the annual review of the Housing New Zealand Corporation and the annual review of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development.
But I want to put, if I might, on the record from the start the, if you will, sort of expected but unfortunate circumstance which the Parliament finds itself in at the moment in order to do this annual review—the fact that there are so few MPs here. I'm fortunate to be with excellent colleagues in the social development sector, like Louise Upston and Alfred Ngaro. But also—it's possibly a little bit presumptuous—the Minister herself who's in the chair doesn't have the usual officials here to support her. I raise that not as a particular reflection on the Minister or the Opposition but, actually—
Hon Chris Hipkins: It's all right; she's on top of the details.
SIMON O'CONNOR: —the usual procedures of the House. 
Hon Member: That'll be good. We'll wait for her answers then.
SIMON O'CONNOR: That's right, we've had a challenge that she's on top of the figures, which we'll see. Again, I don't want to make that too personal at the Minister; this is a wider point that it's hard to be a robust democratic Parliament. The fundamental problem we have is that any Parliament is here to authorise enormous spending, and there is no bigger spend than there is in the social development space.
I would argue, while we're reflecting on the last year where, I would suggest, the left-wing Government just throws lots of money around, and I would say, particularly in social housing, it hasn't achieved its goals. Things are about to get much, much worse post-COVID as our economy, effectively, collapses. I think the Leader of the Opposition summed it up well yesterday that as we flatten the health curve, we don't want to flatten the economy. I fear that we are already doing that, and as a consequence the social development spend is going to explode. In fact, it would be interesting if the Minister in the chair, as the first test, is able to give us some extrapolations, figures, numbers, or otherwise of what the next six months of social development spending is going to look like.
I want to primarily turn towards Housing New Zealand but interchange, if you will, between housing and urban development and Housing New Zealand. The context as we started the annual review is over 15,000 New Zealanders waiting for a State house. That's 15,000—that's three times the numbers—15,000: a huge number that's three times as much as when National left Government. I've been happily on the record saying that, you know, there was always more that previous Governments could do, but if you take that as given, I think it's important to do so. The now Government, who made a big, big issue at the time or in the times past of the crisis, have tripled it. Even as a, I don't know, lover of the English language, I'm not quite sure what the superlative of "crisis" is. So that's another question for the Minister: if 5,000 was a crisis under the National Government, how does she define 15,000 now?
When we begin to situate that in the COVID situation—and, again, it's only a guess; it's a speculation—I expect things are going to get much, much worse; substantially worse. I did challenge the various officials from the ministries at the time of how they were handling the current crisis of 15,000. If that number's going to go higher—I mean, again, it's a speculation; it could go up by 50 percent or 100 percent—how are they going to manage that? I think that's a fundamental question that we need to hear from the Minister.
We heard also a lot of talk—particularly in recent days, but it was coming up in the annual review—about the use of motels. In its short-term approach, it's probably not a bad idea. If someone has nowhere to live, if you are homeless, having any roof over your head is pragmatic. But during the annual review, we were raising with Housing New Zealand in particular, how do they provide the requisite supports that those people need. When I turn my mind to those who are homeless, and having worked with the homeless—granted more in Australia, ironically, than New Zealand—they come with very complex needs, so simply putting someone in a motel doesn't cut the mustard; they need a wide range of support. Importantly, too, we need some surety. In the reports that we got before the annual reviews, and anecdotally, it said that you weren't necessarily having the right combination of people in these motels—so, for example, a solo mum with her children next to someone who's just come out of—Madam Chair?
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Oh, I beg your pardon; I'll let you continue.
SIMON O'CONNOR: Oh, that's jolly decent of you. Thank you.
Hon Member: Very charitable!
SIMON O'CONNOR: Very charitable, that's right—"Be kind" I think was the advice we've all been given.
Mixing of people in these motels: as I say, a solo mum with children being put in next to someone in a motel who's been recently out of prison—both have equal needs, but do they need to be equally, if you will, in the same motel? So these were challenges that were being raised in the past, and I note them now because the Government has made a big announcement around 1,100, I think, now new hotel places for the homeless. As I posted on Facebook and elsewhere, I think it's important that we look after the homeless, and I think the Government on that is to be commended, but the questions now continue of how is that going to be managed? There's over $100,000 per person, effectively, allocated. We want the specifics—or I'd like the Minister to provide some specifics of what care is going to be given, because it hasn't been clear in the past.
I think we need some certainty, as well, as a House, and certainly as a general public, to understand how will people be chosen, if you will, or rightly allocated into motels so that they are safe and well looked after. And then, I think, most importantly, actually—and I raised this in the past and during the annual reviews as well—is how do we transition those people out? Homelessness, living under a bridge or on the street is definitely not good, but nor is a motel, long term; they're not designed for this. So it would be welcome if the Minister would provide some comment around that.
I'll just finish, finally, on this section—I'll seek some other calls later if possible. It's around antisocial behaviour, and it's, effectively, riffing, if you will, off that comment of behaviours in some motels. We knew at the time of the annual reviews that there were about a thousand—that's 1,000—antisocial incidents per month in, in this case, State houses. Certainly, this side of the House, but I'm sure particular electorate MPs on the Government side, have had their constituents who are living often by a State house, raising with them the issues. I understand that the Minister who has kindly answered questions of me before has pointed out the dog barking and otherwise, and I'm certainly not referencing that level of antisocial behaviour. It's when you're dealing with much more violent behaviour, threatening behaviour, and so forth.
The challenge that's been put to the ministries and to the Minister is: why is Housing New Zealand not taking a firmer approach on this? We can all understand there are times when you try to help, but there are those that at times there needs to be a consequence. I've pointed out many a time that there's, effectively, been no evictions, and what I think they term "business initiated transfers"—or BITs as an acronym—has literally only happened in bits, and I think I could probably count on one or maybe two hands. So there are major antisocial behaviours occurring and there does not seem to be the necessary consequences. As I say, 1,000 incidents a month.
As we now look forward, not only are we going to—again, it's a speculation, but I think I'm pretty accurate to think that we're going to see many more people in need of social housing, and on top of that they're going to be very stressed. There's going to be a significant increase in mental health issues—we're seeing that already with the nature of the way that COVID is being managed, or not. We're going to see more incidents.
So I want some surety—not simply around, if you will, the more extreme measures around business initiated transfers or evictions—from the Minister that there's going to be situations or processes in place to help those people and, obviously, to help the neighbours. I certainly reject what we've heard from officials before in annual reviews that they'd be more prepared to move a private person than they are the State housing tenant next door, which seems a little bit about-face to me.
I also would like to know, if the Minister would—because I understand she's got all the answers to hand; the Leader of the House has been very optimistic about that, which is jolly decent of him—how they're going to support the moteliers. You know, again, this is turning out to be the first home of refuge. Moteliers, and no offence to them, are not actually used to doing social housing services.
So there are just a few questions there. I look forward to the Minister's response, and will look to come back and have a discussion later.
David Seymour: Madam Chair?
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Does the Minister—no?
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: I'll collect some more.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): OK.





DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): People have tried to avoid hearing me speak before, but I've never seen a Minister in the chair try and urge another member to take a call to avoid it. This is a very serious debate, and it does reflect on the time that we have gone through over the last year, which is normally the subject of this debate, but the performance of the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) is going to become even more important as New Zealand battles with the recovery from the COVID-19 crisis.
Now, the Minister for Social Development got up and said the kinds of things that I'd want to hear. She described the kind of Ministry of Social Development that I would hope that we had, one that was innovative and nimble and relentlessly focused on getting New Zealanders working, because we know that unemployment, benefit receipt, and poverty all go together, and following those three, worst of all, is poverty for innocent children. So we'd want a Ministry of Social Development that was getting people off benefits, off welfare, and into work.
The sad reality is that the numbers give the lie to what the Minister has said. The truth is that even in the best of times, when New Zealand had record terms of trade, when the whole world wanted what New Zealand's industries produced and the things New Zealanders consumed were comparably cheaper than ever, the conditions where we might think that it would be easy to get people off welfare into work, we had 300,000 working-age New Zealanders on a main benefit and growing.
Here's the next number that I think should concern us: one in eight children born in this country are born into a benefit. Now, there are people up and down this country who can't understand those numbers. Let me give you one example. Employers that I represent in the Epsom electorate say to me "We can't get staff. I need you to help me with visas to bring foreigners to New Zealand to do the jobs.", and I say, "How can that be? There are 300,000 New Zealanders on a benefit and growing numbers on the jobseeker part of that. Have you tried talking to MSD?" And do you know what they tell me? MSD are supporting their applications to bring more New Zealanders here. MSD are actually saying, "Sorry, buddy."—or "buddy-ess", in this case—"We have tried to get people off the dole to work for you. Even though you're paying up to 30 bucks an hour, we've called this list of people six times; none of them want to show up." So people out there who are creating jobs and trying to get this economy going can't understand how there are 300,000 working-age New Zealanders on a main benefit in the best of times.
And here's the other group of people that can't understand it, the one in eight children born into a family with a benefit: New Zealanders who wait, save, and sacrifice so they can bring children into the world with the kind of support that means they get a fair go in life can't understand how people are bringing people and kids into the world while on a benefit. Now, I understand things happen in life, and I think there should be a welfare safety net, but how is it possible that one in eight—not just a few, but one in eight—kids come into this country on a benefit? People can't understand that.
So, unfortunately, it is not possible to say that New Zealand had the kind of high-performing Ministry of Social Development that gets people off welfare into work before this crisis occurred, because the numbers simply do not support it. I would say that in the wake of this crisis, we are actually going to have to work harder to ensure that we have people to do the work and people providing for themselves and their families so that we have less poverty. So not only was the MSD not doing very well beforehand, it's going to have to do better.
But turning to the current crisis of COVID-19, I need to ask the Minister: how is it possible that the Minister chose, of all times, the middle of this crisis to raise all benefit numbers—well, receipt—[Bell rung] Madam Chair?
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I'd just remind the member that to impugn the motives of the person in the chair is against Standing Orders. This was determined to be an interactive process, and that is why I turned to the Minister to see if she wanted to answer the two speakers' questions that had preceded it. So I will call David Seymour to continue, but I just remind him that he is one member of the House.
DAVID SEYMOUR: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I would never impugn the motives of the Chair.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): You just did.
DAVID SEYMOUR: I apologise for the Chair taking that view. Of course, it was entirely in jest, and I hope that that is now clear and that the Minister in the chair, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, does not feel that her motives have been in any way impugned, because I would never do that. I didn't. I was simply making jest of the situation.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That's the worst apology for an apology that I think I've ever heard. I call David Seymour—stop digging.
DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, I assume that the Chair is now satisfied, even if not with the quality of the apology. But it is actually a serious matter.
Kieran McAnulty: Still better than the haircut.
DAVID SEYMOUR: It is a serious matter—and Kieran McAnulty, of all people, is talking to me about personal grooming across the Chair. I think that's—[Interruption] Oh, Iain Lees-Galloway. Things are getting worse in here by the second. I don't know what could possibly happen next. I suspect Kris Faafoi will be recommending I take on an exercise regime.
But I've got to get back to business here. The question is: can we ask the Minister why it was that in the midst of this crisis, they decided to raise benefit rates by $25 across the board? It's possible that they will say it's because it's a good idea, because people haven't been paid enough on benefits. Well, if that's true, the Government had 2½ years to raise those rates. If it's a good idea, why did they not do it in any of those periods? In the two Budgets the Government brought down, they didn't do it, but they decided to do it in the middle of a crisis.
The alternative is that they do think that it's a good idea but, actually, they weren't courageous enough to do it at any of those times, and they've done it because the crisis gave them political cover to do what they didn't have the political courage to do normally. 
Or there's another alternative—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Yeah, I think I can anticipate the point of order.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, they do say great minds think alike. But you cannot doubt the courage of a member of Parliament in this House, and that member should apologise.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I was listening. I thought he was on the edge, but he's talking political courage and he wasn't actually talking about an individual MP. I'd have to check the Standing Orders, but I think we'll continue while I'm looking it up.
DAVID SEYMOUR: Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and your ruling's correct: there's nothing wrong with characterising a Government as lacking political courage. I know Winston Peters will take any opportunity to raise a point of order and have a go at David Seymour, because the thing is, I get under his thin skin. That's the problem.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. You have made a ruling, and there it rests. He cannot relitigate it.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Yeah, I really would appreciate it if the member would get on with his speech, because we have limited time for this debate and we've got more speakers, and we still have the Minister to answer questions.
DAVID SEYMOUR: Madam Chair, thank you, and that's my only intention. I paused briefly to compliment you on the ruling I agreed with. But the fact is I've been trying to get to the point in spite of Winston Peters' two needless points of order and will do that now, if he can just sit down for a moment.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): You just couldn't resist, could you?
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Either he desists or he should have his speech stopped.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Yeah, well, he did, essentially, because the member stood up. So would you please get on with it?
DAVID SEYMOUR: Aren't people sensitive? There are only two possibilities: either raising the benefit numbers was a good idea and they should've done it a long time ago or it was something necessary only for the COVID crisis, in which case it should be time limited and it should be cancelled when the crisis passes. I ask the Minister: which one of those is it, because if it's one, then we have an answer: should've done it ages ago. If it's the other: should be time limited. If the Minister can simply explain which one it is, I think the committee will be very much more enlightened. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Madam Chair?
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I call the Hon Carmel Sepuloni—I will come back to Jan Logie before we finish.





Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I will try and speak quickly. I'll try and respond to some of the points and questions that were raised. I'll start with the member for the ACT Party, David Seymour, and the questions he raised around benefit increases and the increase to the winter energy payment. We made it very clear that the timing was appropriate, given the need for an economic stimulus package and the fact that we understand that those in this country who earn the least will spend the money, and that that will go back into the economy. That was not the only reason, though. 
We have been looking at income adequacy through the welfare system as part of our confidence and supply agreement with the Green Party. We did have a list of recommendations that came from the Welfare Expert Advisory Group (WEAG). We had already said that we couldn't do everything in the first Budget, but we did do indexation, we did lift abatement thresholds, we repealed section 192, and there's a whole lot of culture change work that is going on as well as the investment in work-focused programmes. So the timing was appropriate and I'm glad that we were able to implement those as part of an economic stimulus package. They are not time limited. There are income adequacy issues in the welfare system. So it is appropriate that that is ongoing.
We're not the first. The previous Government did lift benefits by $25 as well. The difference there was that they focused only on those on benefits with children, and we extended it beyond that, because we recognise that, actually, through the WEAG report, a lot of people suffering hardship in this country are actually single and living alone. Many of them have health conditions and disability and are on benefits, so we did not want to exclude them from that package.
Can I also just refer to questions that were raised around our focus on employment and questions that were raised on our effectiveness with respect to supporting people into employment. What we did see was that, actually, in June, if we're talking about that financial year, we had something like 9.7 percent of the working-age population on benefit. That was lower than most, if not all, years that the previous Government were in. We also had an unemployment rate that surpassed any of the efforts under the previous Government. In June 2019, the unemployment rate was 3.9 percent. I know that the other side likes to focus on one set of numbers, but we can't look at them in isolation from each other. 
I'll also say that the investment that we put into work-focused case managers in June last year already started to pay off in September last year, where we actually saw a 13 percent higher level of cancellations of benefit for people who were going into work. I want to emphasise that strongly, because we've always been focused on supporting people off benefit into employment, and I really feel that under the previous Government often it was just supporting people off benefit with no real vision and support for where they might go to next. I think that that is a point of difference. 
I've been asked questions here about Mana in Mahi. It is actually our Minister of Employment that has responsibility for Mana in Mahi. But I would congratulate him on the job that he has done. At the end of March 2020, we had placed 717 clients into Mana in Mahi—and lots of other good results here. I know that the other side of the House likes to talk about the fact that they see the retention rate as being really low. But, actually, 68 percent of clients are either still actively participating or have completed the 12-month programme; 16 percent exited and have gone on to alternative pathways, not back on benefit; and then 16 percent have exited and are currently on benefit, and we will continue to support them and work with them so that they can realise their potential. But given the young people that we're working with, I think that that actually is not a bad statistic. So I do want to recognise Minister Jackson in his work with Mana in Mahi. 
I was asked questions about the housing register and homelessness more broadly. I, as Minister for Social Development, do not have responsibility for the Homelessness Action Plan. That is led by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), although the Ministry of Social Development is an important partner. I want to acknowledge the fact that HUD has increased the number of public housing available, I think, in that financial year by over 2,000 places. We came into Government, there was a housing crisis, and as a Government we were committed to fixing it. We stopped selling State houses and started building them. 





JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise on behalf of the Green Party to talk to the annual review of the Ministry of Social Development, and follow up some of the themes of the Minister and respond to the previous speaker from the ACT Party.
I want to start with that, because there was a question raised about how this country, in the best of times, 300,000 people, could be in receipt of a benefit, and suggesting that there's a massive failure of the people of this country. I would point out that this is a feature of our labour market that was created by policies put in place in the 1980s and 1990s—we did not have that percentage of our population unemployed before there was a change in Government policies—and that we have seen, and the Welfare Expert Advisory Group report told us really clearly, that there's been a massive decline in Government investment in active labour market policies in the last 25 years. It goes like this [Points downwards], if you're looking at the graph, and where we spend one of the least amounts in the OECD on supporting people in training and into jobs, and this Government is about changing that.
There's a sense, in some of our positions, that punitive policies in welfare will be the trigger to get people into paid work. That is not borne out by any evidence anywhere in the world. If we look at the last Government's policies where—it's just not. What we know is that, actually, even removing toilets from income support, which is what the last Government did to make the environment so uncomfortable, we still had that number of people receiving income support.
I would point out that over half of the people receiving income support are doing it because they have a disability or health condition that prevents them from working. We have a lot of conversations in this Chamber about the mental health crisis. I think everyone acknowledges that. We often talk about the crisis in relation to domestic violence and sexual violence, and everyone seems on board with that. But if you don't recognise that those people in those situations—many of them will not be able to be in paid work, and if you think creating punitive policies that force them into poverty or choosing between being safe or being poor is going to help us as a country resolve and address our mental health crisis or our domestic violence crisis, then there is a disconnect with the evidence and the reality.
I also just want to talk about, too, that New Zealand, the way our labour market has been structured, has one of the highest rates of turnover between paid work and unemployment in the OECD. There's only two countries with a higher rate of turnover than us, and those countries have put in place strong social security systems to acknowledge that it is not the individual's fault, and that, actually, the system needs, if they're building that process, to support people with the impacts of it. We urgently need to change our welfare system. The Welfare Expert Advisory Group—which comprises business leaders, community leaders, economists, and people who'd had experience of the system—told us that we needed to do that urgently, that the current system is putting people in the level of financial support that is now so low that too many New Zealanders are living in desperate situations. Urgent and fundamental change is needed.
I really hope, and I get a sense that in the crisis that we're in at the moment, that New Zealanders are becoming more and more aware of how connected we are, that, actually, we need strong whānau, we need strong communities, to be able to thrive, and that we need money circulating in our economy to be able to keep it going. That requires policies that support people to be able to look after themselves and the people that they care for. Our social welfare system is central to that. So we are really encouraged with the progress; we just want to see a lot more, and for things to move to that next step to restore dignity for everyone in Aotearoa.





Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. The one part of that speech from Jan Logie that I did agree with was that this country, this nation, needs strong whānau and strong family at the core of that, yet I find it ironic that on one hand, the rhetoric of what is being spoken is not the reality of what is acted out in this House. 
I recall the fact that this Government—and this is part of that annual review and focus—removed the eligibility or the discretion or the mandate to be able to name the father of the child for a young woman, a young mother—
Hon Member: The requirement. 
Hon ALFRED NGARO: —or a mother. They removed it—the requirement. Now, in removing the requirement for that, it was because the fact is the burden of proof was not there that it was actually working, but they'd forgotten the essential principle about whānau and family. What that has done now is it has, basically, condemned another generation of children to having fatherless families in our communities and in our whānau and family. It was a mechanism to hold to account—that's what it was. There was a discretion already there available that if there were issues of concern or if there were risk factors, they could declare those, so there was no harm. But under this Government, what we've done now is we've continued to have policies on one hand that say we want strong families, but on the other, we remove those principles of fathers taking their responsibility, especially in this case. I believe that that was wrong. 
In times like this, in crisis, the best of New Zealanders—the best of a people and its place—often shows itself, and I just want to acknowledge the fact that, as a country, we all said that we are all in this to deal with this issue. We have differing views of how we do that, but we all put our best efforts forward. 
During this period of 4½ to 5 weeks, one of the most precious moments I had was actually being with a local service provider who was providing services of food parcels. In the 4 to 4½ weeks, they delivered over 3,500 food parcels. I was proud to say I was able to become a volunteer—an essential driver—and I was able to go to those homes. While we sat and we packed and we delivered, there were moments where we stopped and we reflected, and I remember one of the providers saying to me—I said to them, "So what do you see in regards to the direction of where the country is going, where we're being governed and led?" He said, "There's a concern where we have now bought into a dependency model, rather than an empowerment model." He said that the situation that we're in when we talk about those who are currently there is that—and this is not about a blame game or judgment on those that are there. But what we've now bought into is a dependency model, not an empowerment model, and a number of the issues that we've talked about are there, as well. 
How is that dependency? When we don't set targets to know where we're aiming to make a difference, then how do we know that we've achieved anything? Under this Government and previously—this is all part of that annual review—we removed all the better public health service targets. We do not know or hold them to account. This was not the people out in the street or in our communities, family, whānau, and home; this was Government agencies who are commissioned with one task, which was to do the best they could for the people of this nation. We now no longer have a target in that case. 
For the Minister that is here, she has an associate ministerial role around Pacific people. Let's take one example—because it all affects the annual reviews—around the Pacific peoples, and one of them was around the target in regards to increasing the levels of income and wealth for our Pasifika communities. One of the areas under that target was with the Pacific Business Trust. Here's the target that they set, and it wasn't even a target. They had been engaging with 140 businesses—that's it, for the whole of the year. I said, "Was that aspirational?", and they said, "Well, that's the best that we can do." 
How many businesses do we have? We have over 500,000 small to medium sized enterprises (SMEs) in this nation. Pasifika make up 5 percent of those SMEs—that's around about 20,000 businesses who are people of Pacific descent. We've only got 140. What's the reasons why? Here's what they said: "We need more evaluation and we need more research." That has been almost the "Kumbaya" of this Government. That has been the chant: more research, more evaluation, more advisory committees. 
When we look at the annual reviews and when we see what we have got to come up with, there are no targets. There are no achievements that tell this country that we are empowering and being aspirational as a country for the things that we want to achieve, and, more importantly, we are confining this nation to a level of dependency that will make it difficult and make more of us struggle in this nation. 
I would have to say that when I look at these annual reviews, whether they be around Oranga Tamariki or the lack of engagement with Māori, and when I look at the Pasifika peoples and the lack of targets that are there to show that we are aspirational to make a difference, I believe that what will happen and what will be the judgment of the day, come election, to this Government—what have they achieved? They won't be able to tell us what they have achieved, because they have set no targets. No targets means no outcomes, and no outcomes means we're worse off as a nation and as a people in this country. Thank you, Madam Chair. 
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): OK, so is that the Ministry of Social Development? We move on to the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway. 





Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Madam Chair. We turn now to the matters of labour market issues and labour market portfolios. The year under review, the Government made good progress on a number of policy areas, including fair pay agreements, successive increases to the minimum wage, pay equity legislation, changes to screen industry industrial relations, tackling migrant exploitation—a massive overhaul of our policies with regard to the temporary work visa system—all of which has been somewhat overshadowed by the events of the COVID-19 epidemic, and so I wish to make some opening remarks in relation to that. 
Our response to the COVID-19 epidemic has required an extraordinary amount of work for both the immigration and the workplace relations and safety portfolios. I wish to record my sincere thanks to our Public Service who always pull out all the stops in a crisis. And because of that extraordinary effort, we have been able to respond quickly and to be agile in a constantly changing environment so that tens of thousands of New Zealand workers—be they New Zealanders born here or migrant workers—have been able to get the support that they need as we tackle this epidemic.
From the very beginning, immigration has been working to keep New Zealanders safe, firstly by closing our borders and doing the work to maintain those border restrictions, and now also to provide support for New Zealand citizens and residents to be able to return home. I particularly want to acknowledge our border officials who have faced again a challenging and often rapidly changing environment to put in place restrictions, but also to manage the exceptions process to support those people who have valid reasons for being able to cross our border, to be able to do so. From the people working on policy changes to those front-line people making those decisions in real time—my very sincere thanks. 
We've introduced some flexibility for temporary workers. Visas have been extended through to 25 September for some, allowing people time to find alternative employment if they have lost their job. And we're actively considering options for welfare needs while embassies, consulates, and high commissioners have been taking the lead in supporting their nationals. Work done before the epidemic to significantly streamline our temporary work visa system from six different visas down to one will set immigration up for the future to ensure that there is an incentive to pay temporary migrant workers well and to only use them where they are genuinely needed. 
We're also looking to the future. We will ensure that New Zealand workers can take up opportunities—something which, of course, is even more acute in the current circumstances. We're planning ahead in our regions and with sectors to make sure that they get the skills they need by linking up vocational education, training, and in-work training alongside the immigration system to ensure that we have a modern and dynamic workforce. In the workplace, we have ensured that workers have an income while times are tough, with the wage subsidy, and to maintain that essential connection between employee and employer. We've provided support from the COVID leave scheme so that no one needs to go to work if they are sick or if anybody in their bubble is at risk. Most importantly, we have supported workers with advice on health and safety and followed up complaints to ensure that employers and employees understand their rights and their obligations in this situation. 
This Government continues to work closely with business, workers, and unions in a tripartite fashion to ensure that we understand the issues that people are dealing with and for us all to be able to contribute to solving the challenges that we are facing. As part of this work, we've ensured that those most vulnerable—our essential workers who are on the minimum wage—got their minimum wage increase because it is even more important now to support those people and to stimulate our economy. I do expect all employers to work in good faith with their employees and to follow employment law. Nothing about the current situation suspends our employment law or the obligations and rights that it affords people. 
Most businesses and employees are doing this admirably and I really do appreciate the effort that is being put in by employers and businesses across the country to support their workforce. But I also want to acknowledge the way in which Government agencies have been able to respond to complaints when they have come in. We have had a large number of complaints. We have had a large number of complaints that have been directed directly to agencies and many to my office. And I again want to acknowledge the speed with which agencies have responded to those so that people get clarity and certainty about how they are to operate in these circumstances.
As we work towards a better future for our workforce we again are focusing on our most vulnerable. Fair pay agreements are needed to ensure that good businesses aren't caught in a race to the bottom and that there are incentives in place to ensure that everybody provides good conditions and health and safety measures for their staff. This work is even more important in the current environment. Those people who have supported us through the lockdown, our essential workers, include too many people who are on the lowest wages: cleaners, supermarket workers, and security guards, for instance. We have certainly showed how much we value them over the last few weeks. I expect that in the future their pay packets will show how much we value them too. There are unacceptable gaps between the incomes of men and women. Now pay equity work will help those on lower incomes and achieving pay equity remains a priority for this Government. 
So whilst the COVID-19 work has been a massive undertaking for all of the agencies that I have responsibility for, as we turn our attention to the recovery and what the future holds for New Zealanders, it is even more important than ever that we ensure that migrants are valued, that our workers are valued, that health and safety remains a priority, and that will continue to be a priority for this Government.





STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Madam Chair. It's interesting the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment's strategic outcomes, in which they state they want to ensure New Zealand has prosperous sectors and regions, maintain business connections, and foster international connections. And, of course, Immigration New Zealand is a major component to ensure that those goals or those strategic outcomes are actually met.
Migrant labour has filled a significant void in New Zealand when we don't have sufficient people with the requisite skills so that businesses have had to seek those labour units, those people from offshore, to come into New Zealand. We must remember that, actually, immigration is about New Zealand—it's about a benefit for New Zealand. We bring people in here to fill roles that we can't fill ourselves, and so it is primarily for our benefit. Having said that, we must ensure that those migrants that do come into New Zealand are not exploited. As part of that, the businesses that bring people into New Zealand make a significant effort to protect those people because, of course, they are benefiting from them, and they want as much productivity out of those people, and happy staff are productive staff.
I find it ironic at the moment that we've just gone through a period where Immigration New Zealand restructured the way it processed visas and brought some of the processing onshore. It was a major change, it was a long-planned programme, and it had some significant issues—significant issues with efficiency that ended up putting people in limbo for very long periods of time. It significantly impacted businesses who couldn't access their staff because of the bureaucratic processes—overly slow bureaucratic processes. Clearly, the Minister lost control of his department, and that is very worrying.
As we go, looking forward—as the Minister has just outlined—to the COVID recovery which is ahead of us, we need a Minister who has their hand on the wheel. We need a Minister that is quick to react. We need a Minister that actually makes a decision, and not only makes an announcement but follows through and ensures that his department delivers. Unfortunately, what we've seen from this Government is they're strong on announcements and very poor on delivery—very poor on the follow up, very poor on ensuring that those people that they have charge of actually deliver for New Zealanders, not just for the Minister concerned but for New Zealanders.
I think, as a good example here, the Minister mentioned many visas are being extended through to September, and I think that's a very welcome thing for the Minister to do—fantastic. However, one of the problems we now have is that in lots of regions people are sitting there with a visa, no longer with a job, quite capable of filling another role, but, because of the bureaucratic processes, they're unable to do it. I'll give you an example: in Marlborough, as there will be in other wine regions, people that have come in from overseas to work in the wineries have arrived in New Zealand as a cellar hand or a winemaker or an assistant in a winery. Now that the vintage is over, those jobs are ending. Those people can't get home. They've come from everywhere: from Italy, from South America, from North America, and some from Asia. Some of those people can't get home. They're stuck here now. They have a work visa, but, under the rules, they can change job type with that employer or they can change employers with the same job type, but they can't do both. Effectively, if you're working for a winemaker that only makes wine, that means you can't go and prune grapes on a vineyard for another employer. You could prune grapes for that winemaker if they employed you to prune grapes, but you can't go to another winemaker and be employed to prune grapes.
It's a crazy waste of a resource there that people could do it, and what's happening is civil defence is now filling the void. Civil defence are supporting these people because they can't get access to Government assistance. They're stuck here, they're a willing workforce, and there are certainly the jobs there for them. Now, that may not be the case in three or four months when a number of people will be unemployed that aren't at the moment, but, unfortunately, we are not in that position now. The job is time limited and those people are very much in need of work.





DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. To the Minister, the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway, I'd like to direct a few questions about labour and employment, starting with the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme—or RSE. What sort of thinking does he have? There's already been quite a lot of difficulty with the caps, with the allocation of quota, and with people in the horticultural industry getting enough workers under the status quo. That's going to be complicated somewhat by the borders being closed, although it's notable that many of the countries that people come from under the RSE scheme have no COVID-19 and could potentially join a New Zealand bubble. So I just wonder if the Minister could tell us what he has in mind. Has he had in mind the future of the RSE scheme—both the pre-existing issues and those that continue?
I've had a request from a number of employers about WorkSafe. Under the current circumstances, we've got a kind of perfect storm of fast-changing and often poorly understood rules for operating under changing alert levels with changing definitions, almost day by day sometimes. They're enforced by WorkSafe, but there is no WorkSafe independent complaints authority analogous to the Independent Police Conduct Authority for the Police. I know people are worried about WorkSafe coming into their business and potentially shutting them down for things that aren't clearly defined in law, so I wonder if the Minister, on behalf of the Government, can comment on accountability for WorkSafe and what laws they should be following. 
I noticed that the Minister mentioned fair pay agreements—in other words, trying to negotiate wages for entire sectors at a nationwide level. I just ask the Minister: has he really thought it through? This is a time when we have enormous amounts of dislocation—people losing their jobs because whole industries are being affected, such as tourism, and shifting into new industries. Has he really thought through whether this is the best time to put in place more rigid employment laws that make it harder for people to enter a closed shop and change their job in order that they can support their family? Is this really the best time to be talking about introducing fair pay agreements?
In a similar vein, the minimum wage changes. Already, before the latest increase on 1 April, already, before this crisis, we had a situation where New Zealand's minimum wage was one of the highest in the OECD compared with the median, or average, wages. That matters, because the higher it is compared with other wages the more people get left out. Already, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment's advice at the time of the increase being proposed was 6,500 jobs wouldn't be created because of the minimum wage increase. Now, I'd put it to the Minister that, actually, the situation will be worse than that, because, unfortunately, the economic slowdown means wages in general will fall and the minimum wage, as a percentage of the median, or average, wage, will be higher already and higher still because of this latest increase.
I just ask the Minister: does he really believe that it is the best time to be increasing a minimum wage, when wages up and down the country, sadly, may fall due to a reduction in job opportunities because of the economic crisis that we're facing? Does he really think that's the best time? Yes, we know that we want people to be paid more, but the funny thing about a minimum wage is that it's never stopped an employer paying more when they can afford to do it. What it does do is it bans employers from employing people when the only way they can afford to do it is below a certain level. I'd ask the Minister: is this really the best time to be raising the minimum wage?
Finally, and this is perhaps tangentially related but very important to his portfolio responsibilities: does this Government have the machinery in action to upskill and retrain people rapidly? People talk about 100,000 jobs lost in tourism—I hope not. What is this Government's plan to ensure that people can rapidly pick up the right skills to get them into the right job? It's going to have to happen a lot faster than it does in normal times if we're going to give people the opportunity to get into work and support themselves and their families.
With those questions, I'll take my seat. Thank you very much, in advance, for the Minister's answers.





Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I also have some questions for the Minister, the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway, about three, and they actually build on the questions that have been asked by Messrs Smith and Seymour. The first one relates to health and safety, which we are probably as focused on right now as we have ever been in a workplace situation. The response so far has been to shut everything down. Now, we're coming out of that and WorkSafe and the Health and Safety at Work Act does have a very important role to play in so far as employers are required to take practicable steps to keep their staff and the people who interact with their workplaces safe.
I'm particularly interested in two things. One is the availability or non-availability of protective equipment, particularly in the healthcare setting—which are also persons conducting a business or undertaking, and the question I have is twofold. One is, if a workplace following the personal protective equipment (PPE) guidelines that are being articulated by the Ministry of Health does or does not supply PPE, following those guidelines, even though WorkSafe may believe that it would be a practicable step to take, what is the liability on the employer? Secondly, if a staff member, particularly in the healthcare setting, acquires an infection in the workplace as a consequence of exposure to COVID-19, are they eligible for ACC cover, either as a treatment injury—if they were a patient they would certainly be eligible for treatment injury cover. But will a worker who acquires COVID in the workplace be eligible for ACC?
I want to agree with the Minister and his comments about pay equity, but I must confess that I'm very confused, because the words and the actions of this Government don't seem to line up. The previous Government had passed that first reading of what I believe—of course, because I was the architect of it—was a very good pay equity bill. Ms Logie and Mr Lees-Galloway may very well disagree with that, and that is entirely their prerogative, but the obligation and the encumbrance on the Government was to do something different. And I note that the Equal Pay Amendment Bill languishes seventh from the bottom of the Order Paper, having been reported back by the select committee 11 months ago.
Chris Bishop: How many?
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Eleven and a half months ago, Mr Bishop. So while I agree—and I expect the Minister is keen to see this—my question is: why has that progress not been made? Frankly, there was plenty of time in the calendar to advance this important piece of legislation. I think there's some fundamental flaws in it, but let's at least get to a start line, which is the bill enacted. So why has it taken nearly a year from the report-back date to have that bill have even its second reading?
My third question is around immigration. Mr Smith and Mr Seymour raised two very important questions around the Government's consideration, firstly, of variations of conditions that would enable overseas workers to go from one place or one role to another in this scenario, and that's previously been quite strictly adhered to. Mr Seymour talked about Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme workers and the ability to get them in, particularly if they're from COVID-free countries. I have a broader, more strategic question, which is: what discussions have Cabinet and the Government had about immigration policy going forward?
I should also underpin this with conversations that I and my colleagues Jacqui Dean, Sarah Dowie, and Hamish Walker have been having with the mayors of the southern regions, from Waitaki to Invercargill, over the looming crisis particularly in the Queenstown Lakes area, of the thousands of people who are now stuck. Despite the tub-thumping rhetoric from the Government's support partner New Zealand First on turning down the tap—and, actually, it was the Minister's rhetoric in Opposition—and this strict cut to immigration that they campaigned on, actually, the opposite happened, and, indeed, that was entirely appropriate with the growing economy. The economy is coming to a screaming halt, and I do understand that the Government needs the wisdom of Solomon to balance the competing needs of those people—who are here and need support in the short term—with the Government's overall objectives to put Kiwis to the front of the job queue. So I don't want an answer to the question—I think that would be unfair at this time—but I am interested in the Minister just articulating what early thinking has gone on about how it's going to position itself in that very important question.





Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Well, a range of points and questions made by members opposite, which I'm happy to address as best as possible. First of all, Mr Smith, migrants are human beings; they are not labour units. What an appalling way to describe people. I think this tells the committee and any New Zealander listening to this debate about the mind-set of the National Party when it comes to any working people, actually, migrants or otherwise. "Labour units"—those are the words he used to describe our migrant workforce. Just let's all reflect on that for a moment and think about the mind-set of the National Party—
Chris Bishop: You're a disgrace.
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: —and how once again—I'm not a disgrace, Mr Bishop. I'm reminding the committee of the words that your colleague Mr Smith used. So let's all just reflect on that and remind ourselves why the National Party is not fit to govern, because they describe human beings who want to come and work and live in New Zealand as labour units.
The member then went on to say that the Immigration New Zealand restructure did—effectively, what I think he was saying is it did not go as well as it could, and I have to agree with him. I think it was a mixed bag—would be the best way to describe it. It was long planned, as the member suggested. It was planned well in advance of the last election. It was planned based on some pretty flawed assumptions, I have to say, about what was going to happen in the immigration space. I've been working very hard to clean up the mess that I inherited from the previous Government in regards to that particular restructure.
The member said that we needed a Minister who was faster to act on things like visa processing. Visa processing had been getting slower since 2014—2014 is when visa processing started to slow down. So the Minister who should have acted is actually sitting opposite us here, Mr Michael Woodhouse.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: The Minister's giving his best Pinocchio impression.
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No, not at all, Mr Woodhouse. The facts show that what I have just said is absolutely correct. 
Hon Michael Woodhouse: The Minister will be back and retreating.
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No, I won't, because I have the data to demonstrate it. 
Now, then once Mr Smith had sat down, we started getting some serious questions from Mr Seymour, and I appreciate the questions that he asked. So the first one was around the Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) scheme. Look, I think we just have a strong difference of opinion about the value of the capping of the system. I think it is important that we do have a cap on the system, that there is enough incentive for those horticulture, viticulture employers to employ New Zealanders first, and one of those incentives is the cap that we place on the RSE scheme. But we have been working on improving the scheme. For instance, last year we announced the cap increase much earlier than ordinarily happens. That, I know, was particularly appreciated by the strawberry growers. We also indicated what this year's increase would look like if certain things were met by the industry, and that's a decision that we have to make relatively soon. Again, I want to make it early in the year so that those employers have a bit more certainty. But it's true, we are in a much different environment right now, and, actually, a lot more of that picking and pruning and harvesting is being done by New Zealanders right now, people who have recently been made unemployed, and I suspect for the next couple of seasons we will see a lot more New Zealanders doing that work and we will have to take that into account when we're thinking about the way the RSE scheme works. 
But the member makes another good point, which is that to offset that, we're not going to see the same number of people coming from overseas. My response is that we're working closely with the industry to find solutions to both sides of that equation, to make sure that the fruit continues to be picked, that the vegetables continue to be harvested, and that we continue to see the progress that we want to see in that industry despite some of the things that we've been facing.
Mr Seymour then moved on to workplace relations matters. I just simply disagree with the way he describes the nature of fair pay agreements, of industry-wide bargaining as some sort of closed-shop situation. That's not what they are at all. Or that the minimum wage stops people being able to get employment. There is absolutely no evidence that that is the case. In fact, the OECD these days is actually advising that the best industrial relations settings that a nation can have are a mixture of individual agreements, enterprise level collective agreements, and sector level collective agreements, and that that achieves the right balance of flexibility, productivity, and security and creates the opportunity for us to address the inequality issue that many developed—especially Western—nations face in wages across their economies. The OECD has changed its thinking on this, it has to be said, and I'd encourage the member to consider changing his thinking as well, because, as the facts and the evidence change, our responses have to change over time as well. 
Just on the question of future minimum wages, we've always said, yes, it's always been our ambition to get the minimum wage to $20 an hour by next year, but that every year we would take into account economic conditions. It does remain our ambition, it is a priority for this Government, but, obviously, we will be looking at economic conditions and we will be looking at wage movement over the next months and year as we consider what future minimum wage increases might look like. But this is a Government that is committed to increasing the minimum wage. We may have a high minimum wage relative to our median wage. That's only because our median wage is so low. We are a low-wage, low-skill economy, and that is one of the major structural changes that this Government has been seeking to address. 
The member rightly asked: what are we doing about upskilling and reskilling? I don't think we inherited a situation from the previous Government where we are able to upskill and reskill as quickly as we need to. That is why the Minister of Education, Chris Hipkins, has embarked on significant reform of our vocational education system. It's why we are trying to join up our immigration system, our training systems, our education system, and our welfare system so that we can do a much better job of this than has been occurring in the past. I can assure the member that a lot of those discussions, which have been sort of framed in the context of the future of work, are very much the "here and now" of work, and the Government is considering what further changes need to be made in order to ensure that people get the ability to retrain and upskill and pick up the new jobs that will grow in the recovering economy. 
Mr Woodhouse asked about the liability of the employer under the Health and Safety at Work Act. As the former Minister, he will well know that the obligation on the employer is to take all reasonable and practicable steps to ensure the health and safety of their employees, and, should it ever come to a matter of WorkSafe investigating whether or not someone has taken those reasonable and practicable steps, that the guidelines, the advice, the evidence that is available will be taken into account when doing that. But WorkSafe has been working proactively with individual businesses and with sectors to make sure that they have as much information and are supported as well as they can be to be able to provide safe and healthy workplaces for their businesses. 
I have received advice on the question of whether people could get cover for contracting COVID-19 in the workplace. The question of treatment injury is an interesting one and the answer simply is: potentially yes, depending on the circumstances. There's the three-step test that the member will be well aware of—again, as a former Minister—and depending on the circumstances, yes, potentially someone who contracts COVID-19 as a result of their work may potentially be covered by ACC and they would have to go through the usual process in making an application for that.
The question of variation of conditions for visas: as members are probably aware, we've done this in essential services. We are certainly turning our minds to what needs to happen, again, to support the recovery, to ensure that we have the workforce that we need to support that recovery. 
But I will just, in the last few seconds that I have available to me, respond to the final point that the member made: what does immigration policy look like going forward? Well, I think it's good that we have made the changes to the temporary visa policy that we have. I'd like to see those implemented. I've said to Immigration New Zealand that I'd like to see those implemented as quickly as possible. If there's any opportunity to accelerate those, I'd like to see that happen, because I think they set us up well to be able to have an immigration system which responds to the new labour market reality, which is that we do have far more New Zealanders who are unemployed. Migrants will be part of the recovery. There will be skills that we do not have here in New Zealand, but we do need our training systems to ensure that New Zealanders are able to get work where it becomes available.





DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the Minister for his answers. He addressed all of the questions that I raised, with the exception of the question about accountability for WorkSafe and enforcing labour regulations, particularly in the context of differing levels of alert in the COVID-19 period. That's something that a few employers, and possibly employees, have raised with me. I'd be very grateful to hear that. I won't comment on some of his economic theories that he's got from a Government-backed thinktank based in Paris called the OECD, but people can make up their own minds about that.
It hadn't occurred to me that we could discuss any issue. I kept to the issues as much as possible that are within the ambit of the Minister who's here, but the Minister is actually also the Minister of Immigration, and he has raised a number of issues around immigration. I think that is something that we should take the opportunity to debate, because, Madam Chair, I know that you are an electorate MP, as am I. As an Auckland electorate MP, if you had told me a year ago that any department of Government could drive more people to the door of my electorate office than Auckland Transport (AT), I would have said, "Not a chance. No Government department could irritate my constituents more than AT." Yet it has happened.
I'm sorry to say to the Minister of Immigration that it is Immigration New Zealand (INZ) that is driving people to the door of my electorate office with complaints—often harrowing complaints, with families being divided, people having to choose whether to stay in New Zealand or not, and then economically important complaints, people trying to bring in workers vital for their business's growth and survival. I just say to the Minister—he says he wants to cap the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme (RSE) because it is going to somehow force employers to employ more Kiwis. Well, to an extent that happens, but in my understanding of the horticultural industry, actually the cap on the RSE means they just don't plant as much so they don't sell as much. So it has that effect too.
A problem with immigration processing times, which is driving so many people to the door of their electorate office, is also constraining the growth of business. There's a classic debate, a he-said she-said between Opposition and Government, where the Minister is saying that it's all the fault of the Opposition because they did it when they were in Government, and the Opposition is saying it's all the fault of the Government; everything was rosy when they were in charge. Well, what I would say is that there's a bit of truth to both. The underlying problem is the complexity of the regulations and rules that Immigration New Zealand staff are required to enforce. Just about everyone that wants to come here has to employ a very expensive professional to get themselves in, and if they can't work it out, neither, often, can some of the INZ employees, notwithstanding the very good ones that my office has discovered over the years.
However, there are also conscious policy decisions made within the last two years that have exacerbated the problem. Closing down offshore offices has increased wait times. Usually, people I deal with would go to the Queen Street, Auckland office of INZ, and that sounds pretty sensible. The geographical centre of the largest city in the country might have an INZ office. It's been closed down. Just quietly, off the record, the INZ staff that were working there and have been transferred to Manukau—
Hon Member: Off the record?
Hon Member: We'll just keep it a secret.
DAVID SEYMOUR: —have said, actually—yeah, I'll just share it with a few of my closest friends! Well, I'm not going to tell you who they are, and in that sense it's off the record. But they have said, "We can't believe this. It's madness." So the closure of offshore centres and the closure of centres very inshore, in the middle of Auckland, has led to longer processing times in Immigration New Zealand, and that includes decisions made in the last two years. I'd add to that that we have an even bigger problem created by the suspension and reintroduction of the parent category. So they're now looking at 18 months to get processed. That's what they're being told.
So I ask the Minister: will he accept that, actually, he is somewhat responsible for decisions made in Immigration in the last two years? They have led to longer waiting times, and, more importantly, notwithstanding the constraints of COVID-19, what's he going to do about it?
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): The Hon Todd McClay, because I know what you're going to do.





Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Madam Speaker, thank you very much. Madam Speaker, can I ask: are we finishing at 4.30, or are we continuing?
Hon Member: No, you can keep going.
Hon TODD McCLAY: I can keep going. Thank you—because I was going to speak very quickly otherwise.
This is a very important debate that we're having at a time when so many New Zealanders this week have started to go back to work, but so many others are still not able to. I'm going to ask the Minister some questions around the certainty that can be provided to those New Zealanders around their health and safety, but, at the same time, to the businesses who want to open up and will be employing them, or, indeed, who this week are open but are still not entirely sure what it is they should be doing to be within the guidelines that have been put out, or to be within the law.
Before I do, though, I want to make a plea to the Minister for him, on behalf of more than 3,500 New Zealanders who work at Air New Zealand, if he hasn't already, to engage with the company. He will know that Air New Zealand has announced that they're looking to make up to 30 percent of their workforce redundant—they have started a process. We can understand the reasons for that, but the Government has given Air New Zealand the thick end of a billion dollars over the last five weeks by way of $70 million for wage subsidies, and at the same time a $900 million loan. It's appropriate that that happened, at least in as far as the information the Government has provided to the taxpayer and the public, but I do believe that every degree of certainty that can be delivered for those Air New Zealand workers from the Government is very important.
There are a couple of things the Government could do very, very quickly here when it comes to making sure that this process through redundancy is better than it could be otherwise, and that's around giving not only Air New Zealand but every business in New Zealand certainty about what level 2 might look like as we transition there. I'm saying this because, actually, without that certainty, without at least information becoming available a week or more before the Government looks to move to level 2, then much of the workplace relations legislation we have in New Zealand on our books is going to be needed—or more is going to be needed than it should be—because so many more New Zealanders will face losing their jobs and have to go through redundancy and won't have certainty.
If the Government can provide Air New Zealand and other companies with certainty around what level 2 will look like, Air New Zealand will know what routes they may open, and New Zealanders will know whether they can start booking flights. Every single flight that is booked means that one more person at Air New Zealand may well keep their job. The Government too could start talking about when and what the opening of the trans-Tasman border might look like, because there are thousands and thousands and thousands of other jobs that depend upon that, and the workplace relations legislation that deals with people when they lose their jobs won't be needed to the degree it is likely to be. If, by the end of the year, that border can be opened, and under what condition it could be opened, then Air New Zealand, and every other company, can start planning for that many months before.
If Air New Zealand knows at a point in time in the future—six months away or even sooner—they could be flying trans-Tasman, some of those 3,700 people that are now negotiating as to whether they will keep their job or not, who have been told they are losing their jobs, could well keep those jobs. So I make that plea to the Minister, with some urgency.
I want to touch on the fair pay agreements that he mentioned. We don't need a long-ranging debate about this today, because it doesn't actually feel appropriate given there are so many people that are still not at work and will take any job at the moment if they could just get out of their homes and back into their businesses, retail and elsewhere. But the Minister knows, along with everybody else in the country, including the Ministers, that he's lost this fight for the moment. Nobody wants it, not even his colleagues—there will be no legislation passed before the election, and the only people that are pushing for it hard are the unions, who are putting social media advertisements up on Facebook to tell him to do it. So it sounds wonderful—
Hon Member: Really? In the middle of this crisis?
Hon TODD McCLAY: That's right. Well, they might have stopped in between, but they'll come back, right?
But the point here is that it's wonderful the Minister keeps talking about this, it's wonderful he promised it before the last election and hasn't delivered it, but, actually, every small business or large business in New Zealand knows that it will impact upon them significantly, and that's why he's going to limp to the election promising it again if re-elected. It's a good thing it hasn't gone through, although the unions are very unhappy about that.
A question, though, is can somebody be in the workplace and not have a fair pay agreement apply to them if one has been negotiated and delivered? If the answer to that is no, it's not the flexibility he's talking about and it is the equivalent of a closed shop.
In as far as COVID-19 is concerned, I have two specific questions about what's happening in the workplace today, and my colleague Michael Woodhouse did largely mention some of this too: whether or not an employer could be held responsible or liable in the case of somebody who was to contract COVID-19 in the workplace. I think what the Minister said was that as long as the workplace, the employer, had taken reasonable steps, they wouldn't be. But therein lies the problem, because we've seen, away from COVID-19, many instances where an employer has taken every precaution possible, and WorkSafe has still looked to prosecute. So could they be prosecuted in that situation where they have done everything possible?
The second question here is what happens where an employer says to an employee, "You must take a test—we want to test your temperature before you come into the workplace.", and that employee says no? Can they be forced to or not? I would assume, under current New Zealand law, that, no, they can't be. So is the employer then able to say, "Well, he can't work here; I must stand you down." And then what happens, because I know under existing health and safety and employment law, there would be a very big problem there. But putting that aside, we're not under existing law as far as COVID-19 is concerned, and we shouldn't be. So I hope over the last five or six weeks, as the Government moves towards level 3 and they are moving towards level 2, that thought has been put into this, because that is the type of uncertainty in the workplace that is going to make it very difficult for employers. Employees also need that understanding and that certainty, and if an employee says, "No, I don't want to have my temperature taken.", what does the employer do? Ultimately, there is a very challenging issue there. Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me additional time. I'll stop there.





DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. This will be a very short question to the Minister, and I want to stress this is on behalf of a very dear constituent. In relation to the Government's order to open golf courses but close their toilets, does the Government appreciate that a game of golf lasts four hours but a 65-year-old woman's bladder does not?





KIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the committee report progress.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Sixty-five-year-old women's bladders are important.
Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
The Chairperson reported progress on the Appropriation (2018/19 Confirmation and Validation) Bill.
Report adopted.





SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Deputy Leader of the House): I seek leave for the House to adjourn until the next sitting day.
SPEAKER: Is there any objection? There is none.
The House adjourned at 4.36 p.m.