Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Finance: How is the Government responding to changing economic conditions in New Zealand and globally?

The Reserve Bank, in its Monetary Policy Statement, is forecasting the economy will grow robustly in the second half of 2022 and the first quarter of 2023 by a collective 1.8 percent, for a period of negative growth totalling 1 percent GDP. Global growth forecasts continue to deteriorate, and the IMF is expecting economies either to be in recession, or be in conditions that feel as if they are, next year. We have consistently acknowledged that 2023 is going to be a tough year for New Zealanders facing global cost of living pressures and rising interest rates. As we clearly signalled in May’s Budget, we are cutting our cloth on the pathway back to surplus. Government spending as a percentage of GDP is forecast to fall considerably over the coming year, from 35 percent to 31.6 percent.

Ingrid Leary: What does Budget 2022 say about the impact of Government spending on the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Treasury’s measurement of the impact of Government spending is the fiscal impulse—this is forecast to turn negative in 2022-23 and remain so throughout the remainder of the forecast period. This indicates that the Government is forecast to contribute less to aggregate demand each year than in the previous year. It is clear that 2023 will be a difficult year. Our approach has put New Zealand in a strong position to deal with the challenging global environment and its impact on New Zealand. We will continue to strike a balance of responsibly managing our finances, targeting support to where it is needed the most, and investing in a resilient economy.

Ingrid Leary: How else is the Government responding to the changing economic landscape?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We continue to prioritise our spending so we target support to where it is needed most without exacerbating inflation. For example, we’re easing cost of living pressures for a number of New Zealand families by improving access to, and the value of, childcare assistance. Over one-half of all New Zealand families with children will now be eligible for subsidised childcare assistance, and over 10,000 additional children eligible for support.

Ingrid Leary: What approach is the Government adopting in regard to fiscal policy as economic conditions change in New Zealand and globally?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We will continue to take a long-term and careful approach to fiscal policy. More than ever, a consistent and balanced response is important to provide the certainty that is needed in a volatile environment. This is what got New Zealand through the one-in-100-year economic shock of COVID better than most, and puts us in a strong position to deal with the challenges ahead. This is the time for calm heads and measured responses. It is not the time for knee-jerk responses and policy U-turns which leave New Zealanders confused and unsure and lowers trust on the path forward as we navigate this challenging time.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Reserve Bank Governor, Adrian Orr, who said yesterday that “we’ve got too much home-grown inflation”; if so, what additional steps, if any, is the Government considering to reduce pressure on home-grown inflation?

I agree with the statement in its full context. It was in an exchange where the Governor said, in relation to Government spending, that “Over recent times, it’s been broadly neutral if not slightly negative fiscal impulse.” To answer the second part of the question: the Government is taking a number of steps to both reduce pressure on inflation and reduce the pressure on households from inflation. This includes running a contractionary fiscal policy while making sure we are targeting investments to where they are needed most, such as increasing childcare assistance, the family tax credit, benefit levels, superannuation, and the minimum wage. We will of course continue to look at our fiscal policy to ensure that it does support monetary policy, while balancing that with taking pressure off New Zealand households as we all face this global inflation crisis together.

Nicola Willis: Will he be heeding the Reserve Bank Governor’s call for the Government to spend more sensibly this Christmas, or is it just Kiwi families that will have to do without?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said in answer to the primary question and, indeed, in answer to question No. 1, the Government understands the importance of disciplined fiscal policy. That is why there is a contractionary fiscal impulse into the future and why our spending as a percentage of GDP returns to the long-run average of 30 percent.

Nicola Willis: Was Adrian Orr right to suggest this morning that the Government’s immigration settings are a handbrake on our economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’m not sure that’s a completely fair depiction of that. But what I would say is that immigration is an area where I know that New Zealanders are looking to see some improvement in terms of the number of people who can come in for jobs. That’s the reason why the Government did the immigration reset that we did. I note, within that immigration reset, currently the job-check process of that has seen 85,943 New Zealand positions approved, but work visa applications sit at 24,031. What that indicates is that employers have been given the right to bring someone in on a visa but they are in a very competitive global employment market that makes it tough. We will continue to look at our immigration settings so that they can support the workforce that we need in New Zealand.

Nicola Willis: Does the Minister understand that a job check and a visa process does not amount to a nurse working in a hospital, a worker on a farm, or someone helping a small business through the cost of living crisis?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I absolutely understand the importance of getting people here into New Zealand to fill the skill gaps we’ve got. The point that I was making in that answer was to be clear that there is, everywhere in the world, global labour shortages. What New Zealand is doing is competing in that market. We have a process now that is far more effective and efficient than what we have had. But, as I said, we will always continue to look to ways to tweak our immigration settings to make sure they can fulfil their goals.

Nicola Willis: Does he agree with economist Brad Olsen, in reference to the Reserve Bank, that “They’re quite clearly saying there that the Government is contributing to inflation”, or will the Minister continue to dodge responsibility and keep playing the blame game?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Again, I don’t think that’s a fair depiction of what the Reserve Bank has been saying. Yesterday, in the press conference, they also discussed the issue of the fiscal impulse, and the chief economist at the bank talked about the fact that it shows that, basically, the fiscal impulse has been flat as far as consumption goes, and that is what they feed into their model. It is a challenging time in terms of how we can contribute and manage within fiscal policy. I do note that the member’s party consistently over the last couple of years, as the Reserve Bank has been increasing the official cash rate (OCR), have been calling for stimulus. In October 2021, they did this, then again in late 2021, then again in February 2022. As the OCR was being increased, the member’s party was calling for more stimulatory activity in the economy. The member cannot have it both ways.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What specific fiscal policy, if any, will the Government undertake to support low-income New Zealanders who will be disproportionately impacted by the upcoming recession that the Reserve Bank Governor admitted they were engineering in response, triggering questions this morning?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What we have done is what we will continue to do: make sure that our middle-income New Zealanders are properly rewarded. That includes the changes we’ve made to childcare assistance and the increases that are happening with the family tax credit. As we have shown over the last couple of years, we will seek to find opportunities to support low and middle income people while not unnecessarily exacerbating inflation.

Nicola Willis: Why should New Zealanders trust his assertion that Government spending will fall one day in the future—maybe—when that Minister has blown every single operating allowance he has ever set in a Government Budget, and will he confirm that the operating allowance he will announce in a few weeks will be the same as he projected in the Budget?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I challenge the assertions that the member has made because the way that we measure our Budget and our fiscal policy in New Zealand is whether or not, for example, we keep debt under control. We have debt at one of the lowest levels in the OECD. We have a pathway back to surplus; we have seen economic growth. New Zealanders know that in difficult times—and in a crisis—this is the Government that has their backs and takes a balanced approach. That is what we will continue to do.

Nicola Willis: Will he follow the lead of the Reserve Bank Governor, who today apologised to New Zealanders for the role the Reserve Bank had in allowing inflation to be higher and to persist longer than it might have otherwise, and to therefore contribute to the interest rate rises we’re experiencing, or does that Minister continue to believe he has nothing to feel sorry for?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I heard what the Reserve Bank Governor said this morning, and I join with him in saying that I am very sorry that New Zealanders are in the circumstances they’re in. What I also know is that we have worked very hard as a Government to ensure that those circumstances are significantly better than those of people in other parts of the world. I would much rather be facing this particular crisis with unemployment at 3.3 percent, with an economy where our debt is among the lowest in the OECD. They are the things that we have done to prepare ourselves for this moment. We do not need knee-jerk reactions, because we have taken an approach that is balanced and careful and puts New Zealand in one of the strongest positions of any country in the OECD to deal with this situation.

Nicola Willis: Why, when domestic inflation is forecast to keep climbing to 7.4 percent early next year, does he persist in trying to hoodwink New Zealanders into believing that this is all global factors?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The point I was making in that answer—and obviously I reject all of the assertions in the member’s question—was that this is a difficult and challenging time for every country in the world. What New Zealand is in the position of is being able to face that with unemployment low, with people in work, and with wages rising. It doesn’t stop it from being a challenging time; it doesn’t stop it from being a time in which we as a Government have to take seriously our fiscal responses. But what I’d invite the member to do is think about the fact that every central bank in the world is needing to deal with this. Every Government in the world is needing to deal with this. We, as a country, have got ourselves to a strong position. It will be tough, but at least the country knows that they’ve got a Government that will back them.

Question No. 3—Immigration

3. to the Minister of Immigration: Does he consider that current immigration policies are fair and equitable towards migrant families?

Yes, I do, noting that there are always balances to be struck with an immigration policy. I note that last week I announced that Immigration New Zealand will be prioritising 2021 resident visa applications from applicants who are currently separated from their offshore partners and/or dependent children. In addition to this, the Government has a number of other policies which are making a positive difference for migrant families, including reopening and updating the settings of the parent category visa, which were closed in 2016; reopening the skilled migrant category; doubling the refugee quota; and forming a migrant community reference group. I’m committed to pursuing an immigration policy that treats our migrants with respect and dignity, and that’s exactly what our Government is focused on.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does he believe migrant nurses and teachers earning less than $86K a year should qualify to bring their parents to live in New Zealand on the parent residency visa; if not, why not?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The member is referring to the parent residency visa pathway that our Government did recently reopen after it was closed by the previous Government in 2016. As a part of that policy, we increased the cap over what had previously been proposed to 2,500 per year, we reduced the income thresholds, and we also made it more flexible to reach the income thresholds by enabling siblings to join their incomes together to reach those thresholds. The reason that the thresholds are in place, however, is about striking a balance whereby we do not want a situation where elderly migrant parents might come into the country but not have sufficient support to look after their welfare when they are potentially unable to support themselves. That is a balance that we try to strike. It’s a balance that most countries have. I do note that we do have other visa pathways that do enable families in New Zealand to connect with parents from other countries on a more temporary basis.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Has he heard concerns that migrants experiencing visa delays or, potentially, rejection of their visa as a result of accessing mental health services face increased stigma and ill mental health; if so, what steps are being taken to address this?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I haven’t directly heard of any of those concerns, but what I would assure the House is that in respect of the “acceptable standard of health” policy, which has been a longstanding part of our immigration policy, there is no differentiation between physical illness and mental health conditions. We do believe that it is reasonable that, as most countries do, there is an assessment as to whether there might be significant health costs that would fall to the public purse as a result of migration. Our Government has recently increased the “acceptable standard of health” threshold from $41,000 to $81,000 and removed a number of conditions. So we do always look to ensure that it’s as facilitative and as reasonable as possible, but, ultimately, I don’t think it’s unreasonable that any Government does have that basic assessment within the immigration system.

Ricardo Menéndez March: What further advice or work is he awaiting, if any, before making decisions following his comments that “The Government does not have a closed mind” on a regularisation initiative for overstayers?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The question of regularisation is one that has been raised in a number of quarters over the course of the last year, and the member is correct that I have said that it’s not one that I have a closed mind on. It is, however, a complex area. Any Government that does want to consider that policy will need to be mindful of precedent, mindful of how such a policy could be operationalised, mindful of equity issues between people who might benefit from such a policy and people who have already voluntarily self-deported. Those are the sorts of complex issues that any Government would have to work through before it made a decision in that area, and, as I indicated to the member last week, it is an area where I have asked for advice from officials. It’s one that I will work through very carefully.

Teanau Tuiono: Is the Minister concerned that under-aged, undocumented migrants aren’t able to fully participate in their communities, and, if so, will he introduce an amnesty for overstayers?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I refer to my previous answer, which is that the Government hasn’t made a decision to that effect, but it’s one that I have sought further information and advice from officials on.

Teanau Tuiono: Why are Pacific countries such as Tonga and Samoa not on the visa waiver list?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: As we’ve canvassed in the House, New Zealand operates an immigration system whereby some countries are subject to visa waiver. In many countries in the Pacific and elsewhere, residents do need to have a visa to enter New Zealand. That has been a part of our immigration system for a long time. It is a part of the assurance that we seek to ensure that people are going to—when they are planning to come to New Zealand, they are doing so on a bona fides basis, and I’m reasonably satisfied with that policy at this stage. I note that the vast majority of people from the countries that the member references do successfully receive their visas after they have applied for them.

Question No. 4—Education

4. to the Minister of Education: What reports has he seen about trends in the number of New Zealanders in apprenticeships?

I’ve seen a report that the number of Kiwis learning on the job as an apprentice has increased from 29,965 to 57,105. That’s an increase of 91 percent or over 27,000 more apprentices training today than there were 5 years ago.

Angela Roberts: Has the number of women apprentices kept pace with the overall increase?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Actually, no. The growth for women has significantly outpaced the growth for men, albeit from a low base. The number of women in apprenticeships has more than tripled—a 224 percent increase from 2,540 to 8,240.

Angela Roberts: What industries have seen the largest growth in apprenticeships?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The construction sector has been the biggest contributor to overall apprenticeship growth. Construction apprentices have increased by 105 percent from 12,755 to 26,150. That’s more than 13,000 more construction apprentices. Another significant area of growth has been healthcare and social assistance, which has had 400 percent growth from 455 to 2,275 apprentices, 74 percent of whom are women.

Angela Roberts: Has the growth in apprenticeships been primarily amongst young people?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No. There has been a 78 percent growth in the number of apprentices under the age of 20, but there has been even bigger growth in older age groups. There has been a 189 percent growth in the number of apprentices aged 40 and above.

Question No. 5—Immigration

5. to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions?

Yes, I do, in the full context that they were made. In particular, I stand by my statement last week welcoming the significant increase in working holiday visas that have arrived in the country ahead of summer. I can inform the House that, as of today, 18,737 such people have now arrived in the country, and that has been supported by changes that the Government has made to increase—to double, in fact—the Competence Assessment Programme (CAP) scheme numbers for the coming summer. I look forward to seeing this strong trend continue as we prepare for a bumper summer tourism season.

Erica Stanford: Why, after Treasury’s economic update in October 2021, which stated, “Labour shortages continue to pose barriers to growth and will keep inflationary pressures elevated.”, did the Government not move more quickly to allow skilled workers to apply for the accredited employer work visa (AEW visa) in March rather than July?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Because, through the first part of 2022, New Zealand was still dealing with a significant COVID-19 outbreak, and one of our primary measures of defence was to have protections at our borders. It may have escaped the member’s recollection but during that period we faced the biggest outbreak of COVID that our country has seen. Our Government has moved forward this year with the reconnection strategy, which saw all of our main visa categories open up as of July, and, as the year has gone on, we have moved forward to open up the skilled migrant category, to increase the number of people coming through the working holiday visa scheme, to increase the Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE), the CAP scheme, to open up the Green List, and other changes that show our commitment to making sure that we do reconnect with the world.

Erica Stanford: In light of that answer, does he agree with the Prime Minister, who said on 16 March, “The major issue here is not a question of safety but a question of the ability to process those new visas in a timely way.”, and, if so, is it the case that his department’s inability to process AEW visas in March this year has exacerbated labour shortages and elevated inflationary pressures?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Well, to some degree the member points to a statement of the obvious in respect of every country around the world, which is that as every country used border protections to keep safe from COVID-19, it was challenging to access international labour. What we have done since July is open up all of our major categories. We have provided over 85,000 job check approvals, which are approvals for employers to be able to recruit temporary labour offshore. We have provided approvals for over 13,000 work visas to enable those people to come into New Zealand, and, as I just said in my primary answer, over 18,000 working holidaymakers have now arrived in New Zealand, following on from about 38,000 of those applications having been approved. So I do believe that our immigration system is providing approvals to workers to get into New Zealand, but the member does need to reflect on the fact that every single country around the world faces these challenges because of a global labour shortage. The member can wave her hands around and point to some of these challenges; what we actually need are practical policies to actually help New Zealand employers and workers, and the member and her party offer nothing in that regard.

Erica Stanford: Given that only 2,569 AEW visa holders have arrived to 11 October, what does he say to a business owner who called me yesterday and said, “By the time we get workers in the country next year, according to the Reserve Bank we’ll probably already be in recession and will have wasted the opportunity we had this year to get workers we desperately needed.”?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: What I would say is that Immigration New Zealand has approved work visas for over 13,200 workers to enter New Zealand. Once that work visa has been provided, there is obviously some time for that worker to get themselves ready, to uproot their family, to make a plan to come to New Zealand, and then to come to this country. The immigration system has to have the right policies in place. It does need to ensure that it processes applications in a reasonably timely way, but there are some factors within the system that are actually down to the people involved, and one of those will be the time it takes for someone to come to New Zealand after a work visa has been issued.

Erica Stanford: Given that answer, then, why is it that the Government didn’t move more quickly at the end of 2021 to get businesses accredited and get job checks done so that we could get workers in the country from March, rather than waiting until July, giving them much more time to enter the country?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Well, I’m quite sure that we could have a fine old time going through statements made by members on that side of the House about when our borders should be open and when our borders should have been closed as we were dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic. But our Government makes no apologies for the fact that we put the health of New Zealanders first as we were dealing with the global outbreak at its peak. During that period, we continued to fill critical skill shortages through the critical purpose visa, which enabled workers to come to New Zealand, in areas where there were particular needs, in a controlled way. And we have then moved forward this year to open up other visa categories through the immigration rebalance. We do need to have policies that make a real difference in this area, but going back and relitigating history and pretending we didn’t have a global pandemic to deal with isn’t a sign of anyone who’s ready to make good policy.

Erica Stanford: Who is right, then, the Minister who’s telling us today that everything’s fine and dandy, or the Reserve Bank Governor, Adrian Orr, who, this morning, on Mike Hosking Breakfast, said, “It is a handbrake. More labour would be better without [a] doubt, [it’s] loud and clear … and everyone has told the Government that.”

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: As I said before in an answer to a question, it’s all very well to point to challenges that we face, and no one is saying that there are not challenges that we face. We have a record-low unemployment rate, which is a good thing, that does create challenges in certain parts of the labour market, and we need to access international labour to fill some of those gaps. What our Government has done over the course of the past year has been to put in place an immigration system that helps us to do that, and I’ll go through some of those steps again. We’ve opened up the accredited employer work visa system. We’ve got the skilled migrant category reopened. We’ve reopened the parent category, which makes it more attractive for people to come to New Zealand, which a previous Government closed. We’ve got the green list system open. We’ve increased RSE numbers. We’ve increased working holiday visa numbers. Those are the practical steps that we have taken in dealing with a global labour shortage that every country is trying to deal with. One thing I’ll say that’s a positive difference between the ACT Party and the National Party is they’ve actually put out some ideas for things that we could do in the immigration system today—I think many of them are terrible, but at least they’re putting forward some ideas for debate, unlike that lot who just complain with no solutions at all.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What was it in the question that was asked of Mr McAnulty—of, sorry, they look similar, Mr Wood.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Take that back.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Sorry. That was—quite right—

SPEAKER: This is a point of order.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: —I withdraw and apologise, Kieran. My apologies. It was a genuine mistake. What was it in the question that was asked of Mr Wood that meant that you were prepared to tolerate the sort of answer that he gave to the House?

SPEAKER: No, no, you’re absolutely right. He shouldn’t have brought the ACT Party into it on a question from the National Party. I will give the ACT Party one extra question, and the National Party one extra question.

Erica Stanford: Why haven’t his immigration settings responded to the nine consecutive official cash rate (OCR) hikes that referenced critical labour shortages, including, yesterday, when the Reserve Bank said that businesses remain held back by severe labour shortages that are unlikely to ease in the near-term.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: We have responded to those challenges. One of the differences about being in Government and the member’s position in Opposition is that we actually have to come up with solutions and policies to deal with the challenges that are in front of us. That is something that that member has not ever been able to bring herself to do. I’ve outlined to the House on multiple occasions the significant policies that our Government has put forward to deal with those challenges. They are challenges faced by every country around the world, and we will continue to work with employers to make sure that we do have good policies in place to address some of these challenges.

Nicole McKee: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Is the Minister supportive of ACT’s immigration policy, announced earlier today, whereby we state that all immigration policy decisions will be subject to a regulatory impact analysis, and, if not, why not?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I’ve only briefly seen the policy’s proposals that the ACT Party put out previously. I can assure that member that every significant policy that our Government does develop in the immigration area does go through that process and that now that we have come out of the COVID emergency period, we have put in place a commitment to have full consultation and normal policy processes around all of our significant policy areas. What I don’t agree with in the ACT policy is their policy to do away with any process of employers needing to check if there are New Zealanders who are available to do a job, and their policy of doing away with any controls around the wages that are paid to migrant workers, which we believe is an important thing to ensure that migrants aren’t exploited.

Barbara Edmonds: Is the Minister aware of the comments made by the Reserve Bank Governor this morning on the OCR uplift hearing with the Finance and Expenditure Committee that workforce shortages are a global issue and that other Reserve Bank Governors across the globe are asking where the people are?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Yes, I do agree with that assessment, and anyone who is serious about understanding immigration policy understands that these are global issues that are faced by virtually every developed country around the world. Our focus is on making sure that we have policies that do support employers in that area. That’s why we’ve given out over 85,000 job checks that give employers the ability to recruit internationally. That’s why we’ve made those increases to the RSE scheme and to the working holiday visa scheme. That’s why we’ve opened up the parent category that the National Party closed last time they were in Government. We have a record of actually putting in place practical policies, and we’ll keep doing that.

Question No. 6—Conservation

6. to the Minister of Conservation: What announcements have been made about supporting community-led conservation projects?

Earlier this month, we announced that the Department of Conservation Community Fund—Pūtea Tautiaki Hapori opened for applications. The fund will support community-led efforts to protect threatened species and to promote Te Mana o te Taiao by providing community groups with grant payments. These payments will enable grassroots projects to continue their work in helping us resolve the biodiversity crisis and help us achieve our conservation commitments. Applications are open until Tuesday, 31 January 2023, and I encourage anyone who wants to help us support our conservation estate to apply.

Arena Williams: How much funding is being made available?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: This round of community fund will make a record $9.2 million available for community groups, iwi, hapū, and private landowners who are supporting our conservation efforts across the country. The grants typically range from $5,000 up to as much as $100,000 for localised projects.

Arena Williams: What type of projects will be considered?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: This year’s fund is divided into two streams: $7.2 million for biodiversity projects that reduce the extinction risk of priority threatened species or protect priority ecosystems and $2 million to protect cultural sites and maintain visitor infrastructure. Projects funded in the past have included intensive and focused predator control programmes to protect endangered species, significant weed removal projects, as well as fencing and riparian planting on lake edges and in wetlands.

Arena Williams: When will the successful applicants be announced?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Applications for the fund close on Tuesday, 31 January 2023. Those who wish to apply can do so via the Department of Conservation website. The Department of Conservation will consider all applications and inform successful applicants in April 2023.

Question No. 7—Police

7. to the Minister of Police: What changes will the Government make to its response to retail crime, after the fatal stabbing of a dairy worker in Sandringham last night, if any, and will the Government now remove the criterion that a retailer must first be a victim of crime in order for them to access funding from the Retail Crime Prevention Programme?

I’d like to begin by acknowledging the tragic event in Auckland last night. I commend the efforts of the first responders at the scene, and extend sincere sympathy to the victim, their family, and to the local community. As I’ve indicated previously, I have already been reviewing the criteria to access the retail crime prevention fund. On the information that I have available at the moment, it’s not clear why the particular business concerned didn’t have a fog cannon installed as part of the first stage of the programme, which began back in 2017. I have asked for more information on that—I have not yet received a detailed explanation around that. It isn’t possible for the taxpayer to subsidise security measures at every retail business in New Zealand, and, therefore, there does need to be some criteria that guide who does and who doesn’t get access to those subsidies. However, as I’ve indicated, I am continuing to review them.

Chris Baillie: Why should small-business owners have any confidence in the Government’s response to retail crime, given that only seven businesses have had installations completed under the Retail Crime Prevention Programme over the last six months?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I’ve indicated previously, I would have liked to have seen faster progress earlier; however, the retail crime prevention fund work has now accelerated, and we are seeing significant progress in areas like fog-cannon installations and upgrades, security sirens, alarms, CCTV, lighting, counter screens, store mirrors, window strengthening, bollards, planter boxes, roller doors, and so on. Of course, I would have liked to have seen some of that happening sooner, but I am confident that that work is now—as we indicated—accelerating.

Chris Baillie: What does the Minister say to the serving police officer who said, “Well, it was only a matter of time before a shopkeeper was killed in the current spate of robberies. If you allow people to offend without the risk of consequences, there will be no fear for the bad people. Shame on those who have allowed things to get so out of control in New Zealand.”?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’ve not seen that particular quote and I don’t intend to comment on an individual reported comment without knowing the authenticity or the source of it.

Chris Baillie: What does the Minister say to dairy and business association chair Sunny Kaushal, who said, “As for the Prime Minister, we’ve never had a single reply despite asking to meet.”, and does he think the MP for Mt Albert should visit the family of the victim?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I can say that I have personally met with Mr Kaushal and his group, and, as follow-up action, so have the police—they have had at least one in-person meeting and several follow-up interactions to respond to the various proposals and issues that have been raised.

Question No. 8—Environment

8. to the Minister for the Environment: Will he undertake any specific actions to ensure the resource management reforms have the active consent of tangata whenua, in response to concerns expressed from tangata whenua leaders regarding the Natural and Built Environment Bill and the Spatial Planning Bill; if so, what are those actions?

on behalf of the Minister for the Environment: On behalf of the Minister, the repeal and replacement of the Resource Management Act (RMA) will address the longstanding problems with the current system while saving Kiwis hundreds of millions of dollars. Reform is overdue. Everyone is frustrated with the RMA—environmentalists, developers, councils, farmers, home builders, and tangata whenua. Ministers and officials have regularly engaged with Māori throughout the two-year development phase of these bills, and for the year prior to that with the Randerson panel. Tangata whenua, of course, aren’t one amorphous group, and different iwi and hapū have different views on aspects of the reforms. As the member will be aware, the Natural and Built Environment Bill and the Spatial Planning Bill are currently before the select committee for consideration. The Minister for the Environment is not going to cut across the committee’s role in scrutinising and proposing improvements to the bills. However, the Government will be seriously considering all public submissions and the reports of the Environment Committee on the bills, and I encourage tangata whenua and all interested members of the public to make submissions to the committee.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What is his response to the National Iwi Chairs Forum who are urging caution in highlighting that the scale and pace of the reforms cannot be implemented on the ground?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: On behalf of the Minister, I would just stress that there has been an extensive period of preparation for these reforms, and engagement on a weekly basis between officials of the Ministry for the Environment and the Ministers the Hon David Parker and the Hon Kiritapu Allan, and we now have a full select committee process to consider all of the issues contained in these two bills.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How many post-settlement governance entities or iwi organisations have explicitly endorsed the RMA reforms, if any?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: On behalf of the Minister, I haven’t been briefed on that precise number, but I’m sure that if the member puts the question in writing, the Minister would be happy to respond to it.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How can he claim environment protection is improved under the reforms when they actually weaken baseline environmental protections by removing the requirement that environmental limits safeguard the life-supporting capacity of ecosystems?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: On behalf of the Minister, it’s widely accepted, I think, that the RMA—as well as being expensive and slow, stopping our towns and cities from growing—simply hasn’t done a good job of protecting the environment. The new planning system is explicitly designed to strengthen environmental protection, including by having the concept of environmental limits at its heart.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Will he amend the bill so that the environmental limits require the restoration of ecosystems from their current state, rather than preventing ecosystems degrading further from their current state; if not, why not?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: On behalf of the Minister, the concept of environmental limits is not based on the notion that future degradation is merely prevented; it is about restoring, over time, the ecosystem to its un-degraded state.

Question No. 9—Digital Economy and Communications

9. to the Minister for the Digital Economy and Communications: What recent announcements has he made about improving rural connectivity in some of New Zealand’s most remote locations?

More good news. I recently had the pleasure of announcing that the Remote Users Scheme has started taking applications from eligible households. This scheme will target some of New Zealand’s most remote communities and connect them with broadband for the first time. These are places where there is currently only access to voice calling and text services. Homes and communities where the internet is very slow and its use is limited will also be targeted. This is all thanks to an allocation of $15 million in Budget 2022, and was part of a broader $60 million fund for rural connectivity.

Dr Tracey McLellan: How many households will this benefit?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Crown Infrastructure Partners are mailing forms with return envelopes to over 3,000 households with very poor or no coverage. They have also engaged with community groups, who are helping to spread the word and are putting posters up in libraries, supermarkets, Farmlands stores, and other community hubs. Just because you live off the grid, it doesn’t mean you can’t be connected; it’s just that sometimes it takes a bit of tailored thinking.

Dr Tracey McLellan: Why is this scheme important?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: As the global cost of living crisis puts pressure on New Zealanders and their families, a reliable connection will make it easier for remote businesses to operate and pay invoices, and to network. From a social standpoint, this scheme will also help connect people to online health services and education tools.

Dr Tracey McLellan: What reaction has he seen following the announcement?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Federated Farmers is urging its members to sign up to the scheme. In fact, Richard McIntyre, the Federated Farmers telecommunications spokesperson, called it a great initiative from the Government and something they’ve been advocating for. This Government knows the importance of having reliable connection in rural New Zealand. We’re listening to communities and delivering solutions.

Melissa Lee: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table the Federated Farmers of New Zealand rural connectivity survey of 2022, outlining the poor state of digital connectivity for rural New Zealand households, which said that only 1 percent of farmers in New Zealand have access to high-speed—

SPEAKER: Is that publicly available?

Melissa Lee: No, sir. You have to literally request the document. There is PR available.

SPEAKER: OK. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. It may be tabled.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Question No. 10—Police

10. to the Minister of Police: Does he agree with the Dairy and Business Owners Group, who said, “The country is becoming lawless … Running a business in this country has become very difficult”; if not, why not?

No, as I don’t believe that inflammatory comments such as that are helpful in these circumstances. I’d also note that some of the proposals put forward by the group, including allowing business owners to take matters into their own hands, could risk further escalation and put more people at risk. While I have sympathy for every victim of offending, I think it’s important that police are allowed to do their jobs.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Why would the Minister characterise a comment like that as being “inflammatory” for a group that has suffered over 430 ram raids this year and has seen a friend and a member of that group killed last night in a fatal stabbing, and does he not actually understand and realise that there’s a very strong feeling out there amongst retailers and their employers that they do not feel safe?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I absolutely acknowledge that there is concern amongst the small-business community—and the retail business community, in particular—around the recent pattern of offending that we have seen. I do want to provide reassurance that the police are working very hard to make sure that every one of those offences is fully investigated and that those who do them are held to account for their offending.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Did the Minister sign off and approve the criteria that allows business owners to have access to the retail crime fund?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The criteria for that was approved before I became the Minister.

Hon Mark Mitchell: What are the criteria?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There is a range of criteria—past victimisation being one of the key criteria. But it will also look at what the most appropriate security intervention is for that particular business. It’ll also look at the overall nature of offending within the community. It will look at a range of different issues.

Hon Mark Mitchell: So the Minister’s standing in the House and can’t tell us definitively what the criteria is for a fund that he’s been overseeing for the last six months and the business in Sandringham had applied for, including the request for a fog cannon that actually would have gone probably a long way towards preventing the tragedy that we saw unfold in Sandringham last night?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I indicated in my answer to another member’s question earlier, on the information that I have, the business should have been eligible to receive a fog cannon from as early as 2017, when funding was made available by Government for the installation of fog cannons at that time, and therefore I do not yet have an explanation as to why they have not received one.

Melissa Lee: Will the Minister personally join me on Saturday to visit businesses affected by ram raids and violent crime in Mount Albert and Sandringham?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I have visited businesses that have been the victims of ram raiding. I am not in a position to do so this coming weekend. I also think it is important for all members of Parliament, where there is an active investigation under way, to allow police the space to do their jobs.

Question No. 11—Research, Science and Innovation

11. to the Minister of Research, Science and Innovation: How is the Government supporting a future-focused research system?

As part of the Government’s work to build a future-focused research system, we’re making research more accessible for everyone with a new open research policy. The policy requires all publications from new research projects funded by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) to be made free to access online for everyone. Open access to research increases its impact by enabling more people to access scientific information and engage with research. This, in turn, increases the innovation potential of our research and maximises the return on public investments in science.

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: Who will benefit from open research?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Open research is about making publicly funded research available to everyone that could benefit from it. From our innovators and entrepreneurs to students and research collaborators, there are many people who will benefit from accessing the outcomes of research efforts.

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: How does this policy change meet international expectations?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Open access requirements are increasingly becoming the norm internationally. With this move, we are taking a similar approach to Australia, United States, the European Union, and the United Kingdom.

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: What other actions will further support researchers?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: In addition to open research, this week MBIE has launched the option to use a new narrative CV template for funding applications. The alternative approach reflects the increasing diverse range of contributions that researchers bring to their work and provides a more rounded picture of an individual scientist’s career, their achievements, and overall contributions to research, and enables a broader definition of an academic for Māori and Pacific peoples. Scientists applying for grants will be judged on a more meaningful assessment of their skills and experience and, of course, the strength of their ideas.

Question No. 12—Local Government

12. to the Minister of Local Government: Does she stand by her statement made to the House yesterday that the establishment of the principles of Te Mana o te Wai “included a number of stakeholder groups: rural communities; yes, Federated Farmers; it included industry users; it included horticulturalists, as well as iwi”; if so, why can only mana whenua submit Te Mana o te Wai statements under the Government’s three waters reforms?

Yes, I do. In addition to that statement, I also made another comment yesterday in the committee when I said, “We’ll do that through scale and aggregation separating balance sheets. We’ll do that through ensuring good governance. We’ll do that through ensuring that the Crown’s Treaty obligation is built into the reform process. We’ll do that by ensuring that there is no privatisation.”

Simon Watts: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Why can mana whenua submit a Te Mana o te Wai statement on a river that runs through their land, but a farmer who isn’t mana whenua cannot submit one for a river that runs through theirs?

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. I believe that the member is being improper in improperly using w’akapapa.

SPEAKER: The question is in order.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Te Mana o te Wai statements are developed by iwi mana whenua groups, and they’re developed not just for the benefit of Māori; in fact, it’s for the combined benefits of communities, the environment, and the way that we think about the intergenerational challenge of looking after our most precious resource, water—everyone benefits.

Simon Watts: If the goal of Te Mana o te Wai is to improve water quality, why can’t people who aren’t mana whenua but have expertise in water quality submit these statements?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Communities have different ways of being able to reflect their aspirations. Certainly, on private land they can do that, but in the nature of water catchments, they can do that through other groups and other opportunities.

Hon Kelvin Davis: To the Minister’s knowledge, have any of the groups mentioned in the primary question, other than iwi, ever had cause for a Treaty settlement bill, as mentioned in clause 140(1)(b) as a condition for submitting a Te Mana o te Wai statement?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: No, but it would be a novel approach.

Simon Watts: If non - mana whenua industry users and rural communities are qualified to have a view on water quality, why are they prohibited from submitting Te Mana o te Wai statements?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Te Mana o te Wai statements are specifically for the purposes of iwi mana whenua groups to reflect their aspirations as they relate to a catchment. It’s for the benefit of the environment and communities, and when those aspirations are reflected well, everyone benefits.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. The member is deliberately misleading the role of mana w’enua and our customary rights.

SPEAKER: Which member are you talking about?

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Oh, this member, sorry—beg your pardon, e te Māngai.

SPEAKER: No, that point of order is out of order, and I’m going to—every member in this House is an honourable member, and to accuse someone of deliberately misleading is out of order, to the point that the member will have to stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: I stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Simon Watts: Has she seen the statement from Federated Farmers released today titled “Countering misinformation on 3 waters, Te Mana o te Wai”, and, if so, how does she counter their allegation that the Government has misrepresented their views on Te Mana o te Wai?

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. I would like to seek your advice. I believe that the honourable member is being reckless with his opinion.

SPEAKER: No, and those sorts of points of order are not helpful for the order of the House. It’s likely to cause disorder. The member has the right to ask questions to hold the Government to account on an important policy, and the Minister, I’m sure, is quite capable of answering that question.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: In response to that question, I read very carefully Federated Farmers’ submission on the Water Services Entities Bill, and in that submission it was very clear that they asked that the concept of Te Mana o te Wai be fully described in the Act and any subsidiary legislative instruments in order to provide legislative certainty. They also said that they wanted issues around Te Mana o te Wai to be subject to further careful consideration to ensure that there is clarity for the water service entities, councils, and for water users, including how Te Mana o te Wai statements may influence resource under section 104 of the Resource Management Act.

Simon Watts: Point of order. My question was in reference to statements from Federated Farmers, released today. The Minister referenced a submission to select committee, which wasn’t the question I asked.

SPEAKER: Yeah, but it did address—

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No. I’m dealing with this point of order. Did you want to speak to the point of order?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Yes. In so far as that the primary question was the response that I gave in relation to submissions of Federated Farmers in relation to the Water Services Entities Bill.

SPEAKER: I did listen carefully to both the question and the response. The response did address the question.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Does she stand by her statement made in the House that “The changes ensure that the new water entities … [will] keep a lid on … rates. At a time when the cost of living challenges confronting households are real, these reforms help lessen the burden of [rates]”; if so, what does she say to those that believe that the solution to this $185 billion problem is to do nothing?

SPEAKER: The question needs to be relevant to the primary or one of the answers—that was neither.