 News talk, ZB. Seven past seven, so what happened to the rules, eh? Protesters all over the grounds of Parliament, well in excess of 100, not a sign of any social distancing, even the Deputy Prime Minister this morning asking questions, the Prime Minister Jacinda Radden is with us, good morning. Good morning. Do you condone that activity? No. And what about the police, where were they? They were present as they are at other protests, but taking the exact same approach that they have all the way through. They take a graduated approach. Mike, and ultimately those are their calls, I should add that, these are operational decisions, but the same approach that they've taken for any area where they've seen gatherings, which is first to educate, warn before they then move into enforcement action. Well, why didn't they take any enforcement? Because presumably when they educated and warned, nothing happened. Again, Mike, I am not going to issue dictates on the police's operational decisions they are for them. Are you disappointed in them? In the police? They have played a phenomenal role all the way through the efforts of COVID-19. They are the ones on the ground needing to make these decisions and I leave those decisions for them and that's appropriate. What's the point of having rules of the rules can be so openly flouted and everybody else is supposed to adhere to them unless you're a protester? And everyone is meant to adhere to them. And look, Mike, I absolutely understand the strength of feeling and the sentiment. No one wants to have restrictions in place that inhibit peaceful protests or that stops funeral or tangi hangar or celebrations, but they are there for a reason. We have no restrictions in place that are not there for a reason currently. No one's arguing that. They are there for a reason. But there's no reason for having rules or regulations if they're going to be so openly flouted and ignored by the police. And we have used the process all the way through that has served us well. It is a graduated approach. It doesn't move straight in and it hasn't moved straight in in that heavy-handed way in the first instance. But Mike, of course, our aspiration is a team of courses to move away from needing restrictions at all, but the fastest way we can get there has just been certain that we're in the best possible position to remove them. And Winston said half an hour ago on this programme, given what we saw on the Parliament grounds in Auckland yesterday, why aren't we at level one? He'll presumably raise that with you again. So why aren't we at level one? The first thing I would say is that no one argued at level four that if someone broke the rules, that was the reason to get rid of the rules. But, of course, as we've moved through, we've always said that we need to make sure that we're constantly reviewing the settings and the data that we're getting. So what I intend to talk to Cabinet about today is we've always said it would be no later than the 22nd of June that we would move to level one if we continue on the track that we have. From the conversations I've had with the via the Ministry of Health and the feedback I've had from the Director-General of Health is that we are in a position to start considering that earlier than that, so potentially as early as the 8th of June. So you'll consider it the 8th of June to go on the 9th? I'll put to the Cabinet that we consider it on the 8th of June. We've always led that just up to 48 hours then before we move. So that's what I'll talk to Cabinet about today. So today's the 2nd, six days time. What is that happening between now and six days time that's going to flip it? Michael, remember that in the same way that when we went in to lockdown, we said, well, actually, we won't see... There's a lag here with everything. And the thing that, of course, our epidemiologists and the health officials have continued to keep in mind is that we do have asymptomatic transmission. And so if we want to be in that position, where we already have some of the fewest restrictions in the world, if we want to be in a position where we're probably the only one that has virtually none, which is, keep in mind level one, that is what it looks like. It basically is border controls and nothing else. If we want to move into that position, you can understand why we'd want to have that extra assurance of that lengthier period of time without... Well, maybe we would, maybe we wouldn't. What about the bloke from Coordamentha last week? He said New Zealand businesses cannot wait further weeks with minimal COVID cases, knowing that the cost will only be extreme and unjustifiable. A couple of things to keep in mind. I mean, you would have been out and about, as I was Mike over the weekend, for the most part, the restrictions now are impacting, you know, through fewer tables and hospitality in a particular way of working there and mass gatherings, obviously having an impact. But by and large, the economy is back. We do need to start seeing people come back into our cities, but that's nothing to do with our restrictions. Those are some personal choices that are being made in the way that some employers are working. By and large, we came out of some of those TV restrictions the moment we started stepping into level two, and that is why we have some, basically, are amongst the fewest restrictions in the world right now. So if our economy is largely back, why do we have 50,000 more people on benefits? The answer is because it's not back and you know it. No, that is, I don't think that's entirely fair, Mike. There are some who have not survived through this. And the Retail Association and the Hospitality Association say, at level two, we cannot make a living. Yes, the door's open, but we cannot make a living, and that's what's holding them back, and that's more jobs when the wave's up. Hospitality, yeah. Hospitality, we know. We've just asked, of course, that there's still registers and that they have a meter between people who are dining. Oh. Yes, and nightclubs, obviously, are impacted. Retail would be interested to hear some of that feedback. What those wider impacts are, I do still see some retailers who are doing things that they aren't required to do, and I understand that they're doing it for the safety of their customers, but actually, some of those restrictions are lesser on retail than others. So you're arguing people who are struggling to make a living at the moment who are open, level two is good enough for them, and the economy is back, your word's not mine, and we're okay. Are you seriously arguing that? No, Mike. I'm arguing that the difference between level two and level one primarily is hitting on hospitality, and we absolutely acknowledge that, but I'm also arguing that the idea of going hard and go early meant that we went into heavy restrictions, and that we came out, relative to other countries, very, very quickly. So Michael Barnett says we should be at level one. Adam Crichton wrote that piece in The Australian. I'm sure you read last week. You're pushing the economy off a cliff. Winston says we should be in level one. Hospitality, New Zealand said we should be in level one. The line of people saying we're in level one is long and loud. And Mike, and I've just explained to you that it's a cabinet we're likely to consider earlier, because we always said the 22nd was the very latest, but also I can give you a line of epidemiologists who know a lot about the transmission of viruses like this, who I also have to give consideration to as well. Is that part of the problem, though? You're giving more consideration to the Susie Wiles and the Michael Bakers of this world than you are to people who make a living in business. No, not at all. All the way through, our entire strategy has been about trying to open up the economy faster than others, and we have. We are more open right now than Australia. We are more open than most countries you could compare us to. The only countries considered more open than us are currently Mike, Belarus, and Taiwan. So I really push back on this idea here that we haven't been focused on opening up our economy. We have. If you go to them on the 8th, with a view to opening when? The 9th or another two weeks past the 8th? We've tended to give people about... Attended to be about 48 hours, Mike, from that. So the 8th could be opened. It could be at level one by the 10th. Yes, it could be a scenario, yes. Is contact tracing a problem? We seem to have gone back to nine days from five. Why? Sorry, you'll have to give me an explanation of your... We've gone back, the Ministry of Health tells us, we've gone back in contact tracing to nine days to get 80% of the cases in the close contacts from five. Asha Verrill said originally should be four. Well, as I've pointed out time and time again, our biggest issue hasn't in more recent times. So over the period of, say, from April, our biggest issue has been the timeliness of people getting a test because the clock starts as soon as basically you're symptomatic. If people don't get a test in a timely way, then it basically puts us behind on every element of that process. So that's not going to be a problem in holding us back. So you're happy with the contact tracing and it's not going to hold us back? That is not being a reason for holding us back. No, Mike, but that does continue to be our biggest issue, which is why we keep telling people if they're sick, stay home, get a test straightaway. On the wage subsidy, $10 billion plus wage subsidy, why would Carmel Sepoloni not be interested in getting regular updates and only be interested in looking at those once a quarter? No, I don't think that was a fair characterization. I think you might have seen that actually we came back on that and absolutely said we agree that that's information that we do, that there is public interest in and we are taking a very close look at them. So we have got regular reporting on that. So far we've had about 3,200 refunds that have been made, about $83 million worth of being returned and we have been applying an auditing process as well. Adrian all said there's a lot of money in the bank. So what happens with the, this is the IRD loan scheme. The small businesses come along, borrow the money, stick it on deposit and collect the interest. If they were doing that, does that bother you? We've essentially said, you know, actually, I have spoken to businesses that are not doing that in order to reduce, for instance, interest payments but actually out of just the security of knowing that it's there, we did have a limited time available for application for those loans. So they're, in some cases, a hospital business I spoke to last week. They are okay for now. They're worried about their ongoing recovery as the winter drags on. And so for them, it was about applying when it was available and having it there in case they needed it to call on it further down the track. And I know that is what it's intended for. Just quickly on the Monarch Development Kiwi Build, our promise to be in by June of this year, do you owe them an apology they bought on Kiwi Build on the government promise of being able to be in June? They may be in in July 2022. Look, without having all of the, of course, with the developments, Mike, there are many, many factors of play that can lead to delays. Indeed, do you owe them an apology, though? They built on the promise of Kiwi Build and they're not getting a house for at least two years if they get their house at all. No, again, that would be something for Minister Woods to address. Appreciate your time very much. Jacinda Ardern, it is 17, power seven.