Oral Questions

1. to the Minister for the Environment: What progress has the Government made on reforming the resource management system?

Today the Government introduced the Natural and Built Environment Bill and the Spatial Planning Bill that will repeal the Resource Management Act (RMA), addressing the long-standing problems with the current system while saving Kiwis billions of dollars. Successive Governments have failed to deliver comprehensive resource management reform. More than 20 major amendments and thousands of minor ones since the RMA was introduced have increased complexity. Reform is overdue. Everyone is frustrated—environmentalists, developers, councils, farmers, home builders—and there is cross-party support for the need to repeal and replace the RMA.

💬 Rachel Brooking: How will resource management be streamlined by repeal and replacement of the RMA?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: More than 100 RMA plans will reduce to 15 regional-level plans across the country. The time taken to prepare them will reduce from about 10 years under the current system to a maximum of four years. Off-the-shelf standards for housing and infrastructure projects will remove the need for bespoke specification for each project, making future infrastructure and housing easier and cheaper to consent. Developers, infrastructure providers, and businesses will see the largest cost savings as consent volumes and costs decrease, saving hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

💬 Rachel Brooking: How much is the repeal and replacement of the RMA estimated to reduce costs by?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: Unduly restrictive planning restraints have contributed to New Zealand’s urban land and housing prices being amongst the least affordable in the OECD. The new resource management system will deliver economic and environmental benefits. For every dollar spent in the new system, it’s expected that there will be benefits of between $2.58 and $4.90. On a conservative estimate, cost to users will fall by 19 percent, or $149 million per annum, equal to more than $10 billion cost savings over a year, plus savings in housing, plus better environmental outcomes.

💬 Rachel Brooking: How will the replacement for the RMA better protect the environment?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: The most significant change to environmental protection will be a shift from an effects-based approach to one that is based on outcomes. Put simply, an effects-based approach has allowed many small, adverse effects to accumulate into significant environmental degradation—most notably with water quality and the loss of biodiversity and topsoil. The Natural and Built Environment Bill will focus on outcomes, setting limits to maintain current environmental levels and targets where degradation needs to be restored.

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: Does he believe that urban trees that provide habitats for wildlife, improve air quality, provide shade, and reduce the urban heat island effect are essential to the liveability of our cities, and, if so, why are there no strong controls in the Natural and Built Environment Bill to protect urban trees?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: In respect of the first part of the question, yes. There are improvements in the bill, but we’re not going back to the status quo ante where you had to get a resource consent to prune a tree.

💬 Simon Court: Can the Minister explain simply what the pivotal clause 3(b), “recognise and uphold te Oranga o te Taiao”, will mean for people trying to build homes?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: It won’t really directly affect that.

💬 Rachel Brooking: What are the next steps for repealing and replacing the RMA?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: Next week the two bills will have their first readings and they’ll be sent to the Environment Committee for a full six-month consideration. This will be a further opportunity for the public and committee members to scrutinise the bills in detail, following on from consideration of the exposure draft of the Natural and Built Environment Bill earlier this term. It adds to the Randerson panel’s outreach, multiple earlier reports from the Productivity Commission, the Waitangi Tribunal, Local Government New Zealand, Environmental Defence Society, the Employers and Manufacturers Association, Infrastructure New Zealand, and the Property Council. Following the select committee process, it is the Government’s intention to pass the bills into law by the end of this parliamentary term and finally repeal and replace the RMA.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. to the Acting Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?

Yes, particularly the introduction of the Spatial Planning Bill and Natural and Built Environment Bill today. After decades of frustration from developers and councillors, farmers, home builders, and environmentalists, the Government is now proposing a new system that is cheaper, faster, and better. As the Minister has just indicated, resource consents have become far more costly over recent years, and time taken for them and infrastructure projects has been completely unacceptable. In contrast, the new resource management system that we will deliver will cut costs and deliver economic and environmental benefits. It will reduce the number of plans from more than 100 to just 15 regional-level plans across the country, halve the time taken to prepare, and generate improved environmental standards, and, as the Minister has said, between $2.58 and $4.94 every dollar spent will come through in benefits. This is one of the most important changes that the Government can make to enable much-needed development and to protect and restore the environment for the wellbeing of current and future generations. I’m proud that our Government has introduced this legislation.

💬 Christopher Luxon: How can the Government spend an extra $5 billion a year in education, hire over 1,400 more ministry bureaucrats, but deliver declining attendance and falling achievement?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As has been covered many times over the course of the last couple of weeks in this House, the COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on the issues that the member raises. What I can say is that on this side of the House, we value teachers, the people in classrooms that we have helped build over the last few years. The previous National Government didn’t hire enough teachers, didn’t pay teachers well enough, and didn’t build classrooms; we got on with doing it.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Does he accept that there is a relationship between 100,000 students being chronically absent from school and a 500 percent increase in ram raids since 2018?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: There are many reasons behind the number of ram raids that we have seen in New Zealand, and the Government is committed to addressing those. But having an education system that is properly funded, that makes sure that we have quality teachers in classrooms, and that we have classrooms that are warm and dry and safe, is something this Government takes seriously; it’s something that that member’s party failed to do over nine years.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Can the Acting Prime Minister confirm that the people just referred to as “bureaucrats” include speech and language therapists, occupational therapists, educational psychologists, and a range of other specialists—

💬 Erica Stanford: Lawyers, comms staff, PR.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: —who work directly with our most vulnerable children?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Questions are heard in silence.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Mr Speaker, I got the gist of that, and indeed the Minister is correct. The National Party continue to insist that some of the people who work with the learners in our classroom who need the most assistance, who make sure that everyone gets to participate are somehow or other bureaucrats. That says far more about the National Party than it does about those people.

💬 Christopher Luxon: What impact does he think ads on the back of buses telling kids “Every School Day is a Big Day” will have on the young people driving cars through shop windows every other night?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What the member fails utterly to understand is that the issues that our education system is facing today do not just exist inside the school gate. We know that—[Multiple members interjecting]—calm down, calm down—and we’ve acted on that by providing free school lunches, by making sure that period products are provided in our schools, by making sure that we’ve lifted support for low and middle income people. All of that—all of that—opposed by the National Party.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Does he agree with official advice that putting nurses on the residence fast-track would lead to “rapid growth in nurses coming here.”, and, if so, why on earth is the Government still refusing to do this, when hundreds of people are waiting more than 24 hours in emergency departments?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’m proud of the fact, on this side of the House, we’ve increased the nursing workforce significantly, by about 20 percent since we’ve been in office. We’ve increased the pay for nurses by more than 20 percent since we’ve been in office. We are the people who’ve invested in making sure there are more nurses in our health system. That’s not what the member’s done, and I’d invite the member to answer the question: how will he pay for that if he’s giving tax cuts to the wealthiest New Zealanders?

💬 Christopher Luxon: Does he accept that Kiwis waiting hours for treatment just want a qualified nurse no matter where they are born, and by refusing to abandon its anti-migrant policy, this Government is prioritising ideology over access to healthcare?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: There’s only one person in this House prioritising ideology over action and that’s that member over there who’s prioritising tax cuts for the wealthiest New Zealanders when we need to invest in our public services.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Can he explain how despite spending a billion dollars more each and every single week and hiring an extra 14,000 more bureaucrats this Government is still failing to deliver in education, health, housing, and crime?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Over the course of the last 2½ years, New Zealanders have had it tough. What they’ve had is a Government that has delivered 3.3 percent unemployment; one of the lowest levels of debt in the world; growth of over 4.8 percent since before COVID began. New Zealanders know that this has been a challenging time for everyone, but they have a Government that’s got their back, not a Government that’s got the back of the wealthiest New Zealanders.

💬 David Seymour: Does the Acting Prime Minister agree with the Education Review Office, who said in their recent report on school attendance it’s important to “Understand the attendance of every learner in a school and act early when concerned”, and, if so, does he think it’s acceptable that the Ministry of Education released its term 2 attendance data on 11 November, four months after term 2 finished?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In answer to the first part of the question, yes, and schools every day are working to make sure that their pupils are attending.

💬 Hon Michael Wood: Does he think that the Government’s reopening of the parent visa category, which went for its first draw today, is an example of anti-migrant policy, or does he think it was more of an anti-migrant policy for it to be closed in 2016?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Indeed, I think today is an important day for many migrant families to see the parent category reopened. I think, actually, all members of this House would want a Government that respects those who want to come to New Zealand and works with them. We know that our migrants and our refugee communities contribute enormously. I wouldn’t like to see them used as a political football that way.

💬 David Seymour: Why was the data for student school attendance in term 2 of this year put up quietly on a Government website on a Friday afternoon—was it because over 60 percent of Kiwi kids are no longer regularly attending school?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, it’s because that’s how it’s been done every single year, including when the member was in Government.

💬 David Seymour: Does he believe that this Government has a public education system, and can it really say that with its hand on its heart when the majority of students are not regularly attending school any more?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We absolutely do have a public education, but I tell you what—if he’s in Government, we won’t.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Can the Acting Prime Minister confirm that those who were claiming—repeatedly claiming—that the majority of students aren’t attending regularly are counting those who have been isolating at home because they have COVID-19 in their statistics?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I absolutely can confirm that. In fact, the people who had to isolate in line with public health protocols are exactly the kind of people being included by the member in his statistics.

💬 David Seymour: Is the Acting Prime Minister seriously saying that we don’t have a serious problem with school attendance in this country because “there’s nothing to see here, they were just isolating because of COVID-19”?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I’m saying is that it’s important in this House to get the facts right. The facts, as articulated by the education Minister, are what they are. Every single member of this House would want to make sure that all children are attending school on a regular basis. We have had an issue with that in New Zealand since the mid-2010s. We are working on making sure we rectify that.

💬 David Seymour: Why did the entire Education Review Office report not think of the reason the Acting Prime Minister just gave at all?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Education Review Office report covered a much longer period—a period during which the National Party and the ACT Party were in office, when these issues first arose.

Question No. 3—Housing

3. to the Minister of Housing: What action is the Government taking to enable better housing outcomes through reform of the resource management system?

We are simplifying the resource management system to make it faster, cheaper, and better to build the housing that we need. The plan development times will be shorter, taking around four years to get out of the gate, rather than up to 10 years under the current system. Independent hearings panels will improve plan quality and enable appeal rights to be restricted for matters in line with their recommendations, reducing delay, cost, and re-litigation. By focusing on strategic planning, more activities will be permitted, and fewer consents needed in the new system, saving time and costs for users that we expect to be passed on to home buyers.

💬 Dr Emily Henderson: Why are these changes to the planning system needed?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Resource Management Act has not adequately protected the natural environment, nor enabled development where needed. Currently, the system doesn’t provide enough certainty for housing developers. It costs too much, driving up costs for housing developments and creating plans that have been too restrictive to enable the housing we need. Decades of this has contributed to New Zealand’s housing being among the least affordable in the OECD.

💬 Dr Emily Henderson: What are the expected benefits from increased housing affordability, then?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Estimates indicate the new system will provide annual average benefits to people from increased housing affordability of between $146 million and $834.3 million—economic modelling estimates as delivered by the more responsive and affordable housing supply that is enabled by these changes. Costs to users of the resource management system, such as developers, will also decrease by up to 19 percent or around $149 million per year. Those reduced planning component costs are expected to flow through to the prices people pay for their homes.

💬 Dr Emily Henderson: How will these fast-track consenting processes support additional housing supply?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Housing developments that address the demand or need for housing in a region, including affordable housing, will still be eligible to apply for a fast-track consenting system based on the one we created as part of the COVID response. Since 2020, 56 fast-tracked projects have been approved for a total of 4,142 new homes. Many of these projects are delivering affordable housing.

💬 Dr Emily Henderson: Will this, then, integrate medium density residential standards and the National Policy Statement on Urban Development?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yes. The medium density residential standards, in particular, are key to enabling the more affordable higher-density housing that we need in our major urban centres. These standards were a bipartisan effort between the Labour and National parties, supported by the Green Party and Te Paati Māori. They will be integrated into the new system through the national planning framework. Without them, the development capacity of our cities would not be able to deliver the housing supply that we so badly need.

💬 Dr Emily Henderson: What is an example of how the system will make it easier to develop affordable housing?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: To give an illustrative example, a developer or housing provider working across the Wellington region might need to be aware of eight different council plans under the Resource Management Act system, all with slightly different rules, consenting officers, and practices. In the new system now, there are only two plans to consider. This removes complexity and ambiguity for a developer, giving them more confidence that they can go on ahead with delivering.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that “our job is to make sure we have a fair and progressive tax system”?

Yes, I do.

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does he agree with the recommendation of the Generating Scarcity report that was released yesterday that an excess profits tax should be levied on the four largest energy companies?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Having worked through that report, at this point, no, I wouldn’t accept that recommendation. The report focuses particularly on the lack of—or the perceived, rather—investment in renewable energy generation. On that score I think we are seeing progress in that area. When it comes to the issue around excess profits—“windfall taxes”, as they’re sometimes called—we need to look at a specific event, if that is going to occur; and I don’t believe that’s justified in this case.

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does he think it is fair that rising electricity prices are contributing to the cost of living crisis New Zealanders are struggling with, while private shareholders are reaping the benefits with high dividends?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In terms of electricity prices, I actually think that what the evidence shows is that they’ve remained relatively flat in real terms. We do keep a very close eye on electricity prices. My take, on reading the report, is actually it is much more focused on whether or not those companies have been investing sufficiently in future renewable energy generation and, as I say, I don’t believe that case has been fully made.

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does he agree with economist Joseph Stiglitz on windfall taxes that “It makes a great deal of sense at this current juncture—it’s not as if the energy companies did anything to deserve it.”?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’m not sure whether Mr Stiglitz was speaking specifically about New Zealand energy companies per se. There are different experiences all around the world. Clearly what we’ve seen in places like the United Kingdom is very significant price increases associated with high energy profits, and I presume Mr Stiglitz may have been referring to that.

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does he consider that the profits of the four largest energy “gen-tailers” in New Zealand are totally justified by their own investments in innovation?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The question around profits and the use of dividends and so on within our major energy companies are the responsibility of the boards of those energy companies.

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: Is he concerned that, without a windfall tax, supermarkets, banks, and energy companies will continue to make excessive profits while household costs are increasing?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Our view is that there are many things that we can do to deal with the situations where we believe that there may be excessive profits; for example, in the supermarket sector. That’s why we’ve launched a programme of reform to be able to reduce what we do believe, there, is excessive. We also saw the announcements last week around open banking, another way that we can reduce costs, and also the work that’s being done in the energy sector that Minister Woods announced last week as well. So there are many different ways of addressing the issues the member raises.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement last week in relation to management of Government finances that “tough choices will be required”; if so, what tough choices is he considering, if any?

I stand by my full statement that “We are however not immune to what happens overseas which will put pressure on the Government’s books. We will continue to responsibly manage our finances and that means tough choices will be required as we tread a pathway back to surplus.” To answer the second part of the member’s question, the tough choices are those required to balance properly funding the services that matter most to New Zealanders, like health and education and housing, while returning to surplus whilst also keeping debt under control.

💬 Nicola Willis: Is it correct that inflation, while making things much more expensive for New Zealanders, is also helping fuel a record Government tax take, and will he consider adjusting tax brackets to adjust for this perverse result?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It is true that inflation has some contribution to that. What also has a contribution to that is a record number of New Zealanders in work, so they are also contributing to the tax space. We’ve also seen company profits at a very, very high level, and we’ve also seen our economy cope well with COVID and, therefore, our revenue through things like GST has also been up.

💬 Nicola Willis: What does he consider is more important: spending hundreds of millions of dollars merging TVNZ and RNZ, or delivering income tax relief for New Zealanders hit by the cost of living crisis?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member, once again, fails the “walk and chew gum at the same time” test of politics. It is completely possible for a Government to invest in things like making sure that New Zealanders hear themselves and see themselves in a modern media environment while also upholding public services, while also making sure we keep debt under control, while also returning us to surplus. The member’s priority might be tax cuts for the wealthiest New Zealanders, but it’s not ours.

💬 Nicola Willis: Will he adjust to the deepening cost of living crisis by reducing the amount of spending the Government does on consultants, which hit a record-breaking $1.2 billion just last year?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said in answer to the first question, we will continue to balance investing in public services, making sure we bring debt under control, and returning ourselves to surplus.

💬 Nicola Willis: Will he respond to a deepening cost of living crisis by calling a halt to the explosive growth in the number of management, communication, and administrative roles in the Public Service?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We’ve covered this ground before, because that includes the people who communicated with New Zealanders about COVID-19 right through the pandemic, making sure that people knew how to stay safe. If the National Party doesn’t think that’s important now, that’s entirely up to them. What we’ve also done to support people through a cost of living crisis, as the member said at the start of her question, is actually lift the incomes of low and middle income New Zealanders through increasing benefits in 2020, 2021, and 2022; increase the family tax credit; increase childcare assistance; make sure that the minimum wage lifts—every single one of those things, where a Government can actually take action to support people in a cost of living crisis, National opposed.

💬 Nicola Willis: Why can’t he take action to deliver tax relief for working Kiwis when he can afford $2.1 million for a Freemans Bay office for 350 three waters advisers, $51 million for advice on an Auckland Harbour cycle bridge, and $370 million to merge TVNZ and RNZ?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’ll give you an idea of just how out of touch the National Party is when it comes to tax cuts: even Don Brash thinks tax cuts are a bad idea right now.

Question No. 6—Infrastructure

6. to the Minister for Infrastructure: What impact will the changes announced for the resource management system have on New Zealand’s infrastructure?

The introduction today of the Natural and Built Environment Bill and the Spatial Planning Bill is great news for our infrastructure sector. The new bills will make the resource management process faster, cheaper, and better, and will help boost New Zealand’s economic growth. This is especially true for those involved in planning for and building infrastructure. It is a long-held view of those in this sector that the Resource Management Act is not working for them or, indeed, for anyone else. It has been put in the “too hard” basket for too long, and we want to make sure that New Zealand can grow sustainably through quality infrastructure, and these bills will enable that.

💬 Shanan Halbert: Why is it important for the infrastructure sector to make these changes?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The cost and time it takes to get a resource consent for infrastructure projects has grown significantly in recent years, with smaller projects being disproportionately affected. Infrastructure developers collectively pay about $1.29 billion a year on consent processes, amounting to an average 5.5 percent of total project costs. As the Minister for the Environment has said, that puts New Zealand at the extreme end compared with the UK and the EU, where consenting costs were between 0.1 percent and 5 percent of total project costs. The Infrastructure Commission /Te Waihanga estimates costs directly related to resource consents increased 70 percent from 2014 to 2019, and the time taken to make consent decisions for infrastructure projects has increased by up to 150 percent over the same period. These bills and this legislation will make sure that those times significantly reduce.

💬 Shanan Halbert: What specific savings will there be to the infrastructure sector from this piece of legislation?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, less money will be spent on consents, and spatial planning will help communities, developers, councils, and central government agencies build much-needed infrastructure projects. Developers, infrastructure providers, and businesses will see the largest cost savings as consent volumes and cost reduce, delivering savings of hundreds of millions of dollars are year.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: How soon?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The new system will create standards associated with housing and infrastructure—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Years away.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —contained in the national planning framework. Mr Brownlee, you didn’t even get legislation in, in the nine years you were in office, so I don’t think you get to ask us questions on that. A process similar to the fast-track process put in place in response to the economic impact of COVID-19, which reduced consenting time by an average of 15 months per project, will be retained.

💬 Shanan Halbert: How can the infrastructure sector support the implementation of the new system?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: If we want the most of the benefits the new resource management system can offer, then we do need to make sure it is properly invested in when it comes to its implementation. Budget 2022 saw the Government provide $179 million on top of the funding provided in previous Budgets to ensure funds are available for developing key areas of reform. We have taken the time to get this right. I am immensely proud the legislation is here, it will be passed before the next election, and we will reform the resource management system which National utterly failed to do.

Question No. 7—Police

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Police. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! If you want to take a point of order, take a point of order, but we’ve got a member asking a question.

7. to the Minister of Police: How many businesses in New Zealand have had assessments completed under the Retail Crime Prevention Programme, and of those, how many, if any, have had installations of protective equipment completed to date?

I’m advised that of the 521 stores that have been identified as having been the victims of a ram raid, police have rung the majority of these stores—209 of them have successfully completed the initial criteria checking. Of these, 132 have had a formal assessment completed by the police; 93 stores have been reviewed by a contractor; 83 stores have installations either booked, under way, or fully completed by external suppliers. I’m confident that the police are now completing their part of the process much faster than they were before.

💬 Chris Baillie: Does the Minister believe that the Retail Crime Prevention Programme is fit for purpose, and, if so, does he stand by his statement that “Evidence shows that once a location has been victimised, it’s more likely to be re-offended against.”?

💬 David Seymour: Point of order. I’m sorry to cut off my colleague, but I just was thinking hard about the answer to the primary. The Minister never actually said how many installations had been completed. He said how many were either booked, in process, or completed, but he did not give a number on how many of those 83 he named are actually completed.

💬 SPEAKER: In my mind, it’s been addressed but—I’ll give the member an extra question and he can either re-ask that part or use it to examine the question further.

💬 Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a primary question on notice, and I think the awarding of one extra supplementary—I’m sure Mr Baillie’s happy about that, but it is a primary question that asked for quite specific information. Ministers get the question at around 10.40 a.m. or so; they’re expected to come to the House with an answer. It’s not a supplementary question; it’s a primary question and he’s answered it before, as my colleague points out. So I’d encourage you to get the Minister to answer the question.

💬 SPEAKER: I did, in my ruling, say that in my mind the question had been addressed, which is all the Minister has to do. The reason why I gave another question is because it was not as succinct as it might have been.

💬 Chris Bishop: Point of order.

💬 SPEAKER: It’s a bit moot to be questioning the ruling. I’m not going to change it and I’ve actually awarded the member an additional question.

💬 Chris Bishop: Point of order.

💬 SPEAKER: If it’s questioning the ruling, it’s really a waste of time.

💬 Chris Bishop: Well, I just—

💬 SPEAKER: Chris Bishop, point of order.

💬 Chris Bishop: Mr Speaker, there are a series of Speakers’ rulings in relation to the answers to primary questions. They do not just have to be addressed; the Speakers’ rulings make it clear that primary questions have to be answered—both legs of the primary question—and your predecessor in this role was very particular on this point, as have been Speakers Smith and Carter before you.

💬 David Seymour: Speaking to that. Mr Speaker, I hope you won’t mind me saying it: it would be quite a significant departure to say that a question on notice that specific does not require a specific answer—particularly when the Minister has answered almost identical questions for the city of Hamilton, showing he has even more granular data than he revealed today.

💬 SPEAKER: I’m not going to change my ruling; I have ruled. I have given the member an additional question. If he wishes to use it, he can.

💬 Chris Baillie: How many businesses in New Zealand have had assessments completed under the Retail Crime Prevention Programme and have had installations of protective equipment completed to date?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: One hundred and thirty-two have had a formal assessment completed by police; 83 stores have installations booked, under way, or fully completed.

💬 Chris Baillie: Does the Minister believe that the Retail Crime Prevention Programme is fit for purpose, and, if so, does he stand by his statement that evidence shows that, once a location has been victimised, it’s more likely to be reoffended against?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the second part of the question, yes. In answer to the first part of the question, we’ll keep that under review.

💬 Chris Baillie: What action, if any, will he commit to making today so that business owners like the Ellerslie jewellery store yesterday don’t have to wait to become victims before they are eligible for assistance via the crime prevention programmes?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m reluctant to get into the details of an individual business when there are people appearing in court about that today, because there is actually more history to that. But I won’t get into the detail of that, because it wouldn’t be appropriate while people are in court on charges relating to that particular incident that the member is referring to.

💬 Chris Baillie: Can the Minister confirm that the Retail Crime Prevention Programme is specifically for businesses that have been targeted by ram raids, and not smash-and-grab offences, and, if this is the case, what support is available to victims of smash-and-grab offences, such as the Ellerslie jewellery store yesterday who was hit with a daylight smash-and-grab robbery?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, I can confirm, in answer to the first part of the question, that the fund was set up to support those businesses that have been the victims of ram raids. The issue of smash-and-grabs is something that we’ll continue to look at. I wouldn’t rule out extending the eligibility for Government subsidies, along the lines of what the member has been arguing for.

💬 Dr James McDowall: Why, after almost six months, has not a single Hamilton business had protection equipment installed under the Retail Crime Prevention Programme, and does he think that’s good enough given daily reports of violent robberies and ram raids?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There can be a range of reasons why, between police doing an assessment and a business having the work completed, there can be delays, but in many cases—in most cases, in fact—that is not down to the police. Once a business has had its security assessment completed, it is referred then to a contractor who works with the business to get the relevant security installation completed. In some cases, businesses have to work with the local authority if there’s something like bollards, for example, that need resource consent. In some cases, if it’s things like roller doors—where the business has been the victim of a ram raid—an insurance company can also be involved because there’s a need to rebuild the front of the shop, and in some cases that can add to further delays. But the key thing that police can do is complete the security assessments. I think police could do more security assessments faster if they were able to contact more of those businesses. It is proving to be challenging for police to contact some of the businesses that have been victims of those ram raids. That’s very understandable, but if the businesses who have been victims can keep in contact with police, then that would make the process faster.

💬 David Seymour: Point of order. I hesitate to further interrupt my colleagues, but two supplementaries ago the Minister said he wouldn’t address a question because an issue was before the court, and I just urge you to carefully consider whether that sub judice rule—that has long existed for good reason—might be abused there. Now, there’s certainly some people that might be charged and might be brought before the court in the future in relation to that robbery, but it’s a matter of public record that there was a robbery—I was there; it was on the front page of the NZ Herald—and it’s a matter of public record that the Government has a certain policy on when funds and subsidies are made available. That was the policy question which, regardless of any outcome of any individuals being tried for that crime, is still something that we have a right to ask the Minister about. I’d be very worried if Ministers could start saying, because there was some vague connection to a court case, they didn’t have to answer questions in this House.

I’ll go back and look at the question again and come back with a ruling on that.

Question No. 8—Health

8. to the Minister of Health: How many of the 1,266 internationally qualified nurses that he stated in the House last week had arrived in New Zealand since 1 January 2022 have been employed since 1 January 2022 to work in the health system, and how many nurses have left employment over the same time frame?

To the first part of the member’s question, as I indicated earlier, I’ve been advised that 1,231 internationally qualified nurses, rather than 1,266, have arrived in New Zealand since 1 January this year. Those nurses have arrived under one of two visas: the critical purpose work visa or the accredited employer work visa. But it should be noted that internationally qualified nurses have arrived in New Zealand since that time under other visas too—principally, the visitors’ visa. Part of the criteria to have been granted either of the work visas is to have an offer of employment or be enrolled in a competence assessment programme—that is to say, all 1,231 of the nurses who have arrived will have held an offer of employment or are undergoing the Nursing Council of New Zealand registration process. To the second part of the member’s question, I’ve been advised that the employment data held by Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand on leavers is not collected in a way that differentiates between internationally qualified nurses and domestically qualified nurses. What I can say is that from the quarter ending 31 March this year to the quarter ending 30 June this year, there was a total of 3,627 nurses who started employment with Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand, and in that same time period there were 2,686 nurses who voluntarily left employment with Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand. And, for completeness, I have to say that the number of those who left also includes people who left one district, under the old district health board regime, to work in another district, because district health boards were different employers, and it’s not possible to identify and exclude movements between districts. I have to say, also, this is another reason why we need to upgrade the data system across Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand, an investment that this Government is making.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Point of order. The primary did not ask how many nurses had been offered employment but how many had been employed, and the Minister did not answer that.

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: Can you speak to the point of order that—

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Sorry, yeah. The answer was the 3,627 nurses who started employment, which looks suspiciously like “who have been employed since” to me.

💬 SPEAKER: OK, so it has been answered.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Are staffing shortages in our emergency departments (EDs) contributing to increasing numbers of patients waiting more than 24 hours in ED, and, if so, why are nurses not on the fast track to residency?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: A number of things there—first of all, nurses are on the Green List of immigration for this country. It has never been easier to come to New Zealand as a nurse, either to come here with an offer of employment or to come here to do a competency assessment programme and to be employed as a nurse, which explains why the number of registrations as recorded by the Nursing Council shows that since November last year, 4,300 internationally qualified nurses have had registration in New Zealand. In relation to the pressures in emergency departments, there are a number of reasons for those pressures: increased numbers of people turning up needing the services of our EDs because of challenges in primary care, principally after-hours and urgent care; plus, also, what is happening in aged residential care and the fact that it is not as easy to discharge some particularly elderly patients from hospital into those beds as it once was. I’m confident, however, that the leadership and management of Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand is doing everything they can to work with all parts of the sector to relieve those pressures.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Does he agree with the advice received by the Minister of Immigration suggesting a fast track to residence could perpetuate a growing reliance on migrant health workers, and, if so, can he tell New Zealanders what exactly is the problem with migrant nurses filling vacancies in New Zealand hospitals when there are no Kiwi nurses available?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: There has never been a problem in the New Zealand health system of employing overseas qualified nurses. We have a lot of them, both in our public health system and also in the private health system, principally in aged residential care. As well as recruiting through immigration to meet the immediate needs and the immediate vacancies in our system, we also have to make sure that we are growing our domestic pipeline of domestically trained nurses, and we are also doing that.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: How does he explain statements from Rob Campbell, the chair of Health New Zealand, who said, last week, that it would be helpful for us if nurses were on the day one fast track to residency?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Mr Campbell and I work very closely together to make sure that Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand, the organisations whose board he chairs, is doing everything it can to fill the nursing vacancies that we have, either through immigration or through supporting other initiatives to grow our domestic pipeline of nurses.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Why is it, on his watch, that not only are increasing numbers of people waiting more than 24 hours in EDs but there is also a 50 percent increase in people waiting more than 48 hours; and, as these wait times have increased, can he name one week recently when an ED disaster has not been in the news?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I want to approach that issue very carefully because the member is leaping to a range of conclusions that cannot be sustained. What I can say is that on my watch, the number of people turning up to EDs has grown phenomenally, so that for successive months we’ve had more than 100,000 people in a month turning up to EDs across New Zealand, and that is the product of a range of factors, but it is mostly the product of years and years of under-investment in our health system by the members opposite when they were in Government. They hate to be confronted with it—they hate to be confronted with it. But one day, some brave member of the National Party is going to rise to say they got it wrong and they should have invested more. They know they can’t, because their policy is to cut taxes and cut spending on essential things like health services.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: What is the waiting time for anger management?

💬 SPEAKER: In so far as the Minister has responsibility.

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: We have a health system that is facing extraordinary pressures, and I was very pleased during the weekend to spend some time with about 220 front-line health workers—anything from intensive care specialists, to ED specialists, to nurses, to all sorts of people; leaders in our health system who seriously want to work with the Government on finding the solutions. The thing they were most disappointed about was when I told them that in order to host an event here, I had to write to every single MP to come along, and only two other MPs turned up—my colleague Dr Ayesha Verrall and my colleague Liz Craig. Nobody from the Opposition, who had spent weeks talking about how much they cared about the health system, bothered to turn up to join 220 of our hardest-working health leaders to talk about the solutions to the challenges that we’ve got.

Question No. 9—Police

9. to the Minister of Police: What recent announcements has he made on investments to emergency services to keep the public safe?

Last week, I announced that a new digital communications network for emergency service workers will roll out from next year, marking the most significant advance in New Zealand’s public safety communications in decades. New Zealand’s emergency services have done an incredible job in often very challenging circumstances. This new network will give them a modern network, to replace a critical communication system that doesn’t currently meet the needs of our emergency services, in terms of data, security, and resilience—the sorts of tools they need to serve New Zealand.

💬 Ginny Andersen: What services will benefit from these upgrades?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Initially, the new systems will be used by Police, Fire and Emergency New Zealand, St John’s, and Wellington Free Ambulance. New Zealand’s emergency services are made up of approximately 35,000 staff and volunteers, who attend over 5 million calls for help every year. They need to be able to respond at any time and in any part of New Zealand, and for that they need accurate and timely information.

💬 Ginny Andersen: What changes will these investments make?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The new network will have two key components: a digital land mobile radio network, which will allow emergency services to reliably communicate with each other, and prioritised cellular services and roaming, which will increase connectedness to mobile broadband for first responders, especially at times when mobile networks are congested or degraded.

💬 Ginny Andersen: Why are these services necessary?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Emergency services are using and needing more real-time information as they are out and about doing their jobs. Better information for them means better outcomes for the public. We also know firsthand the significant challenges posed by earthquake and climate-related emergencies. This infrastructure investment will support our emergency services to work together more efficiently in what can be a very challenging environment.

Question No. 10—Police

10. to the Minister of Police: Does he agree with AM Show host Ryan Bridge’s comments about retail crime that “There is a growing sense that nothing is being done about these things, the Government isn’t being hard enough on them, there aren’t enough consequences, and they keep happening as they do so people are taking matters into their own hands”, and how many businesses have had security systems installed through the Small Retailer Crime Prevention Fund?

While I sympathise with those business owners who are the subject of these crimes being committed, I don’t agree with the assertion that nothing is being done. To the contrary, police have made hundreds of arrests and laid thousands of charges for offending at retail businesses in Auckland and the Waikato in recent months. As I mentioned earlier, of the 521 stores that have been identified as the victims of a ram raid, police have successfully contacted 209 businesses. Of these, 132 have had a formal assessment completed by police, 93 stores have been reviewed by a contractor, and 83 stores have had installations booked, under way, or partially or fully completed by external suppliers.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: How many of those 83 businesses that are booked, under way, or completed have actually been completed?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don’t have an update on the seven completed that was previously reported. I do understand that a number of businesses have had at least part of the work partially completed, but I don’t have numbers for that.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Does it concern him that four of the five alleged perpetrators of the crime we saw in Ellerslie were 18 or under, and, if so, would tougher policies prevent youth feeling emboldened to terrorise the public like we saw yesterday?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the first part of the question: absolutely, yes.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Does he agree that the just 11 percent of youth retail-offenders being well engaged in school has fuelled the sharp increase in ram raids, and what is he doing about it?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I do agree that there is a correlation—there’s a question of which comes before the other. What we know is that these young people are coming from backgrounds where they’re not just disengaged from education but they have a whole lot of other things going on their lives as well, including the fact that analysis by the Social Wellbeing Agency suggests that around 90 percent of them could be living in a household with someone who’s involved in the corrections system. If people believe that harsher penalties and more custodial sentences for these young people is going to break that cycle, I think they’re wrong.

Question No. 11—Immigration

11. to the Minister of Immigration: What recent announcements has he made regarding migrant families?

Last month I announced that we are reopening the parent visa category, which was closed in 2016. Further to this, I announced yesterday that Immigration New Zealand has resumed selections of expressions of interest (EOI) for parent category visas. The first round of selections was made yesterday, and the EOIs will continue to be selected on a quarterly basis, in date order, with the oldest EOI selected first. Up to 2,000 visas per year will be granted from existing expressions of interest on-hand, and this has been warmly welcomed within New Zealand’s migrant communities.

💬 Ibrahim Omer: How has the Government reduced barriers to accessing the parent category visa?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Not only have we resumed selections of parent category EOIs but we’ve also taken the chance to improve the scheme. This includes lowering the income threshold to sponsors and an additional 500 visas to be granted under a new ballot system from August of 2023, meaning that from that point up to 2,500 parent category visas per year will be granted in total.

💬 Ibrahim Omer: Why is reopening this visa so important for migrant families?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Since coming into this portfolio in the middle of the year, one of the most frequently heard issues that I have heard from our migrant community has been their concern about this category having been closed in 2016 and a lack of a pathway for their parents to be able to join them here in New Zealand. I’m confident that the resumption of the EOI selections and the improvements that we’ve made to the parent category visa will see New Zealand become an even more attractive destination for high-skilled migrants looking to settle here long term, knowing that they can do so with their families.

💬 Ibrahim Omer: How does this complement the other changes made by the Government to attract skilled migrants?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Under our settings across the skilled migrant category, the Green List and resident visa 2021, which has now provided residence to over 110,000 people, our Government is providing more and more streamlined ways for skilled migrants to settle in New Zealand than has ever been the case before. Resuming the parent category selection also continues my focus on ensuring that we treat migrants in New Zealand with respect and enable them to settle well in our country, where they contribute so much.

Question No. 12—Local Government

12. to the Minister of Local Government: How many, if any, parks and reserves that link to the storm water network will be transferred to the proposed water services entities as part of the Government’s three waters reforms, and what consultation, if any, was undertaken about the potential for those assets to be transferred?

To the first part of the question, the public can be assured that where the primary purpose of land is a park, it will remain a park and it will remain in council ownership. For the purposes of the water reform and the Water Services Entities Bill, parts of the stormwater network which will not transfer include rural land drainage schemes, road and rail corridors, regional council river and flood management functions, and private stormwater network infrastructure.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. The first part of that question was what will be transferred, and the Minister only addressed what would not. Now, there is an obligation to answer that, and it hasn’t been met.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: Speaking to the point of order. Well, the answer was that parts will not be transferred—it was clearly addressed.

💬 SPEAKER: Yeah. The question is “how many”, and from my hearing of the answer, the Minister is saying “none”. I’ll ask the Minister to confirm—that was my understanding.

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: To be clear, Mr Speaker, and to the member asking the question, to the first part of the question: the public can be assured that where the primary purpose of land is as a park, it will remain a park and will remain in council ownership.

💬 Hon Members: That doesn’t answer the question at all.

💬 SPEAKER: It definitely addresses the question. Have you got a supplementary?

💬 Simon Watts: If no parks are being transferred, why during select committee did officials specifically identify Waitangi Park in Wellington as an asset that could be transferred?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I’m glad the member has raised the issue of Waitangi Park. Waitangi Park is an excellent example of the principles of Te Mana o te Wai in action. Its environmentally sustainable design implements water-sensitive urban design for harvesting and treating stormwater while also delivering recreational benefits to the people of Wellington. Under the water reforms and the guiding principles of Te Mana o te Wai, I know that many more communities will see projects like this occur over the country. As referred to in your primary question, the answer in relation to Waitangi Park is that the mechanism—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, what is it?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Well, let me answer. The mechanism for actual transfer of the land and other assets, should the council agree, will be in the next water services entity bill, and I’m pleased the councils are already engaging on such matters.

💬 Simon Watts: Will she categorically rule out the transfer of any local parks or reserves to one of the Government’s mega-entities, and, if not, why not?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Councils have the ability to work with water establishment entities to decide which assets and land will transfer and, as a result, the public will be notified. This will be done with councils, not against them, and it’s important to ensure that if the primary purpose for the use of land is as a park, it will remain a park and the public can still utilise that park.

💬 Simon Watts: If no public parks are being transferred, why has the Water Services Entities Bill’s definition of stormwater assets been expanded to now explicitly include—and I quote—“green stormwater infrastructure and overland flow paths”?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: That definition continues to improve clarity around the primary purpose of land use. Let me be very clear: that’s why it’s very important for the House and members of the public to understand that those land uses, albeit maybe for stormwater purposes such as rural land drainage schemes, road and rail corridors, regional council river and flood management functions, and private stormwater network infrastructure—they will not transfer. And if the primary purpose of land is for a park, it will remain a park. It will only be because councils want that land to transfer that that transfer will take place. Under no other circumstance will that happen.

💬 Simon Watts: Supplementary.

💬 SPEAKER: There’s none left, sorry.