2. Question No. 2—Prime MinisterHon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime MinisterQuestion No. 2—Prime Minister2. 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 and I include in that our response to COVID-19 that includes a swift move to alert level 2 for the Wellington region and responsive contact testing and tracing. With over 12000 negative tests in the greater Wellington region and successive days of negative waste-water tests across various sites we have a level of assurance that allows Wellington to return to alert level 1 this evening. We ask however that people continue to stay home and get a test if they have cold- or flu-like symptoms and this remains critical to our ongoing vigilance against COVID. I also stand by our decisions to move swiftly to pause quarantine-free travel with Australia over the weekend in response to increasing cases across a number of Australian states. And I also stand by this Government's decision to deliver the Pfizer vaccine with over a million doses administered to date. COVID-19 remains the most significant risk to New Zealand. This Government will continue to make the prompt decisions needed to keep our country safe.Hon Judith Collins: What is her definition of hate speech"?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: It's set out in the provisions of the proposals that we've been debating over the last few days. It includes for instance intentionally inciting stirring up or maintaining hatred. So it's not just enough to have an opinion that someone considers to be abusive or threatening; there must be the intention to incite. I point to the fact that the proposals are contained in a discussion document called "Proposals against incitement …"—which is critical. The second point I'd make is that we already have extreme-speech or hate-speech provisions in New Zealand. We've had them for the last 50 years. They were implemented by a National Government. However at the moment they only apply to issues around race and ethnicity. So substantively the proposal is whether they should be expanded to different groups. I welcome the Opposition's views on that matter.Hon Judith Collins: What is the threshold for inciting hatred in her hate-speech law changes?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member will see if she has read the chapters from the royal commission in particular—Hon Judith Collins: I have.Chris Bishop: She has.Hon Judith Collins: I have.SPEAKER: Order! Order!Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —that it gives some commentary around the existing law as it stands. And it points out that we've had one successful prosecution and on those that have not been successful the test around incitement has not been met. And you'll see that in the proposals by the royal commission which we have mirrored in the discussion document seek actually to "more narrowly express than the current section of the law does". So the claim that somehow this widens or lowers the threshold I would argue is not correct. And the royal commission itself is of the view that it would be more narrowly expressed than the current provisions. That is in particular because the current provisions refer to hostility ill will contempt and ridicule; they have replaced that word with "hatred" alongside the requirement to improve intentional incitement.Hon Judith Collins: Does she consider the potential speech crimes more serious than assault on a child? If not why is she proposing a longer maximum prison sentence for the speech crime?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: So the view of the royal commission was that the current penalties were not sufficient. And the Ministry of Justice in canvassing other like-minded international jurisdictions who had similar provisions was likewise that the current penalties were not sufficient. So the proposal includes three years. I would point out that in the UK a similar provision attracts a penalty of seven years. If the member is of the view that the criminal penalty is too high I would welcome a submission from any member of this House. Ultimately I want these provisions to last as long as the last provisions which are broadly similar and were introduced 50 years ago. So if the member would like to submit I welcome that. I would point out that at the moment the member's critique of these proposals actually demonstrate that she doesn't support the current law and so I would seek some clarity from the members on that because this is seeking to narrow some of these provisions. If it's simply that the member does not believe they should be expanded to people based on religious grounds by all means take that view but I would be interested in whether or not you currently support the existing law as well.Hon Judith Collins: Does she consider her hate-speech law changes to be in line with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that states "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference" and why?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would. In fact again the royal commission also traverses the different international obligations that New Zealand has and takes the view that the as-expressed provisions here are in keeping with that. They state "There is a strong tradition in New Zealand (as in many … countries) that religious belief systems are open to debate and that this can be rigorous." However their view is that that is not without limits. And our existing law covers that too. I would also make the point that the member herself seems to believe that freedom of expression is not without limits. I supported the Harmful Digital Communications Bill. That currently creates a criminal penalty for anyone who uses communication that is offensive or indecent for example and attracts a penalty of up to three months of imprisonment. That member introduced that bill. So that suggests to me that the member herself does not view freedom of expression as being without limitation.Hon Judith Collins: Is she concerned that her Minister of Justice is not adequately informed about the proposals and does not have a thorough enough understanding of civil and criminal law?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No.Hon Judith Collins: Is she concerned that she doesn't have a thorough understanding of civil and criminal law nor of her own proposals as she showed yesterday on television?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No but what I can say to the member is at least I'm consistent on my views. Hers seem to have changed rapidly over the period of being Minister of Justice and now being the Leader of the Opposition."