7. Question No. 7—PoliceCHRIS BAILLIE (ACT) to the Minister of PoliceQuestion No. 7—PoliceCHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): 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. CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT) 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?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Police): 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. SPEAKER: I'll go back and look at the question again and come back with a ruling on that."