ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Question No. 1—Finance

1. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the international context for the New Zealand economy?

SPEAKER: Order! Before the member goes on, I'll ask the members who are responsible for the—[Branded folder removed from lectern]

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Overnight, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) revised down its forecast for global growth, highlighting the risks facing the New Zealand economy from the global recession caused by COVID-19. The IMF cut its global growth forecast by 1.9 percentage points, to negative 4.9 percent in the calendar year 2020. For advanced economies, it also cut its forecast by 1.9 points, to negative 8 percent. The IMF also revised down its expectations for global growth in 2021 by 0.4 percentage points, to 5.4 percent. These revisions update forecasts made by the IMF in April, and they highlight how quickly the global economic situation is evolving as different countries take different approaches to dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Kiritapu Allan: Why did the IMF revise down its global growth forecasts?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The IMF said its weaker global forecasts reflected lower consumption in most economies than previously expected. This was due to the disruption caused by continuing social distancing measures and lockdowns in countries that still require these measures to get on top of COVID-19. The IMF has also said that investment in these countries is expected to be subdued further as firms defer capital expenditure amid high uncertainty around the pandemic. The IMF also provided an alternative scenario of what might happen to global growth if there were a second wave of infections around the world. In this scenario, global growth in 2021 would be 4.9 percentage points lower than its new base scenario, essentially knocking off all of the global recovery for that year. This emphasises the advantage New Zealand has from coming into COVID-19 with a strong fiscal position, some of the lowest public debt in the world, historically low unemployment, and a growing economy.

Kiritapu Allan: How is New Zealand positioned to deal with the global recession caused by the COVID-19 pandemic?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The IMF overnight forecast Government debt in advanced economies to rise above an average of 130 percent of GDP due to the fiscal stimulus and spending required to deal with the virus. The IMF measures debt on a gross level. In New Zealand, our gross debt is forecast to be less than 60 percent of GDP in 2024—so less than half of the average of advanced economies. This shows that New Zealand is well positioned to be able to invest to cushion the blow of COVID-19 on businesses and households while delivering our plan to recover and rebuild the economy. New Zealand also has one of the most open economies in the world due to the success of our lockdown and the sacrifices made by all New Zealanders. So, as the IMF warns of the continued impacts of social distancing and lockdowns in other parts of the world, it pays to reflect on the privileged position we have here in New Zealand due to our collective success in fighting this global pandemic.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. Hon NIKKI KAYE (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statements yesterday that Ministers "were advised that the testing was happening twice during the period of quarantine" and, in response to whether officials had misled her, "This is not a revelation or new information"?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.

Hon Nikki Kaye: On what occasions was she provided with information by officials that she considers is misleading?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It's not rocket science when you have cases of human fallibility and mistakes to realise that, on those occasions, eventually the report will be made to the Prime Minister.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Is there an inquiry or investigation under way to determine how Ministers could have been presented with false or misleading information about testing or managed isolation?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: At this point in time, the priority of this Government is to fix it from the top to the bottom. We, again, know that human error is always a possibility in any organisation, and one as grave as this was likely to happen. We said at the very beginning: there will be mistakes. We'll learn from it and we will fix it.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Will she absolutely guarantee there will not be an inquiry or investigation into the failures that have occurred?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, it would be wrong to actually guarantee against a future inquiry. We cannot see the purpose of making such a commitment when, in fact, transparency and openness is our middle name.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Does she believe it is acceptable for Dr David Clark to make Dr Ashley Bloomfield accept all responsibility for the failures of her Government in testing and managed isolation?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, unlike the member and her colleagues who are paragons of propriety and infallibility, Dr Bloomfield and Dr Clark are not infallible. But the response we have seen this far in this country by international comparison is seriously exemplary.

SPEAKER: I do want to warn the Prime Minister in these circumstances to be a little bit careful with the ironic language.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Is Dr Ashley Bloomfield the scapegoat for her Government's failures?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, this country is seriously indebted to Dr Ashley Bloomfield. He is a civil servant who has done his best to do his job.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Public—he's a public servant.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Beg your pardon?

SPEAKER: He's a public servant.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, OK; no longer civil, no longer servants? He is a public servant who has done his best to do his job, and, again, it's a team effort. We are asking 5 million New Zealanders to be frontline officers in our battle against COVID-19. It includes the people over there. We're all in this together. As we said, there will be mistakes. Our job is to learn from them and fix them.

Hon Grant Robertson: In light of that answer, does the Prime Minister consider it was an example of infallibility or of acknowledging mistakes for Michael Woodhouse to not provide evidence of his claim of a homeless man joining a hotel queue?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, that instance was breathtaking because there was a suggestion that someone had committed fraud against the New Zealand taxpayer without any evidence at all, and we still wait for some clarity from the person and member of Parliament who made the allegation. I also want to say, by way of comparison in terms of sound policy, that it was the original questioner today who said that we should be bringing in all these foreign students without any idea as to where they'd be quarantined, or her leader who said we should be opening up the border right now with China. Again, this is hardly a springboard by way of comparison of action that the member—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Where's the Standing Orders about not attacking the Opposition?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —could be honestly proud of.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Are officials responsible—

SPEAKER: Order! The Hon Dr Nick Smith will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I stand, withdraw, and apologise. Point of order, Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: No, no; the member will withdraw and apologise properly.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There's a long-standing rule that the Government cannot use a question to simply attack the Opposition.

SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I noticed you didn't intervene.

SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. That is a matter for me to deal with, not the member.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: The problem is you don't.

SPEAKER: Order! Who made that interjection?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Me.

SPEAKER: The member will leave the Chamber.

Hon Dr Nick Smith withdrew from the Chamber.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Are officials responsible for all of the failures in testing in managed isolation, or does she accept her Minister of Health must take some responsibility?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, we know that, at specific sites, there were examples of failure. At none of those sites was there the clear and present responsibility of Dr Ashley Bloomfield or the Minister of Health. That sort of logistical behaviour is impossible, and so, yes, the identified problems happened at certain sites, and our job is to fix them.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Does she accept that, regardless of where failures occur—operationally or from a policy perspective—Ministers should be held accountable under the Cabinet Manual?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, yes, held accountable, but to use the phrase of a famous American president—Roosevelt, in this case—there will be mistakes, we'll learn from them, and we will fix them.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Would the officials working at the front line have more time to do the jobs that we desperately need them to do if they weren't having to investigate spurious and baseless claims being made by members of the Opposition?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Most definitely. To have an official having to behave like Sherlock Holmes to find a guilty party that doesn't exist is preposterous behaviour, and Mr Woodhouse should be apologising to the country.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Is the Prime Minister aware whether her Minister of Housing, as the Minister responsible for managed isolation and quarantine, has yet to receive any more information from Michael Woodhouse as to the claim around the homeless man?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No such position exists. There's no delegation.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, the answer's already come from the expert woodwork teacher from Christchurch. The reality is a serious allegation was made to create suspicion and concern in the public mind. That was made by a former Minister, a front-bencher of the National Party, and we are all waiting in this country, all 5 million of us, to know what are the facts behind that allegation. Mr Woodhouse, when are we going to hear it?

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Will she commit to telling the New Zealand public if and when the investigations being led by Dr Megan Woods reveals the veracity of the claim?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Most definitely. But this is how the real world works—this is how the real world works. When an allegation is made, especially from someone who's educated and a member of Parliament and a former Minister, you expect that member to back it up. We do not the old fungus or moss ad that used to go like this, "I just spray and walk away." Spray and walk away won't do, Mr Woodhouse.

Hon Nikki Kaye: In light of the people who absconded from managed isolation and the failures in testing, when will she, or any of her Ministers, accept responsibility for the huge failures that have occurred?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, a question like that would surely require the questioner to have a rough idea of how the Cabinet Manual works, and how responsibility works. There's no way a general can be responsible for the actions of a soldier in the field, but his job is to find out and try to eliminate such repetitive behaviour. But the general is not responsible any more than the Minister was in these cases.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Will she absolutely guarantee that David Clark is no longer responsible for testing, managed isolation, or quarantine in New Zealand?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, there was a change made, and the Minister of Housing has been put in charge of that. In fact, to use the old newspaper ad, "Keep up."

Question No. 3—Conservation

3. MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Conservation: What measures did she announce yesterday to help protect the Māui and Hector's dolphins?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): I am delighted that yesterday Minister of Fisheries Stuart Nash and I announced vastly strengthened measures to look after Māui and Hector's dolphins as part of a stronger threat management plan. In terms of the non-fisheries measures, we're doubling the size of marine mammal sanctuaries for Māui and Hector's dolphins by significantly extending the West Coast, North Island, and the Banks Peninsula sanctuaries to cover 37,286 square kilometres—more than the area of land we have protected in national parks. We are ensuring that those sanctuaries are genuine by our plans to prohibit new permits for seismic surveying and seabed mining in those two expanded sanctuaries and another four sanctuaries. These measures are really important because Māui dolphin are critically endangered and these precious marine mammals, Māui and Hector's, are only found in New Zealand waters.

Marama Davidson: What does the toxoplasmosis action plan involve and why is that important?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Toxoplasmosis is caused exclusively by cats. It's spread through oocysts in their faeces, which stormwater runoff into rivers and streams carries into the sea. Toxoplasmosis has been confirmed as a cause of death in sexually mature females, which is a problem when you have only 63 adult Māui dolphins left. So the toxoplasmosis action plan will involve research to investigate the gaps in scientific knowledge and to investigate and trial solutions to reduce or eliminate the transfer of the parasite's oocysts into waterways, such as riparian and estuarine planting.

Marama Davidson: What do you say to the thousands of people who submitted on the proposals to update the threat management plan and wanted it to go further?

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I'm going to ask the member to rephrase the question.

Marama Davidson: What do you say to the thousands—

Hon Grant Robertson: What does "she" say.

Marama Davidson: What does the Minister—

SPEAKER: I say nothing. I'm Sergeant Schultz—I see nothing; I say nothing.

Marama Davidson: What does she say to the thousands of people who submitted on the proposals to update the threat management plan and wanted it to go further?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: We know that New Zealanders care deeply about Māui and Hector's dolphins. There were more than 15,000 submissions and a 78,000-signature petition on options for improving their protection as part of the review of the threat management plan. I received lots of letters from children, including a dolphin mobile. I think the measures which Minister Nash and I have come to, and the robust discussions between the Ministry of Fisheries and the Department of Conservation, mean we have a good, solid plan to protect the dolphins.

Marama Davidson: What does she say to the fishers who will be affected?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: As the Minister of Fisheries also has a question on the Order Paper, I know he will expand on these. But we know that no fisher wants to catch a dolphin, a sea lion, or a seabird. So that's why I'm really pleased as Minister of Conservation that this Government is supporting fishers with a targeted support package to enable them to transition away to more sustainable methods or to move their fishing outside the known Māui range.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Why does he think New Zealand's GDP growth forecasts for this year from both the IMF and the OECD are significantly worse than Australia's?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I don't agree with the assertion in the member's question. I do acknowledge that the impact of COVID-19 has been felt differently across different countries due to the composition of their economies and the measures undertaken by Governments to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic, and that this will play out in GDP forecasts.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he realise that if New Zealand's growth had fallen only as far as Australia's, New Zealanders would be around $4,500 richer per household?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I think the member probably needs to be a little careful about the range of projections that are out there in terms of GDP growth or forecasts of declines in GDP. They range wildly about, and taking that and then extrapolating it to a particular dollar figure, I think, is probably taking that a little far.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why, then, did the New Zealand economy shrink by five times as much as Australia in the first quarter of this year—not a forecast but the reality—despite the fact that both countries shut their borders on the very same day?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member might be interested to know that international tourism makes up about 20 percent of New Zealand's export income compared with just 10 percent of Australia's exports.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: So is he saying that we just have to accept that we will fall further behind Australia?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Absolutely not. That kind of pessimistic thinking might be the member's way of going, but not on this side of the House. We're very optimistic about the New Zealand economy. We know that there are sectors that are going to do it tough, such as tourism, but the Government is there working alongside them.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: So rather than deflecting and attacking his critics, why doesn't he take responsibility for the poor economic outcomes of his Government's policies?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I reject the premise of that member's question.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Since he has said that tourism is so important, why has he not outlined a credible path to reassure New Zealanders about managing the borders effectively?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government has done that on a number of occasions in recent times. On this side of the House, we know how important those border restrictions have been to our success, and that's why you won't hear members on this side of the House advocating for opening them up to China, opening them up for international students, or, if we go back over the last few months, the record of the National Opposition in making sure that they have changed their position at least once a week on what should happen at the borders. On this side of the House, we understand the importance of the border restrictions we have.

Hon Chris Hipkins: If the Government had moved with urgency to reopen the border to countries like Australia and China, with no quarantine arrangements, when we were urged to do so by the Opposition, would there be more COVID-19 in New Zealand or less?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Undoubtedly, there was the risk that there would be significantly more, and I invite members on the other side of the House to take a look around the rest of the world; take a look at Victoria, in Australia, that is seeing a growth in infections; take a look at the many countries in the world who are seeing some of the highest rates of infection; and recognise that our hard work as a whole country has left us in a privileged position, which we must continue to protect.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, you ruled against what you described as donkey drop questions against the Opposition. That would surely fall into that category, because the proposals put forward by the Opposition never called for what has been suggested but, further, like the rest of New Zealand, relied upon the Government actually knowing what it was doing at the border.

SPEAKER: And as the member knows, the question as to whether such a question is appropriate is one for me. While that might have been a slightly easier bowl than normal, I wouldn't consider it totally a donkey drop, and it should also be taken in the context of the tone of the questions which preceded it.

Question No. 5—Health

5. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Health: Does his responsibility as Minister of Health include oversight of the regime for testing individuals in New Zealand for the COVID-19 virus?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Ultimately, I have ministerial responsibility for the entire public health system, and that includes oversight of the testing regime which completed nearly 20,000 tests in the last two days and which has seen New Zealand complete 368,432 COVID-19 tests, meaning we have the highest testing rate per confirmed case in the world.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he believe that now is the right time to tighten COVID testing, as described in the COVID-19 criteria and case definitions guidelines released on 23 June 2020?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The case definition explicitly references the new testing strategy, which I announced on Tuesday, and the case definition states: "The Testing Strategy outlines additional testing being undertaken to support early detection of COVID-19 at the border, and surveillance testing of people with symptoms consistent with COVID-19 who present to primary and secondary care to ensure that there is no community transmission." The case definition is entirely consistent with the testing strategy. Let me assure the public, if you have flu or COVID-like symptoms, we will continue to test you.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: So if the criteria for testing has not been tightened, why did the Ministry of Health release updated criteria in case definitions?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Ultimately, changing the nuances in the case definition is a clinical decision and not a matter for politicians. What I would point out is that we are testing record numbers of people—more than 10,000 people yesterday alone; that is a record—and we continue to find no evidence of community transmission. If the public have flu or COVID-like symptoms, we will continue to test them.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is the reason he boasts that New Zealand has the highest rate of—

SPEAKER: Order! The member will start his question again.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: If the member asserts that New Zealand has the highest rate of testing relevant to positive cases, as he mentioned in this House earlier in the week, isn't that because we actually rank No. 35 in the world for actual testing per capita?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I think the logic of the member's question is questionable, but we have such a low case rate—I think that's the point he's making—and we rank ahead of countries like Taiwan and South Korea in terms of our performance, according to data that is readily available on the internet.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister as to whether it's a fact that since 28 April, which was the last case reported, 240,000 tests have been done in this country and not one has been a case of community transmission?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I don't have that exact data in front of me, but I think the member's absolutely right.

Jami-Lee Ross: Is he aware of the high volume of testing at the Botany Road testing site, that is resulting in long wait times for patients and traffic gridlock in surrounding streets; if so, what actions are being taken to better manage testing at this site?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I have been advised by Northern region DHBs that high demand for COVID-19 testing is leading to unprecedented queues at many of the community-based assessment centres, or CBACs, in metropolitan Auckland. The DHBs say they're very aware of the impact on communities where these are situated, and they are working closely with community police and Auckland Transport to address these impacts.

Jami-Lee Ross: Will he ensure the testing location for east Auckland is moved to a site with better access so testing wait times can be reduced and traffic can be more appropriately managed?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I'm advised the three Auckland DHBs are urgently reviewing their testing capacity across the city and the number and location of CBACs to develop solutions to the issues arising from current high demand. The DHB chief executives are monitoring the situation closely and are receiving updates and advice several times per day.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he take responsibility for the fact that more than 1,000 returning Kiwis may have been released into New Zealand communities without having had a COVID test?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Ultimately, I have ministerial responsibility for the entire public health system. I would note that we are one of very few countries that have introduced managed isolation and that managed isolation has served us incredibly well. More than 20,000 people have been through these facilities and there is no evidence that anyone exiting managed isolation has gone on to spread COVID-19 into the community.

Question No. 6—Education

6. JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What action is the Government taking to address long-term pay inequities for teacher aides?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I'm very pleased to say that teacher-aides have now voted overwhelmingly to endorse their historic pay equity settlement, which was negotiated as part of this Government's commitment to addressing pay equity. The settlement will see more than 22,000 teacher-aides—mostly women—being valued and paid fairly for the work that they do. It will acknowledge the value of the skills, responsibilities, and demands of teacher-aide work. The teacher-aide pay equity claim has had a long history, and I'm pleased that the agreement has now been reached. This is a milestone for teacher-aides and a significant step towards addressing pay equity for women in the education sector.

Jan Tinetti: Why has it been important to address these inequities for teacher-aides?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: This Government recognises the vital role that teacher-aides play in schools, and we've been focused on making sure we recognise that in the way they are paid. Teacher-aides are front-line workers who work closely with some of our most vulnerable children. They're playing an important role in our schools, and they have responded to the challenge of COVID-19 in helping to get the county back on to its feet. But, fundamentally, nobody should be paid less because of their gender.

Jan Tinetti: When will teacher-aides see the benefits of this settlement?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Schools will receive the additional funds to pay their teacher-aides more in October 2020. The teacher-aides will receive the new pay equity rates from November, but they will be backdated until 12 February this year. The new pay rates will range from $21.20 to $34.68 per hour.

Question No. 7—Transport

7. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Transport: What is his best estimate of the cost incurred by his Government so far in relation to Auckland light rail, and will he undertake to release all Government documentation relating to Auckland light rail, including costings for the NZTA and NZ Infra proposals, before the election?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): The Ministry of Transport had a budget of $5 million to manage the parallel process and receive and evaluate the proposals from NZ Infra and Waka Kotahi. To the second part of the question, yes, I do hope to release as much information as I can while being consistent with the probity requirements of the process and upholding commercial sensitivity.

Chris Bishop: Does he consider the $5 million that he's just mentioned spent by the Government investigating light rail in Auckland to be good value for money?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes, because the Government was committed to thoroughly investigating what was an innovative and compelling proposal from NZ Infra as part of a competitive process. On top of that, the Government has learnt a great deal through a business case process that has fleshed out the options for delivering light rail in Auckland.

Chris Bishop: Can he give the House some explanation as to why the Ministry of Transport recommended the NZ Infra proposal over the New Zealand Transport Agency proposal when it was not solicited by the Government and the wider international market was not tested?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, it was a process that was conducted within the bounds of the Government procurement rules and guidelines. It was designed to rigorously and fairly assess an unsolicited proposal. I can't give the member details about why the Secretary for Transport recommended the NZ Infra proposal because of commercial probity, other than to say that the Secretary for Transport advised Cabinet that both options were credible and selectable, that there were important differences and trade-offs between them, and, on balance, the secretary judged that the NZ Infra proposal was, on balance, stronger.

Chris Bishop: Is he seriously telling the House and the public that he's unable to disclose to the Parliament why the Secretary for Transport recommended to him and the Cabinet that one particular proposal was better than the other?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes, for the reasons I just gave.

Chris Bishop: Will he release the letter from the Rt Hon Winston Peters to his office over light rail now that the cross-party consultation has finished and the issue has been considered by the Cabinet?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: It's not our Government's practice, and I don't believe it's been any Government's practice under MMP, to release communications that occur as part of inter-party, pre-Cabinet consultations.

Chris Bishop: Can he give the public a summary of the issues raised by the Rt Hon Winston Peters in his letter, as he did last year with the letter from the Hon Julie Anne Genter to him over the Mount Victoria Tunnel issue?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No.

Question No. 8 to Minister

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We seem to have skipped immediately to question No. 9, from question No. 7.

SPEAKER: That's right.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Speakers' rulings on page 170/1 and 170/7, alongside Standing Order 384(2), would seem to show that it is possible for someone on behalf of Dr Nick Smith to ask that question.

SPEAKER: Happy to rule on the matter. It is not a matter of Speakers' rulings; it's a matter of the Standing Orders. The matter is absolutely clear under 89(1). I have no discretion to allow the transfer of that question.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It's not a transfer of a question. The questions belong to the National Party. They are lodged in the name of a member—

SPEAKER: Has the member read the Standing Order? Can I recommend he read it?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Mr Speaker your attempt to belittle my attempt to speak to you does not do you very much credit at all. This is a democracy, this is question time, when the Government is put on the mat and should not be—

SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. Standing Order 89(1) is absolutely clear: there is no discretion for another member to ask the question. And I would expect that members, when I refer to a Standing Order, before challenging my view, would do the House the courtesy of reading it. I don't expect them to be right up with all of the Standing Orders all of the time; I don't expect any member—I'm not myself. But, when a specific Standing Order is referred to, it ill behoves members not to read it.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): I seek leave of the House to ask question No. 8 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith.

SPEAKER: The question, in my opinion, at the moment does not exist, and the member can't ask it on behalf of someone else.

Chris Penk: Sir, speaking to the point of order—

SPEAKER: Although I am prepared to put the leave to the House, even though it involves a suspension of the Standing Orders. Is there any objection?

Hon Members: Yes.

SPEAKER: Question No. 9, Dr Duncan Webb. [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. Can I just say to members that, at some stage, they will work out that if they behave badly, there will be consequences, and the consequences of—

Hon Member: Ha, ha!

SPEAKER: Order! Who interjected then? Who over there interjected at that point? Dr Webb, did you make any words at all?

Dr Duncan Webb: No, Mr Speaker. But I'm happy to.

SPEAKER: OK. The member will resume his seat. I just want to reiterate the point that the consequences are not only there for the members but there are consequences for the party, as well.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would hope, then, that you apply that equally across the two sides of the House—something we're not seeing a lot of evidence of today.

SPEAKER: The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I'll try it a different way: we do hope that you will be able to properly adjudicate across the House, to apply the rule that you've just made, fairly.

SPEAKER: The member will, once again, stand, withdraw, and apologise, and if there is a further reflection on me, the member will be joining Dr Smith.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I'll choose to join him without any further comment, Mr Speaker. Not much point in staying in this Chamber.

SPEAKER: All right. The member will now withdraw and apologise, and if he wishes to indicate to the House whether he is going to join Dr Smith for the entire time Dr Smith is out, it would probably help us.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I withdraw and apologise. How long is that?

SPEAKER: I'm yet to decide, Mr Brownlee.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Then, clearly, I can't give you an answer.

SPEAKER: Well, on that basis, Mr Brownlee will be out for as long as Dr Smith.

Question No. 9—Fisheries

9. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Fisheries: What new protections is the Government putting in place to look after New Zealand's native Hector's and Māui dolphins?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Fisheries): As we heard in question No. 3, yesterday the Minster of Conservation and I announced extensive new protections to be put in place as part of an updated plan to look after New Zealand's native Hector's and Māui dolphins. Fishing activities and the disease toxoplasmosis pose the biggest threats to Hector's and Māui dolphins. The changes to the threat management plan will increase fishing restrictions in dolphin habitats, focusing on methods with the highest potential to affect dolphins. However, I would like to be clear that fishing vessels will be able to keep fishing if they move to different methods. These decisions are based on the best available science. It includes sightings, aerial surveys, necropsy information, observer data, socio-economic analyses, and submissions. It is a considerable advance on previous assessments and gives us our clearest picture yet of the risk to specific populations of dolphins.

Dr Duncan Webb: What are some of the technical details of the threat management plan that will help to look after our native Hector's and Māui dolphins?

Hon STUART NASH: The technical details of the new fishing measures will take effect from 1 October and are as follows: (1) there will be a nationwide ban on driftnet fishing, (2) an extension of current set-net closures and the creation of new areas closed to set-netting in the North and South Islands, (3) an extension of the existing area closed to trawling off the west coast of the North Island, and (4) a change to the regulations allowing the Minister to act immediately to impose further restrictions if a single dolphin is caught in the Māui dolphin habitat within the west coast of the North Island. In response to feedback from public consultation, we intend to consult further on commercial and recreational set-net closures between the north and south of Banks Peninsula. Other proposals will primarily focus on collaborative and innovative approaches rather than full-method closures proposed today, to encourage individual vessels and operators to avoid bycatch of Hector's dolphins.

Dr Duncan Webb: What support will the Government make available to significantly affected fishers?

Hon STUART NASH: The changes will affect some fishing operators who work these waters. The decisions are not taken lightly, and I acknowledge there will be questions about some operations. A targeted transitional support package is being established to help and incentivise fishing operators to adapt to new restrictions. Fisheries New Zealand officials will now meet commercial fishing operators to work through the next steps. Support will be available to minimise the social and economic impacts. Livelihoods can be protected if new methods are adopted. The targeted support package will include ex gratia payments and free and independent business advice. It will be available to commercial fishers and licensed fish receivers who are most impacted by the new measures. The transitional support will also help meet the cost of converting boats from set-net or trawl to other fishing methods that have less of a known impact on the dolphins. The funds may also be used for moving to another fishing area or to exit the industry completely if that is the most appropriate option.

Question No. 10—Immigration

10. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of Immigration: How many people, if any, have entered New Zealand under the "other critical worker" border closure exception category?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister of Immigration): The "other critical worker" category for border exceptions opened on 18 June 2020 and is an updated version of the "other essential worker" category. I'm advised that as of 25 June, 383 individuals have been issued an invitation to apply for a visa, having been granted an exception to border restrictions under the essential worker category. I'm further advised that to determine how many of those 383 people have secured a visa and travelled to New Zealand would require manual investigation of each of those 383 files. That requires significant collation of information, which I'm advised would require approximately 30 hours of work by Immigration officials. I appreciate the member's genuine interest in the number he has asked for, but I'm sure he will appreciate that the information has not been able to be collated at this time.

Stuart Smith: Does he believe the public has a right to know how many people are entering under each category of border closure exceptions?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I do think it is of interest for people to know how many people are arriving in New Zealand on visas. Since 31 March and as at 21 June, 711 people have arrived on visitor visas, 744 have arrived on work visas, and 101 have arrived on student visas. That's a total of 1,556 people who have arrived in New Zealand who are not New Zealand citizens or residents or Australian citizens or residents.

Stuart Smith: Why doesn't he then have the numbers for the people that came in under that category—that is, the critical worker border closure exception category?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: As I told the member in the answer to his primary question, the number of exceptions is known, and then once a person has an exemption, they may have to apply for a visa, they have to book their travel, they have to fly to New Zealand and cross the border. Now, that information is all on their files, but it has to be manually investigated, and each of those 383 files would need to be manually investigated to provide him with that answer at this time.

Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What figures can the Minister provide about how many people have requested a border exception and how many have been approved?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: As at 23 June, 19,540 requests for a border exception have been received; 3,643 resulted in an invitation to apply being issued. That resulted in 3,125 subsequent applications. Of those, 2,986 have been approved.

Stuart Smith: Is the Minister concerned that not providing the information will heighten concerns New Zealanders have over immigration during a pandemic?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I think the thing that heightens concerns is Opposition members' fearmongering about homeless people being able to get into managed isolation and other stories that members' opposite have picked up and run in the media. What people are interested to know about the number of people crossing the border is how many people are coming into New Zealand, what visas they are on. That information is publicly available; I just provided it to the House.

Stuart Smith: Is he satisfied the border closure exceptions are being responsive to the needs of businesses critical to our economic recovery?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Yes.

Stuart Smith: Why, then, have no requests for "other critical workers" been approved since 12 June, as reported on RNZ this morning?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: As I say, the total numbers that have been approved to date are 383. I'm advised that there is an additional, approximately, 350 that are awaiting process, and the time it is taking to process most requests for exception is around about two days.

Question No. 11—Health

11. MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Health: When he said of his flagship $455 million new frontline mental health service, "it's quite impressive how quickly these things have rolled out", was he referring to the $20 million of the $455 million spent on services at that time or the 18 new sites delivering the service at that time?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I was referring to the more than 20,000 sessions of free mental health support that had been delivered as a result of the new service, which is already available at 40 primary-care sites across 11 DHB regions. We know these services are making a real difference to people's lives. I was also referring to the fact that we are training entirely new workforces to deliver these services, which are being rolled out across New Zealand over five years, making free mental health support accessible to all through GP clinics, iwi and Pacific providers, youth one-stop shops, and via online and tele.

Matt Doocey: In light of the Minister's answer in reference to the 40 sites, how can the Minister be confident that those 40 sites are operating, when, in response to written questions Nos 10699, 10693, and 10690, the Minister was unable to answer where the 40 sites are located, when they started seeing patients, or how many staff they're employing?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The recent investment of $40 million to expand integrated primary mental health and addiction services to over 100 sites, providing coverage to approximately 1.5 million New Zealanders, will include 350 full-time equivalents of health improvement practitioners, health coaches, and support workers. These services will be rolled out by July 2021. By the end of July 2020, we expect at least 54 sites to have started delivering integrated primary mental health and addiction services. These sites are located across 11 DHB regions. Each of these sites will have access to support from both health improvement practitioners and health coaches. Since the member asked me this specific question yesterday, I have obtained a breakdown by DHBs as to where they will be located, and my office is happy to provide that to him if he wishes.

Matt Doocey: When the Minister made his Anzac Day announcement of a further 100 sites for his flagship new front-line mental health service—"By the middle of next year the programme will be fully rolled out,"—why did the Ministry of Health issue their own press release stating these sites would not be rolled out until the end of next year, six months later?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Could the member please repeat the question?

Matt Doocey: When the Minister made his Anzac Day announcement of a further 100 sites for his flagship new front-line mental health service—"By the middle of next year the programme will be fully rolled out,"—why did the Ministry of Health issue their own press release stating these sites will not be rolled out until the end of next year, six months later?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I have not seen that press release. However, I can very happily—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Do members want a reply or not?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: What's that, sorry?

SPEAKER: Keep going.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I can very happily inform the member that we are an ambitious Government and we intend to have it rolled out earlier rather than later.

Matt Doocey: Has the Minister delivered the level of service promised to New Zealanders in Budget 2019, when his flagship new front-line mental health service has failed to spend its allocated funding and has been delivered in less than 3 percent of general practices to date?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I do want to push back quite strongly on the member's framing there. Yesterday, I informed him that there was $48.1 million of funding available this year to distribute. Of course we have had some COVID interruptions, but $39 million of that, roughly, is already distributed, and it's likely that the full allocation will be distributed this year. Those things are still being discussed in contract negotiations. It will either be this year or next year that the remaining portion is negotiated. So, actually, despite COVID, the officials have worked very, very hard to roll this programme out, as well as—on top of that—rolling out a psycho-social support programme during the lockdown that has provided a range of services, including the Mentemia app, which went to, already, 35,000 downloads; the Melon app, which had over 1,000 people sign up in just 10 days; the Getting Through Together website, which has had 34,000 unique visitors, to 23 April; and Sparklers at Home, which has had 47,900 unique visitors, to 23 April. This Government is proud of taking mental health seriously and is rolling out new services. I haven't yet mentioned Mana Ake, Piki, and, of course, the nurses in schools, which were all done before this initiative. We will pit our record on mental health service provision on this side of the House against those in the Opposition any day of the week.

Matt Doocey: In light of the Minister's response about his mental health record, why, when access to mental health and addiction services increased by 55 percent from 2009 to 2018—demonstrated by this graph from the Mental Health Commissioner's report this week—is the Minister refusing to put on record how much access he will increase under his Government?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: In select committee yesterday, we canvassed this conversation, and what the member was trying to imply was that we were going to limit services when this is a programme that is aimed at rolling out services to ensure every single New Zealander has access to free mental health and addiction services. It is our hope that that will be required by fewer rather than more people, but we want to make it accessible to all New Zealanders.

Matt Doocey: If access to mental health and addiction services increased by 55 percent under the last National Government, how much will his Government commit to today to increasing access to those valuable services?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: We want free mental health and addiction services available to all people with mild to moderate mental health addictions. We want everybody—every New Zealander—to have access to those services. That's what we want on this side of the House.

Matt Doocey: Is the Minister confident that his flagship new front-line mental health service will not follow KiwiBuild and light rail as the next failure from this Government; if not, why not?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Oh, I reject the premise of the member's question. But what I would say is that this Government is absolutely committed to taking mental health seriously. It is the first Government to make such a huge commitment to these services. We're proud of that fact. We don't shy away from the challenge that's in it, because they have been neglected for a long time, as have our health services more generally. But we're stepping up to the plate because we want to make sure New Zealanders can access the services they need.

Question No. 12—Workplace Relations and Safety

12. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What initiatives has he announced this week to assist industries and workers to deal with COVID-19 recovery?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Mr Speaker. On Monday, I announced funding provided in Budget 2020 to ensure that our health and safety and employment systems are equipped to deal with the recovery from COVID-19. I was deeply impressed by the work and commitment shown by business, union, and Government officials to work together to develop guidance on how to address the unprecedented challenge of fighting the virus in workplaces. This Government believes that we get the best results from that type of tripartite engagement. I want this work to continue as we shift into the recovery phase, and that's why I've announced funding for initiatives to assist industry workers and Government to continue this momentum.

Marja Lubeck: Can the Minister explain the employment-related initiatives?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Well, more and better targeted information is required for workers and workplaces to be confident in knowing and understanding their rights and obligations. We will be expanding services, including the Employment New Zealand 0800 line, which has seen a 49 percent increase in calls over April and March. A $3 million contestable fund will be set up to provide financial support for business organisations, unions, and community providers to create initiatives to support workers and workplaces through the COVID-19 response. We want to make sure that businesses that are doing the right thing by their workers continue to thrive.

Marja Lubeck: What health and safety initiatives have been announced?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: The work health and safety system is playing a critical role in keeping workers and customers safe during the COVID-19 pandemic. WorkSafe and industry bodies are working together to provide guidance to help workplaces follow the rules and minimise the risk of COVID-19 spreading. WorkSafe has also rolled out an education campaign on effective COVID-19 controls with a four- to six-week campaign. New funding will help WorkSafe provide technical specialist respiratory hazard advice.

Dan Bidois: Will the Minister announce plans for Holidays Act reform to reduce businesses' compliance costs in their recovery from COVID-19 before the election, given he has now had the task force report for nearly eight months?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Well, I'm glad the member asks that question, because I'm extraordinarily proud of the fact that this Government backed me to deal with the Holidays Act, something the previous Government refused to do despite the fact that they got calls from businesses and workers for years and years and years to do something about it. Now, the group did provide—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Can some of the member's colleagues just turn it down so we can see whether the question's actually addressed for once.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: The group did provide us with a very good report, and, unfortunately, over the last few months, there have been other things that this Government has had to focus on, in dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic. But once resources can be returned to that very important work, of which this Government is very proud, they will be.

Dan Bidois: Will the Minister release its response to the task force report at the same time as the report itself?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Yes.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Do the initiatives announced this week include strategies to reduce the amount of workplace bullying, given concerning revelations this week about bullying and harassment of senior public sector officials?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Well, I can say this Government takes bullying and harassment in the workplace extremely seriously, and we have been doing a lot of policy work in that area as well. The member can look forward to serious progress from this Government, unlike the previous Government.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister as to why the report will not be issued, or is he following the past practice of a certain political party that had a bullying allegation investigation and refused to disclose it?

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I think there are a couple of reasons that that could be ruled out.

© Scoop Media