4. Question No. 4—Prime MinisterDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime MinisterQuestion No. 4—Prime Minister4. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his response Yes I do" to my question yesterday asking if he stood by "the factually incorrect statement he made to Newshub on Saturday 'The idea that you'd make a joke about blowing up an ethnic minority is something that isn't really funny'" and does he consider his own statements that the Ministry for Pacific Peoples' expenditure "isn't acceptable" to be criticising an ethnic minority?Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Prime Minister): Yes I stand by the statement that such jokes are not funny. All Government spending is open to scrutiny and it's possible to do that without talking about blowing people up.David Seymour: Does he stand by the statement—[Interruption]SPEAKER: Order!David Seymour: —he made yesterday—SPEAKER: Sorry to interrupt. Can you ask the question again?David Seymour: Happy to Mr Speaker. Does he stand by the statement he made yesterday that "I believe … all political leaders have a responsibility to take care in the statements … they make about all of New Zealand's citizens and groups and we have a particular duty of care to ensure that the statements we make don't inflame tensions"; and if he really believes that why did he mischaracterise my criticism of wasteful spending at a Government department as an attack on an entire ethnic group?Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes and it's a matter for the member to clarify what it was he was intending when he said he thought that sending Guy Fawkes into the Ministry for Pacific Peoples was an appropriate thing to do.David Seymour: How can he stand by his statement that "political leaders have a responsibility to take care in the statements that they make" while at the same time making factually incorrect statements and standing by them today when they introduce race into a debate where it never needed to be?Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I know the member seems to want to turn the election campaign into a culture war with himself at the centre of it. We're actually focused on more important issues on this side of the House.David Seymour: Does he stand by his statement in response to questions about Labour's low polling: "we're going to fight back" and is mischaracterising what other people say for political advantage part of this "fight back"?Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Of course as Prime Minister I'm not responsible for either of those comments. But yes of course I do stand by the first one. With regard to the second one I'm sure that the parties opposite will be getting more scrutiny—including uncovering the fact that the member himself is being propped up by a bunch of anti-vaxxers.Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Tēnā koe e te Māngai. What does the Prime Minister think must be done to stop politically motivated violent extremism that is growing the white identity - motivated violent extremism that is growing that relate to anti-Semitism ant-rainbow anti-Māori and anti-Pacific ideologies as identified in the New Zealand's Security Threat Environment 2023 report released last week?Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There are many things that we can do but I think one of the things that we can all do as political leaders is to lead by example. The other thing is when we see that behaviour we can call it out.David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister believe New Zealanders have a right to an honest healthy debate this election and will he publicly commit to promoting that instead of mischaracterising others' statements and creating a culture of fear?Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes I absolutely do and I would like the member to make the same commitment.David Seymour: Is he resorting to a desperate campaign of fear because his Government has no record to run on and New Zealanders know it and they're deserting him at the polls by the thousand every week?Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Coming from a member who's being propped up by a bunch of anti-vax conspiracy theorists I think that question's a bit rich.Rawiri Waititi: Does the Prime Minister agree with a judgment that we've got the leader of ACT chiming in about law and order but is first to get name suppression for his president for heinous crimes?SPEAKER: The Prime Minister's not responsible for that.David Seymour: Point of order Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker I invite you to reflect and perhaps seek advice. The member has just speculated that a particular individual has name suppression and is guilty of heinous crimes. Both of those are in contempt of court and due to the long tradition of comity between this House and the courts to make such statements is deeply disorderly brings the House into disrepute and should face very severe consequences from you Mr Speaker. I can't believe frankly what I've just heard. The tikanga of this House is well known and should be respected.SPEAKER: I'd like everyone to calm down thank you. I will go back and look at everything that's happened in question time today. The future of the House is in the House's hands and every individual member in it. I have—and I have stated this on a number of occasions—allowed supplementary questions to be asked including the member himself on this very question today that have been out of order almost completely out of order and have allowed the Minister to choose whether or not they want to address all or part of it. I will go back and have a look at that particular one and everything else but there's a very clear procedure about what the member is talking about. He has that open to him if he wishes to take that course of action OK? Raising it as a point of order in such an instance is not appropriate. Are there any further supplementaries on this primary question?"