7. Question No. 7—Prime MinisterDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime MinisterQuestion No. 7—Prime Minister7. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all of her Government's statements and policies?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes particularly the Government's decision to phase out hard-to-recycle food and drink packaging made from PVC and polystyrene and some degradable plastic products and some single-use plastic items including drink straws cotton buds single-use produce bags cutlery plates bowls straws and fruit labels by July 2025. New Zealanders generate some of the highest amounts of waste in the OECD and have asked for urgent change in how we use plastic and particularly amongst our younger generation it's one of the most frequent subjects of letter writing from children that I receive. We've made good progress over the past three years and there is strong public and business support for the 2019 plastic bag ban that has meant over 1 billion fewer plastic bags have ended up in landfills or the ocean. Investing in reducing and avoiding waste is a key part of our moves to protect the environment but also adds to our economic recovery as well.David Seymour: Does she stand by her statement made on the AM Show yesterday morning in relation to her Government's proposed hate speech laws It's about inciting violence." and if so how does she reconcile that with the wording Cabinet agreed to on 7 December last year that hate speech would be about stirring up maintaining or normalising hatred through insulting threatening or abusive communications?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: In the same way that the proposals we've put forward come from the royal commission who themselves state "The language of hatred and calls for violence that we propose would catch only extreme speech. We do not see the reframed offence as engaged by microaggressions and so on. Nor would it be a mechanism for criminalising the vigorous expression of opinion on controversial issues such as gender identity or immigration." The example that was put to me in that interview was about simply just someone expressing an opinion. The point I was making was that the critical element of incitement needs to be included in the same way it is in our current law.David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister then stand by her statement in the same interview "The reason we're having this debate is because the royal commission of inquiry said to the New Zealand Government 'You need to include religion.' "; and if so how does she reconcile that statement with the fact that the Government announced it would introduce hate speech laws in 2019 the Labour Party campaigned on it in October 2020 and the royal commission only reported back in November 2020?SPEAKER: The Prime Minister can reply to one of the four questions.Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The language around the provisions in the law come directly from the royal commission and you can see that because essentially the exact proposals they have made are in the wording that is in the discussion document. The issue over who the groups of protected persons for whom extreme and hate speech should be applied to has been debated rigorously for a number of years. The Human Rights Commission at various points have suggested that religion should be included at various points and members of our Rainbow community have at various points argued that they should be included as well. So the inclusion of different groups has long been debated and widening has been supported by us. The wording of the changes we're discussing now came directly from the royal commission and that is what is in the discussion document. Indeed Cabinet only made decisions on the wording after the report was received.David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister stand by her statement in the interview from Newshub Nation that implied that political opinion was included—it is not—and if so how does she reconcile that statement with the fact that the discussion document calls for all grounds of prohibited discrimination from the Human Rights Act to be brought into the new law and section 23J of the Human Rights Act says political opinion is a protected ground of discrimination?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Quite simply the discussion document which asked "What will the proposals do?"—it states "Groups experience hateful speech based on other grounds as well including their sex gender (including gender identity) religious belief disability or sexual orientation." The Government considers that other groups that experience hate speech could also be protected by the law and we're interested in those views. Political opinion was previously included in that list. Cabinet removed it from that list and instead wanted the open question for the public of which groups should be included. There is a Cabinet minute that is in the public domain now that demonstrates that we explicitly removed it. But again we've no qualms around the public sharing their opinion on this. There will be some who believe perhaps that we should have protections for political opinion. We come at it from a New Zealand perspective in New Zealand. We feel that by and large political opinion is well protected but we also want to make sure that we're seen to preserve the freedom of speech around political opinion so our starting point was not to include it. There will be some in this country who have had a very different experience—perhaps refugees who have experienced persecution for political opinion. These are all things we hope will come through in the discussion document. We are very open-minded on it but our starting point was no.David Seymour: So should the House take from that that the Prime Minister is open to including political opinion in prohibited grounds under her hate speech law?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: So again for any group that anyone may argue should be included the threshold remains extremely high as set out by the royal commission and as is already set out in our existing law. We should be clear in this House whether or not members are actually debating whether they want to see a repeal of our existing law because this proposal narrows it. So we had a starting point not to include political opinion but if the public have a different view they are free to put it to us. But again the bar is still very high when it comes to meeting the threshold for what would be considered "extreme speech" or what others might call "hate speech".David Seymour: How should police decide when to prosecute courts decide when to convict and citizens decide how to follow this proposed law when the Prime Minister who proposed it has had her own understanding described as "completely and utterly wrong" by Tova O'Brien and having shown that she does not understand them by Audrey Young?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I refute the premise of that question.David Seymour: When will the Prime Minister accept that this is a train wreck trampling on the fundamental foundations of a free society that is free speech and dump this silly proposal?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I totally disagree with the member. Again we should reflect on why we are having this debate. New Zealand experienced a horrific attack when March 15 occurred. The royal commission of inquiry looked at some of the wider activity that sat around that event and gave us very clear direction on their view as to how our law should change to include religion alongside our existing provisions that include race and ethnicity. The member is trying to purport that what we have is a baseline of nothing. That is not true. There are already limitations to expression. The threshold to those limitations happens to be very high and we are not proposing to lower it.Hon Eugenie Sage: Does the Prime Minister agree that so called "flushable" wet wipes made of plastic fibres cause environmental damage when they create fatbergs in sewerage pipes and does she support action faster than 2025 to phase them out?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I do agree this is an issue and this is something I know Minister Parker is particularly focused on as well. There are some areas where in particular we are looking to try and hasten the response by ensuring we have alternatives in the market as well. But in the meantime the simple message is: none of these things should be flushed. That is a big part of the problem people need to understand what havoc it wreaks when they are and we also need to try and find alternatives for families as well."