WEDNESDAY, 19 AUGUST 2020
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers. 
ORAL QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Prime Minister
1. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Was her statement yesterday that "I have had reported reluctance amongst staff around asymptomatic testing" based on a weekly report to Cabinet from the Minister of Health; if not, what did she base that statement on? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): This was raised with me directly by health officials on 5 August. It had also been the subject of some discussion amongst Cabinet Ministers as we reviewed details around testing numbers. It is important to note, though, that the Government is not interested in trying to apportion blame here. As I said at the time when I raised the issue, our focus is on finding solutions to the problems as they emerge and making sure that we are constantly addressing those issues. 
David Seymour: Will she continue to trust those officials, given that Unite Union national secretary, Gerard Hehir, has said, "The issue has not been from our members, or our workers getting in the way of testing at all,"? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I am not at all getting to a place here where we apportion blame. I'm simply reflecting that when asked around our testing numbers, when we've had, for instance, sites set up at Auckland International Airport, what were the reasons why we weren't seeing the flow of staff through—and it will be more than one reason, I am sure—we did have conversations around whether or not this was a factor, and it had been raised with me by health officials. Again, I'm not saying necessarily that will be all at staff at all—that would simply be an incorrect assertion. 
David Seymour: What actions did she take to overcome the lack of testing due to the reluctance to be tested that was reported to her on 5 August? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: First of all, it would be wrong to assume that that would reflect the totality of the issue. If we thought that was the only issue at play, I don't think we would have overcome some of the testing numbers. I've already said that when we started getting weekly testing, we could see those numbers were low, but by 31 July, they did come up to over 211 of border staff—keeping in mind that our front-line agencies who are interacting with those higher risk numbers are around 280. So we were starting to see those numbers pick up. To answer your question: when it was raised with me, I did speak directly with at least one union, but did not have the opportunity to speak to all. They had not heard of that as an issue, but we were starting to work to get to the bottom of how we could give assurances to staff around testing. 
David Seymour: If it's not about attributing blame, what role does accountability play in her management style of this Government when things go fundamentally wrong? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I've said in this House, and as I said just moments ago, all the way through our COVID response, where we have seen issues, we have acted immediately to address them. We put in a plan around testing at the end of June. We worked to get weekly reporting through to us so we could see whether or not the testing plan was being rolled out adequately. We raised, when there were issues that perhaps suggested it wasn't as systematic as we wanted, how we could overcome those. Now, we have also mandated that testing in those high-risk areas, and you'll see today, to support the Ministry of Health in rolling out that surveillance plan, we've also put in additional support because we are working across multiple agencies: ports, airports, and a range of sites across the country. It is a massive logistical exercise we're supporting Health with. 




Question No. 2—Prime Minister
2. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Is she confident her Government moved at an appropriate pace to put in appropriate measures to manage the risk of COVID-19 re-emerging in the community? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes. The positive result in the current outbreak came back at around 2.30 p.m. on 11 August. I was informed around 4 p.m. I travelled back to Wellington immediately and met with the Minister of Health around 7 p.m. At 7.30, we met with all-of-Government officials and health officials. Immediately after that, I convened Ministers with power to act, and we made the decision to move Auckland to alert level 3 and the rest of the country to level 2 by midday, 12 August. The Government since has undertaken extensive testing and contact tracing with the Ministry of Health to identify all cases in the cluster and place them into isolation. We have already conducted over 123,000 tests and are performing at approximately 80 percent the benchmark for contact tracing within 48 hours. We are moving as swiftly as we can to manage this re-emergence in line with our resurgence plan. 
Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I asked about the appropriate measures to manage the risk of COVID-19 re-emerging in the community, not what has happened since it's re-emerged in the community. Perhaps you could consider whether or not the Prime Minister has actually addressed the question. 
SPEAKER: Well, I can see nothing relating to timing in that. 
Hon Judith Collins: Was it her belief that on 22 June, when Cabinet signed off the Ministry of Health testing strategy, all border-facing staff would then be routinely tested for COVID-19? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member will see in the testing regime—but I have to say, it's only one part of the re-emergence plan. We released in, and my recollection is late July—the member will actually probably remember the date. It was the same day that she became Leader of the Opposition—that was the day that the Government released our plan to respond to any new COVID cases in the community. That sits alongside our testing strategy, which was agreed by Cabinet at the end of June, and it did include an expectation around testing of asymptomatic individuals at the border. We also put in place reporting expectations so we could continue to monitor whether or not that was in place, and, as I've already discussed, when we saw that those numbers weren't meeting our expectations, we took steps to continue to scale up that testing. 
Hon Judith Collins: Was she aware that the strategy only encouraged testing, said no disincentives should exist, but made clear that any testing of border-facing staff would be voluntary? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, as I've said, when we saw the numbers coming through, we were concerned that we weren't seeing enough testing at those sites. As I've already acknowledged to the member, over the three-week period, we did see an increase in the number of those staff while we continued to have those talks with the Ministry of Health of what we could do to rapidly improve. The member will also be familiar, because I've already set this out, that we had the same questions and issues with making sure we got our managed isolation staff numbers up, which was why—and we made this decision as a Cabinet to require all staff to be tested within those facilities because of the risk that they presented. 
Hon Judith Collins: Why, then, did her Government issue on 23 June, one day after the Cabinet sign-off of mandatory testing, the next—did she issue the press release that included the line "regular health check and asymptomatic testing of all border-facing workers", if it was only going to be voluntary? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because that was our expectation. I also did acknowledge in a post-Cab on 20 July that we'd set down the expectation that he was working with the Minister of Health on adjustments required to see that surveillance testing increase, because we acknowledged then that we weren't seeing it meet our expectations. 
Hon Judith Collins: Does she accept that the word "all" gave people the impression that this testing would mean "all"? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, as I've said, when we saw the reporting coming back with the low numbers, we could see it wasn't as wide-reaching as our expectation, which is why we put in place, again, a Cabinet minute recording particularly for managed isolation facilities, and we continued in our work with the Ministry of Health to up the numbers that we saw of that testing at the border. Again, as I have said, that is only one part, and I understand the member's interest here. We of course are continuing to put in assurances to make sure that we do have that regular testing cycle coming through at the border. I've given further measures again today to ensure that is happening, but it would be wrong to assume that just testing is enough. It would be wrong to assume that just personal protective equipment is enough, or that just infection control is enough. We need all of it, and I would finally remind the member that despite comprehensive testing, to date we have not drawn that conclusion between our current cluster and our border. 
Hon Grant Robertson: Can the Prime Minister confirm in light of the primary question that the pace and level of contact tracing is meeting the standards set by the Government at somewhat over 80 percent—not 6 percent, as I heard on the radio this morning? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes. As I've said, we have successfully contacted 1,861 individuals. We are meeting our expectation, and that has been, of course, that within a 48-hour period of a positive return, we are contact tracing those close contacts. That work that was done after our first outbreak to use Sir Brian Roche, get that system up to scratch, and to ensure it is, as far as possible, what has been called gold standard was very, very important and useful. 
Hon Judith Collins: Were health officials specifically directed to test all border-facing staff prior to 22 July? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I'd want to go back through the Cabinet minute, but certainly you can see an expectation in the language that I've used publicly, both at the time and since. Certainly, it was minuted for managed isolation staff, and the fact that you can see from the reporting that we were not satisfied with our numbers early on, but that work was done so that by 31 July we had it up over 200—that was our expectation, and we knew there were barriers to overcome to make sure it was happening. 
Hon Grant Robertson: In light of the primary question, again, is the Prime Minister satisfied with the overall level of testing in the wake of the re-emergence—in particular, noting that the total number of tests per confirmed case for New Zealand is now 470.5, compared to Australia at 232.9? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Part of our resurgence plan was of course to have rapid, scaled-up testing—and that's not just, of course, of staff but within the community—as part of our surveillance, and around our close contact and casual contacts. The 123,000 tests that have been conducted to date acts as a form of reassurance that we are reaching those we need to reach whilst having some surveillance around whether or not that is a contained cluster. 
Hon Judith Collins: Why, after putting mandatory isolation in place on 9 April for returnees, did it take her Government 104 days to set the expectation that all border staff would be tested? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course we have changed rapidly the managed isolation process. We in April, of course, moved very quickly away from a system that many countries still use, where they have returnees just self-isolating at home, to requiring everyone to go into facilities. Now, my recollection is that we have had somewhere in the vicinity of 40,000 people going through Government-run facilities. That is significant. Once we had that regime set up, we moved to increase the controls around those. We now have them managed by Defence Force personnel, and even today we've taken new steps again to scale back the use of private contractors, scale up Defence Force, and, where we are using security, directly engage them by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and make sure they're paid a living wage. We have always looked for improvements and made them all the way through as part of our response. 
Hon Grant Robertson: In light of that answer, what is the Prime Minister's response to the statement by the Opposition health spokesperson Dr Shane Reti that it would be impossible to have 100 percent watertightness at the border and "I don't think anyone, in anyone's hands"—
SPEAKER: Order! Just as one's not allowed to use these things to attack, one shouldn't use them to support, and, quite obviously, the Prime Minister does not have responsibility for Dr Reti. 
Hon Stuart Nash: In light of the primary question, before the recent outbreak, did the Prime Minister hear any reports or hear anyone state that the Government was actually scaremongering or playing politics in warning New Zealanders not to be complacent? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes. That is something that was levelled at us multiple times. When we produced resurgence plans, when we continued to encourage people to get testing if they were symptomatic, when we asked people to prepare by having a mask at home, we were labelled as scaremongering. Again, I ask for nothing more than a consistent approach—yes, for us to be held to account, but for, as much as possible, a consistent approach to the public. These are anxious-riddled times. As much as we can, as officials in the public domain, consistently encourage people to take steps to look after their public health, the better off we will all be. 
Hon Judith Collins: Why has the Prime Minister had to bring in another working group today of Heather Simpson and Sir Brian Roche? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We haven't. We already have a surveillance and testing plan and it is a robust one. We are acknowledging, of course, though, that we are implementing that alongside what is a period of a huge amount of work for the Ministry of Health. As they continue to successfully deploy our resurgence plan, they are also being asked to deploy a strategy that cuts across ports up and down the country, international airports, and multiple sites, working across, of course, supporting the work at managed isolation facilities. It is not unreasonable—in fact, it is responsible—to support them by bringing in extra individuals who do also have expertise across different agencies to make sure they're well supported in rolling out that plan. 
Hon James Shaw: Just in light of her answer before that there were something like 40,000 people who have been processed at the border so far, is that, essentially, saying that given that there has been one outbreak in that period of time, there was a one-in-40,000 chance that there would be another outbreak? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member is right to point out that we have had an extremely successful response to date. I think it's also fair to say that the re-emergence of the virus in New Zealand is not a sign that every system we've had in place has failed. It is a sign that it is a tricky virus that no one in the world has successfully been able to keep their protections as being impenetrable, which is why we have to have multiple plans to keep it out but also to respond if and when it comes through. 




Question No. 3—Finance
3. GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy in the context of the global COVID-19 pandemic? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): On Friday, Treasury released the latest New Zealand Activity Index for July. It showed a continued bounce in activity in the economy. Activity in July was about 2 percent higher than the same time last year, its highest annual increase since February 2019. This comes on the back of a 0.6 percent increase in June. Electronic card transactions and traffic movements were particularly strong: both up 5 percent and 10 percent on July last year. This data shows the continued strength of the New Zealand economy and the benefits of eliminating the community transmission so that the economy can operate as freely as possible in the context of a global pandemic. 
Greg O'Connor: What reports has he seen on the recent performance of different sectors of the New Zealand economy? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: BNZ and BusinessNZ released their latest Performance of Manufacturing Index (PMI) and Performance of Services Index (PSI) for July on Friday and Monday respectively. The seasonally adjusted PMI was 58.8 percent, up 2.6 points from June, and the highest result since April 2018. The key indices of new orders at 67.4 and production at 61.4 showed very positive expansion, although employment did remain weak. Similarly, the PSI for July was 54.3, the same as June, continuing the solid return to expansion seen since previous lockdown restrictions were eased. Both the PMI and PSI results were ahead of many of our international counterparts, including Australia, the US, Japan, and China. This is yet more data which shows the comparative advantage and resilience of the New Zealand economy. While the current resurgence is obviously presenting economic challenges, our strategy of going hard and early to contain outbreaks while cushioning the blow to businesses will put the economy in a better position to bounce back soon. 
Greg O'Connor: What reports has he seen on the economic impact of the Government's strategy of going hard and early against COVID-19? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I've seen a number of recent comments on the economic benefits of the Government's strategy for managing COVID-19. Economist Shamubeel Eaqub said that when comparing indicators with other countries, "New Zealand's experience appears to bear out the benefit of eliminating community transmission." For example: "Weekly jobs in New Zealand have been tracking 6 per cent higher than Australia. Spending at shops has been tracking higher than the US." As Mr Eaqub said, "If we repeat our health and economic experience of the last lockdown, we will come out better off economically, without littering our conscience with lost lives." Likewise, Westpac economists have said that "Countries that have implemented successful lockdowns"—such as China—"are generally doing … better … than countries that have not—illustrating that the 'choice' between 'health and economy' was always a false dichotomy." I agree with these commentators that the best economic response is a public health response. That is why, once again, we have gone hard and early, and we are well placed to recover from this particular resurgence. 




Question No. 4—Health
4. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Health: Did he receive reports on coronavirus testing of staff at Jet Park Hotel, Auckland; if so, from what date? 
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Health): Yes. I've had many conversations with officials regarding testing at managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) facilities since becoming Minister of Health. In general, reports and advice were not facility-specific and covered all of the sites. It's important to note that testing for Jet Park staff has been available since 26 March, when that facility was first stood up. On 22 July, I was advised that rolling testing was being implemented at MIQ facilities, and had commenced at the Jet Park in Auckland and Christchurch on Friday, 10 July. This was the first written report I received specifically describing the testing of Jet Park staff. In addition, as late as 11 August—the day before the current outbreak—my office was advised the programme of testing of asymptomatic MIQ and border workers had been ramped up to commence weekly testing for staff at the quarantine high-risk facilities in Auckland Jet Park and Christchurch, and fortnightly testing for staff working in managed isolation low-risk facilities. Of course, by the time I had the opportunity to read that and ask questions about that, we were already dealing with the current cluster. 
Dr Shane Reti: How many reports or updates did he receive indicating incomplete weekly testing of staff at Jet Park from the date he was told they were being tested weekly? 
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I did not receive a facility by facility breakdown of the testing of staff. 
Dr Shane Reti: Given he said yesterday that several weeks ago, the Ministry of Health notified him in writing that all staff at Jet Park were being tested weekly, when did he relay that information to Cabinet, if at all? 
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The 22 July memo that I was referring to was specifically provided in the context of the Cabinet committee meeting that was happening that morning. They were the talking points that I was given by Health for that meeting. 
Dr Shane Reti: When did he relay the information on incomplete weekly testing of all staff at Jet Park to Cabinet, if at all? 
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think if the member had listened to my last question, it would be very evident that it was on 22 July I reported that to the relevant Cabinet committee. 
Dr Shane Reti: Can I confirm that on 22 July, he notified the Cabinet committee that all staff at Jet Park were being tested weekly and that there was incomplete weekly testing? 
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No, I think I have literally just told the member what I told Cabinet on 22 July—that I was advised that rolling testing was being implemented at MIQ facilities and had commenced at the Jet Park in Auckland and Christchurch on Friday, 10 July. 
Dr Shane Reti: What is the first date that he received Jet Park - specific testing information? 
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It would have been within the last week, in the context of the investigations around this current cluster. 




Question No. 5—Social Development
5. PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister for Social Development: How is the Government supporting food banks and other community groups to provide food and essential goods in their communities under level 3? 
Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Associate Minister for Social Development) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development: The Government has put $32 million towards supporting food banks, food rescue, and community food services with increased demand over the next two years and to support communities to work together to create food-secure communities. Our food banks and community food services have done a great job at supporting New Zealanders and keeping communities well-fed as we respond and recover from COVID-19. This additional funding bolsters their capability and provides greater security and coordination amongst the sector. In Auckland alone, 29 food banks and community food services have been approved funding over the next two years, totalling over $7.5 million. We have heard that many food banks in Auckland have experienced increased demand since the change to alert level 3 was announced, and due to the additional Government support and coordination across food support systems, they feel prepared to respond to the needs of their communities. 
Paul Eagle: How is the Government making sure that people can access food and face coverings in alert level 3? 
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: On behalf of the Minister, on top of providing additional funding to support food banks, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) and the New Zealand Food Network are working together to distribute face coverings to individuals and families alongside food parcels. MSD has distributed 2.1 million masks to providers for their use and to distribute with food parcels, including food banks, food rescue, and community food services. Over 700,000 of these have been distributed with the help of the New Zealand Food Network. Yesterday, we also released a food flow chart which shows where people can go if they are having trouble accessing or affording food during levels 2 and 3. This will be available in nine Pacific languages and Te Reo by the end of the week. 
Paul Eagle: How are community groups being supported to respond to needs in their communities following the change in alert levels? 
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: On behalf of the Minister, the Government opened a $36 million community capability and resilience fund for community groups seeking funding for initiatives that support the rebuild and recovery from COVID-19 over the next two years. This fund has pivoted to provide immediate funding to support groups to respond to people in need in Auckland following the level 3 restrictions. Total funding of $900,000 has been approved already to enable providers to respond to the needs of the community. Those providers include 12 Māori community providers, four Pacific community providers, and two general community providers. This Government is committed to continuing to support the wellbeing of our people, our whānau, and our communities in alert levels 2 and 3, and this funding enables us to support locally led solutions. 




Question No. 6—Prime Minister
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, Mr Speaker. To the Prime Minister: when she said on 11 August, "We have a resurgence plan that we will now activate.", that plan—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will read the question as per the question sheet. 
6. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Is the resurgence plan she referred to on 11 August publicly available, and is it being rolled out as effectively as she believed it would be? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes. On 15 July, the Government released a public version of the "Stamp It Out" plan. Following the release of that plan, we've continued our work to update our precautions and controls. These updated plans have also been made publicly available, once approved by Cabinet, and are all part of our plan to make consistent improvements to our protections and response based on evidence and what we are seeing overseas. The approach taken to the new cases in Auckland is being rolled out consistently with the Government's planned approach. 
Hon Judith Collins: Why hasn't the Government made that plan widely available to the public? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I just set out, it has. It is publicly available. We have continued with iterative plans, though, since that time which have taken into account some of what we've seen offshore. I would reflect, for instance, that the original resurgence plan, which had a number of scenarios sitting behind it, didn't necessarily take into account what we've since seen in Victoria, where smaller, localised lockdowns haven't been as successful as they would have anticipated. We've adjusted some of our settings to incorporate that. 
Hon Judith Collins: Is this the plan? [Holds up a one-page document]
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Is that your question—sorry? 
Hon Judith Collins: Is this the plan? 
Hon Grant Robertson: You sit down after you do the question. 
SPEAKER: If I wasn't helped by the Minister of Finance, I might have intervened more severely, but I will give the member a warning that she will not do that again, because she does know it's out of order. She is a very experienced member and she should know better—she does know better. 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: What the member has held up is a front-facing document which has sitting behind it a much more comprehensive, detailed plan that went through Cabinet. That's worked through with the all-of-Government group. That also works through with agencies, including those who have responsibility with deploying the plan. Then, what is released is a summary version which gives an indication of how we would deploy our existing alert level framework, which is very publicly available. It is not the only element of work. We since then have, as I said, gone back to Cabinet to put more detail behind it to reflect what we've learnt from the likes of Victoria. So we have had another iteration since that time. 
Hon Chris Hipkins: Can the Prime Minister confirm that when she called a press conference to announce the details of that plan, she was accused of scaremongering? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Apparently, I'm now being accused of not doing enough scaremongering. We did release that plan. I set out our intent there. I also set out that Cabinet would do more detailed work to sit behind it. We did do that detailed work. Agencies involved in deploying our resurgence plan have been involved at every step of the way, and that's the important part—they have been involved in the decision making. That is why you have seen 123,000 tests, 1,800 contacts traced up to the standard that we expected within 48 hours, and the ability, might I add, to move a whole city to level 3 restrictions in a profoundly short period of time—because we had a plan. 
Hon Judith Collins: Does the resurgence plan include details as to how people would be able to move across regional borders if they are at different alert levels; if so, does she think it is acceptable for a uniformed paramedic travelling into Auckland for work to be held up for over an hour before being allowed through the Bombay checkpoint? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, we did work through the issue of regional boundaries. I even spoke publicly at a press conference around how we would anticipate those being monitored, the fact that they would be based on either boundaries as we have with councils or civil defence boundaries, and that we would look to use the police over the army. We have multiple checkpoints set up around Auckland. Some areas, we're being able to separate out general flow with freight and others, and I would include emergency services. Some areas, it's not possible to set up two chains of flow, and, unfortunately, as the police are checking through that people are coming in who are meant to be coming in, it does mean that we may in some areas have backlog. 
Hon Judith Collins: Does the resurgence plan include protocols to ensure that essential workers such as medical staff were issued with cards or permits that would allow them to cross regional borders to get to their workplaces? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I'd point out to the member that even with guidance on who should and shouldn't be allowed through—which, of course, is really the parameters of our alert level framework—it is impossible, when you have such a large amount of people coming through to checkpoints, to make it instant. Anything is going to require a physical check by an officer, and that is going to take some time. 
Hon Judith Collins: Is she confident in her resurgence plan when it took more than 2½ days to get testers on site at the Port of Tauranga following an order that all port workers needed to be tested? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would reflect that my recollection is we already had health orders from some time ago for our maritime borders that did require, for instance, that anyone who was coming in on a ship, or international crew, had requirements around how long they had to be at sea before they would be allowed to exit the port. We had requirements around social distancing at the port between those who might be part of international crew. We even had requirements around whether or not they were able to access welfare centres. We then supplemented that with requirements around testing if anyone were to try and exit a port. Overlaying that, we've put in a testing regime. We have focused on Auckland port particularly, and that's because of the link between the port and Americold. But I would remind the member that whilst we've had several thousand tests now undertaken at Auckland port—2,229 tests taken at Auckland port—we are also covering a large number of contractors who are able to access the port, so, obviously, that does take a bit of time. 
Hon Judith Collins: Does her resurgence plan specifically exclude butchers and greengrocers from being able to open their shops, and, if so, why? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member will be well aware that it's actually our alert level framework that deals with restrictions around who can and cannot operate. 




Question No. 7—Housing
7. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Housing: What policies were in place at Rydges Auckland hotel that could have protected New Zealanders, given the Minister of Health's statement that "there was regular testing at the hotel"? 
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): There were a range of policies and processes in place in Rydges Auckland, and, in fact, all managed isolation and quarantine facilities, to protect New Zealanders from the spread of COVID. They are too numerous for me to list in full, but they do include a site selection criteria that ensures that the site is suitable from a health and security perspective; staff training and induction; structured communication for all returnees; and policies on infection prevention controls, including the use of personal protective equipment and physical distancing, daily health checks of all guests and staff, two COVID tests of every returnee, protocols around room cleaning and, in particular, rooms where a returnee has tested positive, including a hospital-grade clean using a Bioquell hydrogen peroxide machine, and protocols that are initiated within the facility if any returnees test positive. We have always been open that these policies and procedures are built on and improved as we progress. As our response has evolved, we have introduced and are ensuring compliance with two tests for all guests, with a negative test required as a condition of release from managed isolation; we've introduced enhanced security measures and a 24/7 on-site police presence; and we have introduced testing for all staff on a voluntary basis initially, and all staff testing commenced on 12 August. One hundred percent of all staff have now been tested at the Rydges facility. The member is probably aware and has seen the announcement this afternoon that we have also announced an additional 500 defence personnel for the managed isolation and quarantine facilities, bringing the number at these facilities to 990 in total, and bringing the number of defence personnel involved in COVID-related work to 1,200. I draw the member's attention to the fact this is the largest deployment since Timor-Leste. 
Dr Shane Reti: What policy allowed the coronavirus-positive maintenance worker to continue working at the Rydges Hotel for two days despite reportedly having a cough? 
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: That was canvassed in the House yesterday. The fact that the worker passed his daily health check, which consisted of his temperature being taken and of him not having a temperature which would be consistent with someone having COVID, and the interview taken around his symptoms—it's already been traversed that this employee did have an underlying health condition that could explain the symptom he was showing. I think one of the things that we all need to remember is this is an incredibly tricky virus, and there are many people around the world who do not present with symptoms such as a raised temperature but who do go on to test COVID-positive. 
Dr Shane Reti: Was it a compulsory policy for all staff to wear a mask at the Rydges on the day the maintenance worker had the cough, and did he wear a mask all the time he was working? 
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: It would have been compulsory policy for all staff at the facility to wear a mask where they were in a situation where it was possible that they would be breaching 2-metre physical distancing requirements. 
Dr Shane Reti: Did the maintenance worker at the Rydges and the genome-linked - positive woman ever use the same communal spaces, and, if so, how much time separated them? 
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: All our investigations to date have indicated they were not in the same communal spaces. We have used a variety of methods to track this. We have looked at key card data around the hotel to track movements. We've also examined CCTV footage from the hotel. There are two important facts to realise with this: one, the returnee who entered the hotel on 28 July and was transferred to the Jet Park on 31 July only left her room on a couple of occasions, and that is coupled with the fact that the worker in question we're talking about—a maintenance staff worker—is not generally in areas where returnees are. 
Dr Shane Reti: Did the maintenance worker wear a mask all the time he was working at the Rydges? 
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: He would have worn a mask when he was required to wear a mask, when the policies dictated that he needed to—if he were to be in what was deemed to be a close contact with someone. But I reiterate the point that I made to that member that this was a worker that was not in routine contact with returnees. 
Dr Shane Reti: Does CCTV footage and swipe card records at the Rydges account for all activities relevant to this line of inquiry? 
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: We have made really good progress looking at that. I think the fact that the returnee in question was only out of her room for a very short period of time has made the tracking much easier throughout the hotel. It's something we take incredibly seriously—that we do have two cases that are genomically linked but that we have not been able to find a common link, either a person-to-person link or a surface-to-person link. So we continue to look at all the options and all the avenues of investigation. 




Question No. 8—Māori Development
8. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister for Māori Development: What interventions have been implemented specifically for the Māori and Pacific COVID-19 response to address the re-emergence of community transmission? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister for Māori Development): To date, the response, primarily led by the Minister for Whānau Ora and supported by Te Puni Kōkiri, has enabled Whānau Ora commissioning agencies and other Government agencies to target their funding support to ensure the most vulnerable whānau in Tāmaki-makau-rau are able to have their needs met. Community-based assessment centre (CBAC) testing stations have been established across Tāmaki in several pop-up sites in areas that are more vulnerable to the profile of potential spread. Food hubs have been established in Māori and Pasifika communities, and for the Pasifika community in particular there is an after-hours support service as well as extra support to those ainga in quarantine or self-isolation. We also have Māori wardens working with New Zealand Police at some of the Auckland regional checkpoints. 
Kiritapu Allan: Have the CBAC centres provided for improved access for whānau within Māori and Pasifika communities, and how successful have testing rates been amongst these target groups? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Yes. Within hours of the announcement of COVID-19's re-emergence, Auckland Whānau Ora commissioning agencies and their partners activated their resurgence plans, setting up testing clinics alongside DHBs and other providers. Te Pou Matakana, which is a Whānau Ora commissioning agency in Auckland, is operating three pop-up testing stations across Tāmaki-makau-rau to support whānau to access testing facilities. In response to the congestion at Druces Road testing station, Te Puea Marae stood up a pop-up testing station outside the marae on Monday, 17 August—again, to alleviate pressure across the city and provide access to testing. If we look at the testing taken between 12 to 18 August, as at 5 p.m., roughly, the percentage for Māori of total tests taken equated to 16.1 percent, and for the Pasifika community, 23.7 percent. 
Kiritapu Allan: Are DHBs working collaboratively with Māori and Pasifika community health providers to improve the local response, and what has that involved? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Firstly, I want to acknowledge the efforts of the incident management team in the Northern Region Health Coordination Centre, who are working hard to ensure that the response for Māori and Pasifika communities across all Auckland DHBs is coordinated alongside other agencies to connect with whānau and ainga and to keep communities informed with consistent and accurate public health information. They are allocating resources across their networks to meet this demand on a number of fronts, such as access to pop-up testing sites and also the provision of masks. We have testing sites, for example, in Tuakau, Pukekohe, Karaka, and also in the broader Auckland area through a mobile clinic. 
Kiritapu Allan: Has the rate of community testing and contact tracing for Māori and Pasifika whānau supported the effective isolation of the Auckland cluster, and what further steps are necessary? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The testing regime has enabled more tests to be taken across vulnerable communities nationwide and, in this instance, Māori and Pasifika communities. Nearly 30,000 tests have been made in Māori and Pasifika communities in the past week. This has bolstered the investigation into the latest Auckland coronavirus cluster and has been instrumental in tracing contacts across the city. As stated by the Director-General of Health, Dr Ashley Bloomfield, our people are not the problem; the virus is the problem—people are the solution. The Government is encouraging whānau and ainga to get the test if you're sick or in the targeted contact-tracing group, keep a record of where you've been, horoia ō ringaringa—wash your hands—wear a mask, and remain vigilant. 




Question No. 9—Finance
9. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Is he confident that the Government's economic policies and actions are providing the clarity that businesses need and as much certainty as possible? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I am. Throughout our response to this global pandemic, the Government's economic policies and actions like the wage subsidy, business tax breaks, and our public health response have been designed to give businesses clarity and certainty that will help support them through this one-in-100-year shock, and go hard and early to stamp out COVID-19 so that activity can return to normal as quickly as possible. We have never wavered from this strategy, despite calls from some quarters to reduce restrictions, open the border, close the border, spend more, spend less, and other general flip-flops. 
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he stand by the Government's guidance to business: "If you are receiving the COVID-19 Wage Subsidy, you must try your hardest to pay the employee named in your application at least 80% of their usual wages. If that isn't possible, you need to pay at least the subsidy rate"? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That is indeed the current advice. 
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he aware of a recent determination by the Employment Relations Authority that an employer who followed the Government's guidance and agreed with employees for them to take an 80 percent pay where that reduced their pay below the minimum wage was, in fact, in breach of the Minimum Wage Act and liable for back-pay? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Minimum Wage Act, obviously, is the law of the land. It still applies. I'm advised by the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety that they did not follow the guidance. 
Hon Paul Goldsmith: So does he believe that the Government's guidance to businesses which says that you can, if you need to, pay at least the subsidy rate has potentially put some businesses in breach of the minimum wage law and potentially made them liable for considerable back-pay? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, I don't accept that. All employers around New Zealand are aware of their obligations under the law. If they follow the law and follow the guidance, they will be fine. 
Hon Paul Goldsmith: The Government's COVID website says that if a business needs to, it can pay just the full-time workers the subsidy rate, but that rate is well below the minimum wage, and the Employment Relations Authority says the Government's advice, essentially, is wrong and that the minimum wage must be paid—isn't there a problem? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I answered a number of questions about this during the period of time when the first wage subsidy was put into place. Employers are well aware of the need to follow the law. 
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Well, what has he done since then to tidy up this situation so that businesses have certainty that they won't have to make large back payments if the Employment Relations Authority's determination is upheld? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I can only repeat the answer that I've got: employers who have entered into any type of arrangement with their employees know that they need to follow the law. 
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he not agree that the current situation is very unclear and that many businesses that are struggling to survive are faced with a great deal of uncertainty about a potential liability? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, I don't accept that that is the level of uncertainty that the member is describing. 
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Well, has he received any advice on the number of businesses liable if the Employment Relations Authority's determination became binding? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I've received no such advice, but I'm confident that employers in New Zealand are aware of their obligations under the law. 
Hon Paul Goldsmith: So he sees no problem with the COVID-19 website telling employers that if they need to, they can pay employees at the subsidy rate, which is less than the minimum wage, and a determination from the Employment Relations Authority that that is not the case—you need to pay the minimum wage? 
SPEAKER: Order! Order! We'll put a "does" in front of the question to make it a question. 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Throughout all of the assistance that the Government has provided, it is clear that employers must meet their legal obligations. We've had the same discussion around the stance of some employers to say that employees need to use up their annual leave. All of these matters were dealt with when we went through this earlier. Employers in New Zealand are well aware of their legal obligations. 
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Well, is he aware that there is a difference of $170 a week between the wage subsidy and the minimum wage? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We've all been aware for some time of the rate of the wage subsidy. 
Hon Paul Goldsmith: So how can a business pay employees at the rate of the wage subsidy and still be actually paying the appropriate minimum wage? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The rate of the wage subsidy is set at $585 per week. Everyone knows that. 
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Well, is he confident that businesses can operate with due certainty when they have this very vague situation hanging over their head and the potential of having to pay back-pay to bridge the gap between the two if they were following the correct advice from the website, which says that if they needed to, they could pay just at the wage subsidy rate? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I've said numerous times in this answer, most employers in New Zealand—good employers—are very well aware of the minimum wage. 




Question No. 10—Justice
10. Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Justice: What, if any, additional funding or support has the Government provided to the Electoral Commission to run the election in light of COVID-19? 
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): In June, the Government provided an additional $28.7 million of funding, on top of the roughly $139.6 million of funding to run this year's general election. This funding supports the Electoral Commission to deliver the election safely and includes funding for property rental, additional staff, supplies and postage, enhanced hygiene supplies, technology changes, and more communications. The Government is also discussing with the Electoral Commission what further support they need to deliver a safe, accessible, and credible election in light of the second wave of COVID-19 in Auckland. As the Prime Minister has said, the Government is committed to ensuring we have a well-run election that gives all voters the best chance to receive all the information they need about parties and candidates and delivers certainty for the future, and I'm confident that the Electoral Commission will be able to deliver this. 
Hon James Shaw: What advice has he had about the commission's preparedness for running the 2020 election? 
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Since April, I've received regular briefings from the Electoral Commission on their planning for the general election in a COVID-19 environment. I'm also aware the commission has kept political parties informed about pending arrangements. The Electoral Commission has planned for a range of scenarios, including the possibility of an election period where the country is at alert level 2 and with some areas of the country at alert level 3. The commission's approach has been to minimise congestion in voting places by extending the advance voting period and increasing the number of advance voting places operating on the weekend before the election, increasing the number of voting places, and using large, enclosed voting places to support physical distancing and hygiene measures such as making hand sanitation available. I might also point out I am aware of a suggestion that maybe the Electoral Commission could consider drive-in voting in the way that we do with community-based assessment centres at the moment. Postal voting is available for people who cannot go to a voting place, for example, because of illness, age, or disability. 
Hon James Shaw: What changes, if any, has the Government made to electoral law in this term to make it easier for people to vote at the 2020 general election? 
SPEAKER: Order! I think the member might want to rephrase the question. He knows the difference between the Government and the Parliament. 
Hon James Shaw: Sorry; I beg your pardon. What changes, if any, has Parliament made to the electoral law this term to make it easier for people to vote at the 2020 general election? 
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Parliament has passed a number of measures to make it easier to vote in this year's general election. This includes changes to the Electoral Act to allow New Zealanders to enrol and vote on election day and to allow supermarkets and malls to be used as voting places if the commission chooses to do so. In addition to what Parliament has done, the Government has also made a number of temporary changes to electoral regulations that were requested by the Electoral Commission to assist in delivering the election in a COVID-19 environment. These temporary changes make remote voting easier, which therefore gives New Zealanders confidence in participating in the election safely. 
Hon James Shaw: What advice has he received about the Electoral Commission's key messages to voters at this election? 
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I have received no specific advice on the Electoral Commission's key messages—that is, after all, a matter for the Electoral Commission. But I have seen through the media that the Electoral Commission has advised and is advising New Zealanders to enrol early, to vote early, and to vote close to home—not to be confused with "Vote early, vote often". I note that there will be more voting places open during voting, and larger venues will be used to minimise queues and allow room for physical distancing. Other ways of voting will be available to those who can't go to a voting place. I encourage those wanting to know more to go to elections.nz. 
 





GENERAL DEBATE
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.
Well, another week and another working group set up today with this Government, another vote of no confidence in her Ministers from the Prime Minister. Bring back Heather Simpson and Sir Brian Roche—that's what we said. We're coming back to the Helen Clark era, and we can see what's happened is that there is no confidence in her Ministers to sort out this COVID-19 re-emergence, this mess that we've been given as the people of New Zealand. You know, it's five months since New Zealand went into lockdown the first time, and in five months New Zealanders would have expected that we would have a Government putting all its efforts into making sure that this virus did not resurge back into the community. After all, we've been told that the borders were secure. After all, we were told that there was a COVID tracing app that would help us all, this COVID tracing app which, until this last week, around 6 percent of New Zealanders were using—this COVID tracing app. We're all using it now because we have no confidence in the Government. 
It was 104 days from 9 April when the Government got the—
Greg O'Connor: You're scaremongering.
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: —right to do mandatory testing at—
SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume her seat. The member will not bring me into the debate. He will stand, withdraw, and apologise.
Greg O'Connor: I withdraw and apologise.
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. So 104 days from 9 April, when mandatory testing was allowed, to 22 July, when Cabinet decided to get around to doing its job—only 104 days. That then gave the health officials nine days before the first of the resurgence of COVID-19 in the community became known to New Zealanders.
What's happened since? Well, most of New Zealand is now in a level 2 lockdown. That's one of the reasons that Parliament today is relatively quiet and not the usual rowdy place that it is. But the other thing that's happened is Auckland—the entire Auckland region, 1.7 million New Zealanders—1.7 million New Zealanders, representing a third of the population in this country, have been locked down in a level 3 lockdown. That means that businesses are closed. That means that children are not at school. That means that universities are not operating. That means, to those people who care, that Auckland is now, and therefore New Zealand, losing $75 million a day—not a week, not a year; a day—and 25 jobs lost every day because of this lockdown, this level 3 lockdown. That's what's happening, and those are not figures brought together or estimated by the National Party's economic unit; those are figures put together by the head economist for the Hon Phil Goff's Auckland Council—the former leader of the Labour Party. That's their figures.
Today, we've heard nothing from the Prime Minister about a resurgence plan other than this—this document—plus something that comes in behind it. It's such a widely read document that the Parliamentary Library today could find no evidence of it at all after a search. So it wasn't just that we couldn't find it; it's the fact that the Parliamentary Library, which can find pretty much anything if it's published, couldn't find it. Today, we heard nothing from the Prime Minister about why it is that greengrocers and butchers are still closed, why it is that essential health workers weren't issued with passes to move through borders, why it is that people have been waiting, in some cases, four hours in traffic, stuck on the Bombay Hills trying to get through the hard land border that the police have been told to set up. Nowhere in that was there any preparation—104 days that Cabinet gave itself to think about whether or not they would require mandatory testing of border-facing staff. That's your front-line workers—104 days. Last night, we heard from the Unite Union saying, actually, you shouldn't have policy by press release. We heard from the Prime Minister today that there was an expectation that something would happen, that there would be mandatory testing. How can there be an expectation when nobody is checking the checkers? Where was the Minister of Health on this?
I was asked today by the media a very pertinent question. It was: should the Minister of Health be gone? Who should be the Minister of Health? It wasn't a difficult question for me to answer. It was really, really obvious. There should be a new Minister of Health, and that Minister of Health is not Dr Megan Woods. It's not Nanaia Mahuta. It's not Kelvin Davis. The Minister of Health should be Dr Shane Reti, the only person qualified in this House and the only person who can assist in this matter—the person that we will choose when we lead the Government.





Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Health): I'm very tempted to almost endorse the last comment Judith Collins made. I think she should listen to Dr Shane Reti a little more often—when he said that there was no such thing as a 100 percent foolproof plan to protect New Zealand from COVID-19. Dr Reti is right, and it's what the Government has been saying since the end of the last lockdown. We've been telling New Zealanders of the need to remain vigilant. We have been putting in place plans to ensure that, if we were confronted with COVID-19 again, we could rise to the occasion, as we did the first time around. And what did we get from the Opposition with regard to those plans? We got accused of scaremongering—all sorts of conspiracy theories about what did we know that they didn't know, when we were telling New Zealanders that we simply needed to be prepared. A virus is a virus.
Let me just draw an analogy, because one of the most obvious solutions—apparently we should just ban the virus. If we're mean to the virus, it won't come into New Zealand! That seems to be the implication from at least one member on the other side. If you raise your eyebrows in a sufficient kind of a way towards the virus, it won't dare cross the border. But let's just be really clear about that: for the last several decades, including the nine years of the last National Government, we had a zero tolerance to biosecurity incursions in New Zealand. How did that work out for us? There were 199 biosecurity incursions under the last Government despite their stated zero-tolerance approach for that—including Mycoplasma bovis, which has cost the country millions. That happened under their watch. If there was a way to make our border 100 percent foolproof when it comes to viruses and other things that might want to try and get into the country, every Government would have done it by now. The thing is there is no such thing as a risk-free strategy here.
I do want to again remind New Zealanders that our "go hard, go early" strategy delivers dividends. New Zealanders know that because we had the longest period without community transmission of COVID-19 of just about any country in the world. New Zealanders can see that the sacrifices we are making right now, as of today, are worth it because we can get on top of the virus and we can stamp it out. We will do that again to ensure that we get the freedom back that New Zealanders are looking for. We will do that in several ways. First of all, we will ensure there is extensive testing: 136,000 tests have been processed since 12 August; all border and managed isolation facility workers are being tested; the vast majority of managed isolation and quarantine facility workers have been tested and they have produced negative results. The second line of defence is our contact tracing: where a positive case is identified, we identify all their contacts, we get in contact with those people, and we make sure they are isolated. I can give the House an update that there are 1,983 close contacts identified to date, and 1,861 of those have already been contacted. That is what our system is designed to do, and it is delivering as it is intended.
Outside of the health system, we can support New Zealanders whose lives and livelihoods have been disrupted by this latest COVID-19 incursion. We've extended the wage subsidy—we acknowledge it's tough economic going out there. We've put extra support in place for students whose learning has been disrupted by COVID-19, including restarting the very popular learning from home TV; distributing more laptops to students in Auckland, particularly those who are studying towards NCEA; and working with our senior secondary schools to ensure that those students who need to be on site for practical learning can do so in a safe way that is consistent with other workplaces that are able to operate under level 3.
Throughout the response to COVID-19, the Government has been accused of many, many things. We've been told; we've been given much advice: first, we should be more like Australia—maybe not; then, we should be more like Sweden—6,000 people died in Sweden; then, we should be more like South Korea; then, we should open the border to Australia and open the border to China with urgency; we should allow international students back into our country as soon as possible. All of those suggestions have come from the Opposition. At every step along this way, when they have been asked to make judgments, they've made judgments that have been proven to be wrong. On this side of the House we have been working hard to stamp out COVID-19. We have taken a cautious approach.
Finally, it is a bit rich for the Opposition to be accusing me of not moving fast enough to make testing mandatory when they opposed the law change that allows me to do that and called it the greatest infringement on human rights this country has ever seen. The Opposition—every time they've been asked to make a judgment on COVID19—have got it wrong.





Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): That was an interesting speech from the Minister of Health. It was consistent with the theme started by the Prime Minister in the House this afternoon, called: let's rewrite history—let's rewrite history. The Minister stands there and says that the Opposition have made various suggestions about what might happen in the environment that we are currently dealing with. Every one of those suggestions was based on the false optimism of the Government—every one of them. The idea that we should open our borders to Australia—that was the Prime Minister going to Australia, meeting with Mr Morrison, and talking about the Australian bubble. It was the Prime Minister who talked about the Pacific bubble. Those are the sorts of optimistic statements that it would be reasonable not only for the Opposition, who get told things only a few minutes before they happen, but everybody in New Zealand to expect, because if, in fact, the border was secure, we would not be in this position right now.
The Minister says, "Well, it's not possible to have 100 percent prevention of this virus coming in at the border." Well, let's be clear: it has come in because there are gaping great holes in the process at the border, and they've been there for a very long time. What's more, Cabinet seems to want to say to New Zealand, the Prime Minister wants to say to New Zealand, the health Minister wants to say to New Zealand, "We were told by officials that it was all OK and that the testing was going on." Well, 107 days—107 days—it took them to ask the right questions. That is not a Government that is showing any kind of leadership at all.
Perhaps the best thing that came out of the Minister of Health's speech today was finally the admission that this virus, this incursion in Auckland, has occurred because of a border transgression. That's the first time we've heard it. Up till now, one of my colleagues described it—and I don't mean any offence by saying this, although at the moment pretty much anything I say causes offence, but I don't mean any offence by saying that. Up until now, the Government's view has been that this was an immaculate event. That somehow this virus just—well, that this virus just appeared from nowhere. It got into the system somewhere, it didn't come across the border, and there's been no possibility of tracing it. That should worry every New Zealander—that it has not been traced, that there is no source apparently at the moment. Well, if there's no source, and it could pop up at any time, how on earth do we get out of the current alert level situations with any degree of confidence? That is a big worry, because at the moment there will be people in this country who are losing their jobs, there'll be businesses that are going to the wall, and there'll be thousands of others, as I've said so many times, wondering what happens when the wage subsidy ends.
It's great that it's been extended—no one's arguing against that; it's what has to happen in the current environment—but there's got to be some end play somewhere, and there just is none. And for the Government to say, "Well, we don't know where it came from.", "We can't trace the source.", "There is no connection.", "We're doing all of the various genome tracing, etc.", "We know that there's similar types of virus, but we don't know how they're connected."—that is not a comforting message to be giving New Zealanders. And for the finance Minister to say, "Well, don't worry about it, because the cost of this is just coming out of the $14 billion that we set aside from the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund."—every dollar in that fund is borrowed, every dollar. So it's not as if there's a pot of cash sitting there that's being dipped into; it's debt. And while we would quite openly say we do have to look after New Zealanders who are in threatened circumstances, there has to be a look at what the endgame is.
So we look at the resurgence plan. We're told today by the Prime Minister it's a work in progress. They hope to have it before Cabinet soon. They've got an A4 paper that goes out with about six or seven paragraphs on it, and they're saying, "That's the plan, and we're following it." Well, the plan so far has let COVID-19 through the border, it's let it get into the community, and then it has not been able to be traced, because the tracing system is not strong enough. If there was any optimism shown by this side of the House about what New Zealand might be able to do as we progressed from the last bout of COVID-19 in this country, it's because the Government was relentlessly optimistic about the situation, and, therefore, every New Zealander was optimistic about the current situation. Anyone who says that we're wrong is themselves wrong.





Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): That speech by that member, the Hon Gerry Brownlee, pretty much epitomises the state of the National Party Opposition till now. There he was telling a story, and we were waiting for the punchline, and he didn't have a punchline. That is pretty much where the National Party is at now. Nothing they say or do lands with any relevance to New Zealand at the moment. I want to say that this Government can take considerable pride in rising to some of the greatest challenges that this small but well-formed little country at the bottom of the world has had to face for a long, long time.
Put aside the rebuilding of the health system, the education system, and actually getting our economy back on track, actually rising to the challenge of COVID-19, like every other country in the world, has posed an enormous challenge to this Government and to this country. New Zealanders have risen to the challenge, with the outstanding leadership of the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern. But it hasn't been easy. This Government has provided a rapid, a focused, a science and evidence - based, and a resolute response to the arrival of that vicious little virus in our beautiful little country, and we have been more successful than just about every other country in the world.
Now, let's be clear: there is no room for backslapping and self-congratulation. That's why this Government has been very clear in the last few weeks and months that we have to be ready for the possibility of community transmission. Even though we had got to the point where we knew we had eliminated it, the risk was very real and it was still there. But what did the Opposition say when we pointed out that risk? What did they say when there were shots of the Director-General of Health, Ashley Bloomfield, taking a test? What did they say when the Government started talking about getting ready for masks—"You might want to think about wearing masks."? They said it was scaremongering. They said there was no basis for it, because somehow they knew best. Just like when they said, "Don't close the borders. Open the borders."—"Oh, whoops, we got that wrong. Close the borders again." Then they said, "Can we have more students?"—"Oh no, we don't want the students anymore." Then they said, "Will you stop borrowing money."—"Oh, we'll borrow money. You can't borrow money. We won't borrow money. You—" Oh, they got so mixed up. They don't know what to do. They have not had a coherent, rational response all the way through. That is the state of the Opposition. No wonder Gerry Brownlee forgot his punchline. He's got no punch any more—he's got no punch any more.
This is it—the reality is, and we have been on notice—we have to be vigilant about the possibility of this virus returning, and it has returned. Look at the response we've had: instant, rapid, focused, determined, just as we did the first time, and we are now starting to see the dividends being paid. Yes, there are people who are doing it tough, businesses who are doing it tough, families and communities who are doing it tough. I think this resurgence—the re-arrival of COVID-19 in Auckland and some of those communities in Auckland—has probably had a harder effect on people psychologically and emotionally than anybody sort of ever expected to begin with. But there is support there and there is understanding, and that's why the messages from the Prime Minister and from the Minister of Health, the Hon Chris Hipkins, each day, and through the Director-General of Health, Ashley Bloomfield, and others is so important. There is one place where you can get accurate information, and that is from those sources and from Government sources.
Not the kind of conspiracy theory muckraking that we've seen from the Opposition—none of that sort of nonsense. That is not helping. At a time when communities and families are feeling fragile and are needing reassurance, going down that path is simply not helping; and, in fact, it's the opposite: it is quite destructive. There is one ray of light on members opposite, and that is Dr Shane Reti, who at least seems to understand the challenge that this Government is trying to rise to and that there will never be a perfect response, but there has to be a response based on science, based on evidence, and that has people at its heart. I'll come to that point. Like everything this Government does, it is about the wellbeing of New Zealanders—the wellbeing of New Zealanders collectively—doing the right response and making sure people are looked after and taken care of. That's what we have sought to do.
We've tightened up the borders. We've had 40,000 people coming across the New Zealand border just since the lockdown—40,000 people—and we've had one or two escapes and we've had one or two very strange people trying to break into those facilities, but, actually, 40,000 people have gone through the isolation and quarantine facilities and come out the other side. That's been a hell of a challenge for a country like ours, with the facilities that we've got, getting the logistics right, getting the personnel in place to enable that to happen so that Kiwis abroad can come home and know that they will be safe and enjoy the safety that this country offers. That's what we have been doing—that's what we have been doing.
So I think this is a time when we've all been somewhat shaken out of what looked like a cruise mode—notwithstanding the warnings the Government was giving about being ready and being prepared. People have now understood why it is important that we take the right health measures, that we get our masks ready, that we do the right thing. But we are not going to go into the flip-flop mode of the Opposition, and say one thing one week and say the opposite the next—go down a conspiracy theory sort of rabbit hole one day and then come out the next and say, "No, we didn't really mean to be conspiracy theorising, but, actually, what are they hiding from us?" That's what we've had. It hasn't been reassuring to the public, and that's what New Zealanders need and deserve most right now.





Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Mr Speaker. New Zealanders did their part. We all did our part. We're asking the Government, "Did you do your part?" We believed. We stayed at home. We did our best to keep our businesses running. We did our best to keep people's jobs. People missed their operations, their diagnostic tests, their school exams. We all did our part. Has the Government done theirs?
You see, we believed we were all part of a team—a team of 5 million. Well, the team of 5 million turned up and, on game day, the coach didn't have the right gear. We all trained during the week. We all went to practice. We all understood the plan. On game day, the coach didn't have the right gear and hadn't started the clock. When we were told about Jet Park, our highest quarantine facility for positive cases, we were told all staff were being tested weekly—all staff were being tested weekly. Now we know they weren't, and, yet, Ashley Bloomfield said he gave the Minister full and very regular updates on isolation testing. Who do we believe? We've heard the Government apologise for some of the situations. I have heard no apology to staff at Jet Park from this Government. So I will make it. I'm sorry. We will do our very best to work with officials to keep you safe while you keep us safe. Thank you for what you do.
I do not understand why staff at all isolation facilities were not required to wear masks and other personal protective equipment (PPE) until last Wednesday. How can that be? Staff at isolation facilities were not required to wear PPE until last Wednesday. The argument is that returnees stay in their room and, when they come out of the room, they're required to wear a mask, and staff only have to mask up if they're more than two metres from those returning people. That's a hard problem. It's a hard problem in a hotel to stay two metres from someone coming and going, let alone talking about the fomite, the intangible objects that we believe some of the virus can live on. That's a hard problem. It actually would have been easier to say, "Look, we're going to require all of you staff—to keep you safe, we're going to require all of you—to at least wear a mask and other PPE." Eventually, on Wednesday, the Government got to that position.
A month ago, in written question No. 14725, I think, I asked Chris Hipkins exactly this. I said: can he qualify why staff in isolation facilities are not required compulsorily to wear PPE, masks, etc.? And he made this argument. So we were doing what we do; we were raising the questions to raise the bar. We were critiquing, saying, "Look, we think this is a good idea. Can you think about it?" Yet, three weeks ago, it was taken on board but nothing was done until we strike the urgency of the Jet Park and the urgency of the Rydges.
While we're talking about the Rydges hotel in Auckland, the new genome is a puzzle. We understand that B.1.1.1. is the main cluster, but now we've got our second genome, and that's a real puzzle. It's a real puzzle to understand that connection to the woman who has also tested genome-positive to that same genome. That's a real problem that we all need to think on, because that's going to be a second source. We know it's come across the border. There's no other place it could have come from. But then, once that happened, what happened then? That's when the genome testing is so important.
I'd also ask for some reflection on the burning ember. Are we absolutely sure that this current outbreak is not a recurrence of what we saw with coronavirus wave 1? Are we absolutely sure that the Rydges case which we've seen is not a recurrence? I know it's a long time—it's 100-plus days—but are we absolutely sure that there's not some continuity of asymptomatic people passing it on, or people who are too afraid to be tested because of the stigma, which I hope we can all shift and change, and say, "No, please, you do us all a favour. You do us all a favour if you can be tested. If you are and you're positive, thank you for putting your hand up. Here's some things you need to do, but you keep us all safe doing that." I'm really hopeful we can all get to that position, particularly for Māori, who struggle maybe even that bit more, particularly for some of my whanaunga up in far-flung distant areas like in the Far North, where I really hope they're participating in this response.
I want to talk about the international border and the statements that have been made today around our position. Let me be clear that we have always said that safety is first. We have always said that safety is pre-eminent before the border could be opened. And, yet, others have come to the same position: on 5 May, when the Prime Minister, in Australia, said that the meeting discussed the possible trans-Tasman bubble, where people could go between Australia and New Zealand freely and without quarantine—5 May. On 9 June, the Deputy Prime Minister: "Rather than being confined or constrained by the states that are not succeeding with COVID-19, why don't we just deal with Tasmania for example and Queensland, and start there? … no reason at all for us not to have started."
On 8 August, one day before our first positive test for the current response—remember that they were tested on Monday the 9th, and it was announced on Tuesday the 10th—on 8 August, 24 hours before that first positive test, the Prime Minister said this: "Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has confirmed the Government is looking at the first significant loosening of New Zealand's closed border and strict visa regime since entering lockdown in March." So the Prime Minister herself, 24 hours before we got that first positive test, was saying, "Maybe we should look at the borders." Maybe we've all been saying the same thing? But be absolutely sure: we were saying that safety comes first.
Look, the policies were not being delivered. The promises were not being kept. This team has been let down, and now we just need to fix it. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





 Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister for Climate Change): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to take this moment, whilst we're obviously very concerned with the short-term response to the current outbreak, to also keep one eye on the longer-term response that this Government and the next one will have to turn our attention to.
I did want to respond first to some of the comments that were made by members of the Opposition earlier on in this debate, particularly a comment made by the Hon Gerry Brownlee, who talked about the notion that our response had gaping holes for a very long time. Now, that is either a completely untrue statement or completely ignorant about the nature of this particular virus, because, if it was true that there were gaping holes in our border for a very long time, a previous member of the 40,000 people who have been processed at the border would have brought this through. The idea that you can process 40,000 people in an incredibly short period of time and only now have an outbreak, I think, is not a mark of failure but a mark of success. I think that the Opposition just needs to get a sense of perspective about the nature of this particular outbreak. We've never said that it's perfect, and we are definitely learning as we go. There are mistakes that are apparent, and those are being rectified, but I think the idea that you can process 40,000 people and then have just one outbreak is an outstanding record.
I did say that, obviously, our attention is preoccupied with the short-term response but we do need to keep an eye on the longer-term response as well, and I know that this is something that vexes the Hon Paul Goldsmith deeply about the nature of our economic response. We are, of course, spending tens of billions of dollars on a stimulus package designed to get the country through the economic downturn that faces us as a result of this, and that is, of course, entirely appropriate. If we did not deploy a massive injection of capital into the New Zealand economy at this time, we would be in the grips of an incredibly deep and broad recession. So it is entirely appropriate that we do that.
Now, some of that spend is, by definition, very short-term—things like the wage subsidy, where there's been over $14 billion deployed so far, making sure that people can stay in their jobs for as long as possible and as many people can remain employed during the course of this downturn—but there is, of course, some that is going into investing in new industries or to existing industries to make sure that, actually, we can build our way out of the downturn. It's on this that I want to focus my attention, because there are a number of major challenges that were facing the country before COVID-19 arrived at our border and also which are still there even though we're currently focused on the current crisis.
Chief amongst those, of course, in my view, is the climate crisis, a sort of meta-crisis that acts as a threat multiplier across so many other domains, but we still have a housing crisis—this Government has made some good progress so far, but we are just getting started, and that is obviously going to take quite some time for us to resolve. There is the crisis of the pipes under our feet that transport our potable water and our storm water and so on, and those are making us sick in many parts of the country. There is the crisis of deepening and persistent poverty around the country. There is the fact that, for many decades, our transport infrastructure has been neglected. Now, all of these are multibillion-dollar challenges that will need to be paid for at some point, preferably sooner rather than later given that we're talking about at least a three-decade infrastructure deficit that needs to get handled. So my argument here is that not only do we have an opportunity but a responsibility to put every dollar we can of that stimulus to work dealing with the long-term challenges facing our country. Because, if we don't, our children and our grandchildren will have to pay twice—once to cover the bill that we're running up for the current crisis, and again to get themselves through the crises that are facing them in their time.
So my plea is, as we go through this, that we continue to think ahead and that we do take this opportunity to deploy every dollar we can of this stimulus on the long-term challenges facing Aotearoa.





Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, we are here, back in Parliament, because of the extraordinary circumstances of a renewal of the COVID-19 pandemic here in this country. We've seen our largest city going back into lockdown—and maybe the Deputy Prime Minister could carry out his conversation elsewhere, rather than in the House—and we're trying our best—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. I will say to the Deputy Prime Minister that he's not allowed to use cellphones in that way in the House. I'll start the member's speech again. 
Hon David Bennett: He does it all the time.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: That's very kind of you, Mr Speaker. So we're here at this extraordinary time, and many New Zealand families—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. David Bennett will stand, withdraw, and apologise. 
Hon David Bennett: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —where a lot of New Zealand families are under intense pressure. We know that in the sense that more than 70,000 New Zealanders have joined the unemployment benefit queues since March, and many more will have lost their jobs and haven't gone on benefits. The prediction is that many more tens of thousands of New Zealanders will lose their jobs over the next couple of months, and that is largely a result of the economic crisis brought on by COVID.
The worse thing that the Prime Minister said could happen would be for us to yo-yo back into lockdown. That's why, as we recall, back in April, when she extended the original lockdown—those extra painful weeks—it was to ensure that we didn't go back into lockdown, and, yet, here we are, and now we see the consequences of that in terms of hundreds of millions of dollars being wiped off the economic face of the country and more jobs being lost. An estimate today from Auckland Council is that 250 jobs are being lost a day—who knows? We know that at least 40 percent of Auckland businesses are operating at less than half capacity right now, according to the Auckland Chamber of Commerce—real pressure.
So the obvious thing that people will be asking, though, given the consequences of going back into lockdown, is that surely the Government would be absolutely focused on trying to do everything they can to reduce the risk of having to go back into lockdown. Yes, nobody can be absolutely sure, and there's no perfect, risk-free environment. There's always going to be, as we've seen, people coming into this country from offshore with disease, but the critical thing is how to contain it and make sure that it doesn't get out into the community.
That's why nobody can understand why the Government has been so slow to ensure that those people who are working at the border and in the quarantine facilities are being tested regularly. We have this extraordinary situation still, where the Prime Minister—our Prime Minister—insists that the Government thought that they were all being tested and that the Government had somehow been misled by officials, and yet the Minister of Health has said that there was a clear policy decision by that very same Government not to make it compulsory that those people be tested. So you can't put those two things together and add them up. There is total inconsistency in the heart of the Government's policies and answers around that.
So people are being let down by our Government taking far too long to get the people that are working in that area, who were mixing and working alongside people who have the disease and who are going home to their community in the evening, going to the local shops, being with their family, going to the local churches and, potentially, spreading the disease—it just stands to reason that you would test those people on a regular basis and would have invested in an effective tracing mechanism. I was down in Christchurch on the weekend, using the app. I went to a store that has a different app—a different QR code that doesn't work with the Government's QR code. They still, after months, haven't sorted out the testing and tracing system. 
Then, we see the Minister of Finance here today recognising that, given this incursion and given this failure at the border and we're back at lockdown, we're having to spend another $1.6 billion of borrowed money for further wage subsidies. Yes, we have to do that—we have to support those businesses who were closed down because they can't trade—and yet, today, he couldn't give me simple answers to real confusion within the business community about how the wage subsidy works. On the Government website, they say that, yes, you can get the wage subsidy and you can pay your employees, and if you can't pay your employees the full salary, because you're not trading, well, you can pay them the wage subsidy rate, which is $580-odd, but that happens to be less than the minimum wage. Then, we've the Employment Relations Authority saying, "Well, hang on. That's not right. You need to pay"—
Hon Andrew Little: Not what they said—not what they said. 
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —"the minimum wage." That's what they said. In that particular instance, they said that if the 80 percent of salary is less than the minimum wage, you need to pay the minimum wage, and you have to make that up. That's the case, and who knows whether it will be clarified by the Employment Court? But the real question is that there are many businesses out here now just with another piece of uncertainty that they are having to face. Are they going to have to make those back payments? When are we going to go back into lockdown? When are we going to know whether a greengrocer or a butcher can trade? Am I going to have to wait 4½ hours to get my goods over the border in Auckland?
Anybody would have expected that a Government which stands up—the Minister of Health stands up on his hind legs in this Government and says, "We have prepared and planned for this.", and, yet, everybody looks around and sees there has been very little preparation and very little planning for this state.





Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): When there was a severe acute respiratory syndrome outbreak at the start of this century, there was a pandemic policy put together where not one epidemiologist was on the planning committee, and here we are now with the COVID outbreak again and we have to learn some real lessons. We can hope for a worldwide vaccine, but we will not be able to say that's enough for any future pandemic variations or new viruses. We live, after all, in an interconnected world, and our response is critical. The number one responsibility of members of Parliament, before their party, is to save lives, and a duty to protect the economy with all the jobs and general welfare which spring from it. The power the Government deploys to do so comes down to our bureaucratic arrangements.
When the Government bureaucracy is effective, the response is effective as well, and we win the support and cooperation of our 5 million citizens when we are effective. But, if there's a question to be asked about the past week, about the renewed COVID spread and corresponding lockdowns, the question is this: does the Government have the best possible agency arrangements to fight these outbreaks? It's not a criticism of the valiant efforts of our front-line staff and emergency workers; this is a call by my party for a new border security policy. My party is calling for the creation of a new border protection force. Our focus on Government should be a single line of attack. Its task will be to coordinate the protection of our borders from pandemic and biosecurity incursions, and our lives and economy depend on it. Consolidation of effort is called for.
If you take the recent case of a managed isolation worker in a quarantine facility, what did we all see? We have to, as a Parliament, respond to it. A press conference from the Minister of Health and the Director-General of Health on the outbreak, a press conference from a Minister of Housing and an Air Commodore on the quarantines, and then a Prime Minister answering questions in Parliament on lockdowns and what happened when. Behind it all is a massive blend of Government agencies, task forces, and central agencies with overlapping roles. But a genuine question has been posed: did one arm of Government know what the other arm of Government was doing or not doing?
Barbara Kuriger: One could ask that of Cabinet right now.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, we could ask it of the National Party right now, because they've been all over the place for the last three months. But we're trying to come up with a positive policy going forward for the biosecurity and pandemic problems that we face. We've had, under the National Party—I'm not going to deviate from this, but we had in the National Party, in their nine years, over 178 biosecurity breaches. Over 178, and, yet, a member from the agricultural community in this Parliament, from the King Country, shouts out as though she's got some righteous cause behind her. If I was her, I'd keep quiet with that record, and a lack of investment in terms of cultivating attacks on such invasions of this country, whether they be by virus or biosecurity.
Can I just say that we are calling for one single agency to be created with a clear-eyed focus on border control, a new border protection force reporting to one senior Cabinet Minister, who in turn reports to the Prime Minister and Cabinet. It would have its roles, responsibilities, and obligations clearly set out. But the key thing would be—and I'm going to release this policy this afternoon—the use of the Defence Force, which we argued for from day one; the use of our Customs Service alongside the Defence Force and alongside strategic Immigration New Zealand officers in terms of their powers being strengthened, where the enforcement of these laws would be required.
Here are the realities: our biggest-populated city is in lockdown, with security and staff that come in and out of facilities with potential to spread virus in all of these quarantine facilities. Why, in our biggest city, are they not in our military camps? Why are they not in places like Waiōuru, Manawatū, Ōhākea? We've got an Air Force facility there; we can fly people in and out. Why not in the Burnham Camp area, and why not in the West Melton training area? We've got the facilities, we've got the people, we've got the utilities, and we are paying a fortune to look after these people coming in now. Imagine if we'd put that investment into our military. We'd have been able to do that for a fraction of the cost with a long-term benefit.
So we are talking about, today, the need for a new border protection force, and that should be—and we will make it—a major priority.





Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. All my colleagues today have started their speeches, in fairness, talking about how well the New Zealand public has done in dealing with the COVID outbreak earlier this year, and I just want to reiterate that and congratulate the team of 5 million for the work that they did. But, in doing that, there was a responsibility, then, also on the Government to play its part in the last three months since the last community transmission. What we have seen in the last week is a definite failure by this Government to uphold its hard part of the bargain. It didn't do its job. Its Ministers were asleep at the wheel. They did not take the responsibility that is entrusted to them, and they did not act in the best interests of New Zealanders.
We heard Minister Little say they were cruising. They were cruising. That was the mentality of Labour Party Ministers, and that is the mentality that has got this country into trouble. There's no excuse for what has happened in the last week, apart from Ministers that sat there, cruising, hoping their leader would take them to the election—Ministers that didn't ask the hard questions and Ministers that did nothing in the New Zealand public interest. That is what has happened to this country in the last three months.
I want to talk about one Minister in particular, the Minister, over there, for agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture sat around for three months and did nothing. He did nothing to support the primary industries. In fact, he was going around the country saying, "We need the primary industries at this time. They are so vital for the future of New Zealand." At the same time, he was kicking them with greater regulation. But what he should have been doing was working, in his office, on how, if there is another outbreak, those farmers actually get to their farms across any inter-regional border. He didn't do a thing. He didn't even recognise that that was an issue, because we all knew that if there was going to be an outbreak, there would be inter-regional breaks. The Prime Minister made that very clear last time—that, next time, any shutdowns would be on a regional basis. That Minister sat there for three months and didn't look after New Zealand farmers.
In fact, when we had this incursion, this outbreak, and we had the lockdown in Auckland, the Minister still didn't act. It didn't register to him that something needed to be done. It was only when the sectors came to the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and asked, because they had to have an exemption now. In the past, the farmers were seen as essential businesses. But now, under this outbreak, you also need to have a Ministry of Health exemption. The Minister didn't think about talking to the Minister of Health and asking for that exemption for New Zealand farmers. There's no way he can deny that—there is no way he can deny that—because he didn't get an exemption for New Zealand farmers. The only exemption that is out there now is for dairy, horticulture, and poultry, and that's because those sectors have been knocking on MPI's door for the last week. Where are the sheep and beef farmers? Where is the racing industry? Where's the Minister for Racing, standing up for his industry? They were nowhere to be seen. They haven't acted in the best interests of New Zealanders, and that is a disgrace for those Ministers. They did not do their job.
Another thing that Minister should have been doing is looking at what level 3 rules would be. Did the Minister go out there and say, "What about our butchers and our greengrocers?"—the people that sell the very products that our farmers make? Did he go and lobby so that any new level 3 conditions imposed on New Zealanders on a regional basis would still enable those businesses to operate, so that those farmers and producers could sell their product to them? No, he didn't. All we got was level 3 placed on us with the old rules, because that's all they had in the bottom of the drawer. They sat there for three months cruising. They didn't think they had to deal with an issue like this, and they didn't do the preparation. That is the job of a Minister of the Crown—to do the preparation. Their job is not to sit there and cruise and hope their leader gets them through; their job is to ask the hard questions, think about what the issues are, and direct their staff to make it happen.
If we want to go wider than the Minister of Agriculture, we can look at the Minister of Health and Megan Woods—whatever her role is now. They didn't ask the hard questions. We only got testing after the outbreak—
SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired.





Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. I stand here as a proud Cook Islands New Zealander, proud of how my community is responding in a positive and compliant way to support all of the people of Aotearoa. With the House's indulgence, I'd like to make some statements in reo Kuki Airani.
Kia Orana e taku iti tangata Kūki ʻĀirani. Ei ʻakaʻāravei ia tātou i roto i teia tuātau kua tapoki ʻakaʻōuʻia tātou e teia manumanu rikarika i te COVID. Teia to tātou ʻīrava manea ei ʻakakoʻukoʻu ia tātou ki to tātou Atu. Te nako nei, "E na mua rāi kōtou i te kimi i te basileia o te Atua". Kare e ʻāite te pūmāʻana o te ngākau no teia ʻīrava. E karere ʻakamāroʻiroʻi teia naku ia tātou i roto i teia tuātau e taku iti tangata. Mei runga mai ia koe e Kaitaia e tae atu ki Murihiku i te tautau, e pērā katoa to tātou parataʻito manea te Kūki ʻĀirani. Me te kite ra koe i te tūkē i toʻou kopapa—ʻāraveiʻia toʻou taote. Kia pure tātou no to tātou au kopu tangata tei rokoʻia e te maki i roto i teia tuātau e tae roa atu ki to tatou iti tangata i te Kūki ʻĀirani.
What I've said in our language is that I want to send a message of love and encouragement to our Cook Islands people in Auckland and around Aotearoa to be strong in their hearts to help us beat coronavirus. I ask for them all to have a test if they are feeling unwell and to encourage all of our Cook Islands people to support one another. I ask that we pray for those who are sick and we look after our families at this time, and we also pray for the people back home in the Cook Islands. If we work together to beat the virus, we will be able to join our loved ones both in Aotearoa and back in our heritage homeland of the Cook Islands.
There has been in the last few weeks some very disturbing social media, and also some very unhelpful responses from mainstream media, and, can I also say, from members of the Opposition. Cook Islands leaders tell me that there's 80 percent positivity of responses within the community; however, they are dealing with some negative responses from other members of other communities. The distress comes when negative stories surface and make our people fearful and worried. But, as our Minister for Māori Development has said in this House today, it is our people, Pacific and Māori, who embrace testing. This is encouraging. This was encouraging during our level 4 lockdown, and it is encouraging today, and I want to encourage you all to keep doing the right thing. Go and get a test. Don't be whakamā. Take heart that our community leaders have done so to demonstrate their care and love for all of us members of the Cook Islands and Pacific community. There is nothing stronger or more positive than our leaders setting the example. Download the app. Keep a record of your movements. Follow the guidelines: social distancing and restricted numbers at get-togethers; wear a mask; wash your hands. 
If I might just finish with a couple of words in the Cook Islands language: Ka anoano au ia tātou i te ʻangaʻanga kapiti na roto i te tauturuʻanga i tetai, i tei paruparu i teia maki, kia kore ta tātou i kite maʻata. Na roto i teia au ravenga ka riro ei mataora i te ʻāravei atu i to tātou kopu tangata i te Kūki ʻĀirani e pērā katoa i Aotearoa nei. Mr Speaker—meitaki korereka i roto i te Atu.





GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Mr Speaker, thank you very much. It's not with any pleasure that all of us have had to return in such an unprecedented time. In fact, it's a very difficult time for New Zealand in general. But, on this side of the House, we are focused and we are united in getting the job done that needs to be done—and we know that well. The feeling we get back from New Zealanders—the feeling I get back—is that it's the time for us to get on and get this job done. We've been working hard to ensure that New Zealand's people and economy are in the best possible position. We again are here at the 52nd term of Government. We do not underestimate at all what being in level 3 does in Auckland, to our economy and the wider ripples that go across our country. This is why we have acted fast. This is why we have made the wage subsidy available right across New Zealand while Auckland is in level 3 and businesses like hospitality, like tourism, and like retail also deal with level 2 right across the country.
We have also acted fast to deploy more testing stations, ramping up processing and tracing capabilities to get the COVID Tracer app in place and to make sure as many people as possible are using it whenever they are out. It is really heartening to see, as I go around in my own community, how that is displayed in every single place—and not only how it is being displayed but how everybody is using it every time they enter into any shop or any venue. It's encouraging to know that we have seen, since 12 August, a huge amount of testing done. We have seen 136,000 COVID tests completed since the second outbreak. We know that our border workers are going through that process, and we are making sure that contact tracing is well in place and going ahead and delivering the results that New Zealanders need to feel safe here in New Zealand. 
In terms of our third response, that economic and that wage subsidy is so important that we continue to roll that out, as we have right from the start, since COVID has made itself present here in New Zealand. It is important that people are looked after, and we have learnt that it was definitely right, that the best economic response was indeed a health response—one that looks after the wellbeing of New Zealanders in order to keep the wheels of our economy turning, and turning well.
So it is with some disappointment, some sadness, when we see some of the, I would say, politicking that I have seen over the last few weeks, because I do not have an appetite, and I do not think that many others in New Zealand have an appetite, for seeing this sort of behaviour happening. I believe that New Zealanders expect more of us in this House at a time when we need to step up and get on with the job. I think it is unfortunate, too, that we have been accused of scaremongering at a time when this Government took active steps to put legislation in place, to put good protections in place should there be a second wave of COVID—should there be a second wave of COVID—and I think it is very unfortunate that this was termed in such a way that it has been done so.
I am disappointed that the Hon Judith Collins said she supported mandatory testing, but after voting against the very legislation that enabled this mandatory testing to take place at our borders. Speaking of borders, I think this has been an ongoing farce in terms of the mixed messages we have received from those opposite: to open them or to shut them; to be like Australia; to be like Sweden; to have more international students coming to New Zealand; to not have international students coming to New Zealand. I believe we owe it more to the people of New Zealand to give clear messages, to give reassurance, and not to prey upon anxieties. That is the last point I'll make in this area. I am really, really saddened that conspiracy theories and muckraking have taken place to prey upon the anxieties and the fears of New Zealanders at a time when we need reassurance, we need safety, and we need to be able to work together cohesively as a team, and to be focused on the wellbeing of New Zealanders.
I'm going to finish off with an email I received today from a constituent who wrote to myself and Chris Bishop, and she said, "Excuse me that I'm writing to both of you, but I want both of you to know that I fervently hope that you are both voices of reason in Parliament during this challenging time. It is a virus. I do not understand this call for heads to roll. We are all in this together, and only together we can hope to rein this virus in for a while. I trust the integrity of you both, that you please work together and pull your colleagues up when you see this not happening." I hope we can all do that.





BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, it's interesting to be back, in a turn of events which we didn't expect. But what we have learnt, though, is that the members of this Labour-led Government seem to believe that that fine and well-used cafe just a few metres from this Chamber was named after the American David Copperfield, because for months they've been telling us how they've got the plan and they're taking the action to secure our border to keep New Zealanders safe, and it was all an illusion. They had talked about it. They had made promises. They'd missed one small yet pertinent element: they hadn't actually done it.
How many times—how many times—did we hear the Labour-led Government say "We've got this."? How many times did we hear the Prime Minister say "We've got this."? Well, it appears the only thing we've got is another dose of COVID-19. And why is that? Why? Because it took them over 100 days to even think about whether there should be testing of border staff. The perimeter for our isolated nation, the one place where the virus could get through, and they didn't think about testing the workers there that would come in contact, potentially, with infected people, who could come in contact with infected surfaces, and surface transmission has been known about through this entire COVID-19 scare. They didn't think that maybe it was a good idea to regularly test those workers. Then, when the lightbulb moment arrived, they wrote a little note in Cabinet. I don't know the exact words, but it amounts to "Maybe we should test these people regularly." Then what happened? They didn't bother to check that it was actually being done.
The speaker who resumed her seat before me, Ginny Andersen, said that the public would have an expectation of us at times like this. Well, they have an expectation of the Government that it would actually do its job, and the news that has emerged over these recent days is very clear that it hasn't. It certainly hasn't done it well enough to keep New Zealanders safe.
Now, on top of that, as is not too uncommon, particularly when this current Government finds itself in a bit of hot water, it looks to deflect or apportion blame elsewhere. There was a news report early yesterday morning. The Prime Minister was appearing to place the blame for that lack of mandatory testing on the Ministry of Health. Well, here's a bit of free advice for the Government: perhaps the show might work a lot smoother and it might actually be more effective at keeping COVID-19 out of New Zealand if they would simply let Dr Ashley Bloomfield catch the bus instead of trying to repeatedly push him underneath it. New Zealand would be all the better for that.
It's not that New Zealanders are actually going to be surprised by this recent turn of events. The Government has talked up a big game but not actually delivered it and not even checked to see that the delivery, in fact, wasn't happening. We've seen it consistently, for now just shy of three years. What are we going to do? We're going to build light rail down Dominion Road in four years. How's that going? We're going to build 5,000 KiwiBuild homes. They've delivered fewer than 10 percent of their promise. This has been a Government that for three years has governed by press release and announcement, trying to have New Zealanders believe that it is merely the spouting of words and intentions that delivers. The truth, as New Zealanders are now finding at the peril of their own health, is quite different. What they need is a Government that they can rely upon to actually do what it says it will do, the sort of Government that National showed itself as in the last nine years, particularly following the global financial crisis, the Canterbury earthquakes, the Pike River disaster—a Government that they could rely upon.
I'll finish up by the mentions about the border and National's comments. National said the border could be reopened for international students if they were tested before they left, tested on arrival, tested before they left isolation. We wondered why they wouldn't support that. It's because they weren't safeguarding the border in the first place.
SPEAKER: Order! The time for this debate has expired. In accordance with a determination of the Business Committee, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 25 August 2020.
The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.
The House adjourned at 3.58 p.m.