3. Question No. 3—Prime MinisterHon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime MinisterQuestion No. 3—Prime Minister3. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all of her Government's statements and actions?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes particularly the Government's work around three waters. In our proposal to establish four publicly owned entities to take responsibility of drinking-water waste-water and stormwater infrastructure across New Zealand the data released today shows that our reforms will save ratepayers thousands of dollars create thousands of new jobs. These changes are one part of a package of proposed reforms following the inquiry into the Havelock North drinking-water outbreak. We want to ensure that we have safe water infrastructure across the country to avoid situations like the campylobacter outbreaks we had in Havelock North and this is crucial to that goal. As we undertake our economic recovery these new entities will upgrade infrastructure for our most precious natural resource which will not only help rein in increasing costs for households but provide local jobs while contributing to regional economies.Hon Judith Collins: What is her response to Dr Bryce Edwards who yesterday wrote It seems neither [the Prime Minister nor the justice Minister] have a good understanding of their own reforms and their statements suggest that the proposed laws might have a chilling [effect] on society and political activity" in relation to her hate speech laws?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would absolutely reject that statement.Hon Judith Collins: What is her response to Tova O'Brien who wrote—[Interruption]SPEAKER: Order!Hon Judith Collins: What is her response to Tova O'Brien who wrote "Jacinda Ardern is wrong about her own hate speech law. Completely and utterly wrong. Not only is the Prime Minister wrong about the basic facts of the proposal she [is] wrong to shut down debate on hate speech".Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I also disagree with that statement and I also as it happens disagree with the member's statement on Twitter that somehow it will become illegal to call someone a Karen. That is absolutely incorrect—and I apologise that means these laws will not protect that member from such a claim. [Interruption]SPEAKER: Order!Hon Judith Collins: Point of order. Sorry I really meant to say—I've decided actually not to ask that point. I thought it would be cruel to ask it so I won't. I'll just ask a supplementary if I may?SPEAKER: Well I think Chris Hipkins has the next supplementary.Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder if it's acceptable to ask the Prime Minister what her response to a range of public comments is whether it would be acceptable to ask her what her response is to a number of public comments made by Christopher Finlayson in the last 24 hours? SPEAKER: Well she has about the same level of responsibility. If Mr Finlayson was describing matters for which she does have responsibility—I think the quotes so far do relate to areas where the Prime Minister has responsibility. And I just do want to warn the Leader of the House: the more I think about it the more I am considering the possibility that he might have known that his point of order was not one. I'll be—David Seymour: Overestimated.SPEAKER: Who said that? Ian McKelvie: Point of order Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: No I'm sorry. I'll stand up so I'm—David Seymour might have been accurate in his interjection which was inappropriate. I'm going to make the assumption now there was no mens rea involved otherwise I would have taken it seriously. Supplementary question—Ian McKelvie: Point of order Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: I'm sorry—a point of order.Ian McKelvie: Could I ask you to reflect on the last couple of minutes in the House over the next 24 hours and report back to us tomorrow on whether you think the debate has been constructive in any way to forming order in the House.SPEAKER: Well I think—the answer is: no it hasn't been. But I would look slightly to his right or a couple to his right and forward I would look into the front row of his own bench and consider whether their behaviour on earlier questions and actually their reaction while his own leader was asking—her questions were being answered did in fact wind the situation up as well. So the answer is: I decline his invitation to report back to the House on behaviour. I will say though that I have had in the last—yesterday and on Wednesday last week significantly more public reaction to misbehaviour in the House than I've had for some time.Ian McKelvie: Point of order Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: A further point of order.Ian McKelvie: Point of order Mr Speaker. With due respect I like you have selective hearing and I did not hear the issues you're asking me to talk about. So maybe we should go through that again?SPEAKER: I want to say to the member that my hearing aids are working very well at the moment. My hearing problems are sometimes selective but they're not selective today.Hon Judith Collins: So what is her response to Audrey Young who wrote "She and Faafoi would have a much better chance of persuading the public if they a) got the facts right and b) were prepared to discuss hypothetical examples so the public had a good idea of what is intended by the proposals."?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: And I think also the most persuasive thing we can do is anchor this entire debate in why we're having it in the first place and that is because the royal commission has rightly pointed out to this House and to us generally that currently our existing laws which have been around for 50 years do not include reference to religious organisations or those with religious beliefs and does not provide them the coverage that our current hate speech laws do. So these proposals intend to extend that; we're seeking public views on how widely. And at the same time we have narrowed some of the scope of the provisions and I would welcome a good debate on whether or not that meets the public's and this House's expectations.Hon Judith Collins: Does she agree with the section in the royal commission report which says "Further restricting and criminalising hate speech would be misconceived as it is likely to drive hate speech underground where it contributes to more radicalisation."?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I take it from the member quoting from the report the implication that she therefore supports where they landed because so did we. That's why we have taken the language that they propose. And I would answer by saying I also agree with their statement that "We consider that the concerns about freedom of expression are met with a high threshold for liability requiring the prosecution to establish an intention to stir up maintain or normalise hatred towards members of the protected group and its specifically addressing explicit and implicit calls for violence against such a group." And that is what the wording of these proposals does.Hon Judith Collins: What is her response to Heather du Plessis-Allan who wrote of the Prime Minister and the justice Minister "neither of them understand what they're proposing to do which means they don't know how bad this law is. They should take a look because many of us who have looked are not comfortable."?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I'll say what I said in the House yesterday: for those expressing discomfort with the current proposal that would suggest to me that they have discomfort with our current laws because there is (a) not only a lot of similarity in the threshold that's required; there's actually a narrowing of some of the language. The old language included things like "bringing into ridicule or contempt". In the view of the royal commission the use of the word "hatred" and the need to incite that hatred sets a very high threshold and therefore protects New Zealanders' expectation around freedom of expression.Hon Judith Collins: Does she agree with her Minister for Courts that addressing coronial inquest wait times "could take three years could take 18 years"; if so what is her response to distressed families who have said hearing her Minister say this shows that he has no idea about the urgency of the matter?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I reject that suggestion from the Minister—member. [Interruption] What I would also say—SPEAKER: Order! Order!Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —from Minister Sio is that I have seen and heard him advocate for the work that we need to do to ensure timely responses for victims."