Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard
Question No. 2—Prime Minister
2. CHRISTOPHER LUXON (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 introduction today of the Grocery Industry Competition Bill. The bill establishes a Grocery Commissioner at the Commerce Commission, who will have access to a range of enforcement and monitoring tools. It also enables collective bargaining and implements a grocery supply code to protect suppliers from unfair contract terms. The Commerce Commission found New Zealand’s supermarkets earn $1 million a day in excess profits because of a lack of competition. As the global cost of living crisis continues to put pressure on families, this bill is one way the Government can tackle the root causes and enable New Zealanders to get a fairer deal at the checkout.
Christopher Luxon: How many more retailers have to have their windows smashed and their staff and customers terrorised before her Government will actually take action to stop the youth crime wave?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I totally reject the premise that we are not acting on what we are already seeing. If I were to give you just a snapshot, for instance, in Counties Manukau, since the beginning of 2022, we’ve had 85 ram raids, 63 prosecutions, and 30 youth referrals just for that district alone. You are seeing, Mr Speaker, action being taken by the police, supported by the fact that we have a record number of police on the beat as a result of the increase in support from this Government, and we continue to make the interventions required to deal with what has been a spike in ram raid activity.
Christopher Luxon: Does she accept we need tougher consequences for young serious offenders who drive cars into shop windows or rob jewellery stores in broad daylight?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously, as a burglary it already attracts a maximum level of 10 years for a successful conviction. I would also point to the fact that, yes, whilst we have seen a spike, we are also starting to see a decline. In August we had 75, for the current month we are currently standing at 13. Again, I point to the fact that you have seen the police rigorously pursuing those who have undertaken this activity, and, as I say, a high proportion of prosecutions across each of those districts.
Christopher Luxon: Has she actually visited and met with any victims of a ram raid in the last six months?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I have spoken to a ram raid victim, and I’ve spoken about that in this House before. The most important thing for us to do, though, is, of course, ensure that those who are undertaking this activity are brought to justice, and that the interventions are in place to stop the repeat offences. Despite the statements being made by the member, I have just shared the evidence of what is occurring, and it is about making sure that we address what is happening on the ground. At the same time, we also have to try and prevent this kind of activity in the first place. Labour has always been a Government, and party, that does both; National rehash failed policies for political gain.
Christopher Luxon: Why, then, haven’t her policies worked?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I just pointed out, we are seeing a decline. On the other hand, that member is choosing not to accept the fact that his boot camp policy was brought in by John Key in 2008, again by Bill English in 2017, and again, now, by the new member who purported to bring fresh ideas for the National Party.
Christopher Luxon: Why does she not think that the New Zealand Defence Force has some of New Zealand’s best leaders and mentors and might have something to teach serious young offenders?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because the evidence tells us that when you use those policies, recidivism continues to be high; 85 percent re-offending rate. This is not about whether you respect our defence force, it’s whether you look at the facts.
Hon Grant Robertson: Further to that supplementary, does the Prime Minister believe that the New Zealand Defence Force might have some other things that they need to do?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes. In fact we have a large cohort currently in the United Kingdom training Ukrainians in order to support the war effort in Russia’s illegal war.
Christopher Luxon: Why wouldn’t she be interested in a 50 to 65 percent reduction in theft, burglary, and violent crime, given her policies are leading to a ram raid every 15 hours?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because the policy that the member has rehashed from the National Party for the third time has a reoffending rate of 85 percent. We are interested in policies and interventions that work. Our goal in this House should be to reduce victimisation and reduce reoffending. That is what we are focused on, rather than rehashing old failed policy.
Christopher Luxon: Why is the Prime Minister more focused on telling New Zealanders that the voting age should be 16 when she and her Government should be addressing the serious issues of youth crime and the 100,000 students who are chronically absent from school?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Despite the member’s claim, I do not personify the Supreme Court. It was them that made the decision.
David Seymour: Does she stand by the Government’s 2019 decision to repeal the offence of blasphemous libel because it was “Inconsistent with the freedom of expression as protected by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act”?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We stand by the changes we made, but of course what we did not repeal was the Human Rights Act and the sections that currently protect, for instance, different ethnicities from those same provisions.
David Seymour: If the Government indeed thought it appropriate to remove the offence of blasphemous libel from the law books, by what logic is it now proposing to introduce a law that would criminalise insulting language directed at religious groups?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member is misleading the public, and this is one of the issues about debating this, because what the member is not acknowledging is that we already have these sections in the Human Rights Act—it’s sections 61 and 131. What we are proposing is to add the word “religion”.
David Seymour: So can the Prime Minister please lead the people of New Zealand properly if I am misleading them: can she explain how it is logical to repeal a law against blasphemous libel and then introduce a law which makes it an offence to insult a religion?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: What I am correcting the member on is the fact that the provision already exists. It already exists. We are simply adding to what is already incitement provisions on ethnic grounds, adding the word “religion”.
Hon Kiritapu Allan: Can the Prime Minister confirm that what the Government’s decision is with respect to the Human Rights Act amendments made this week are about incitement and inciting others, not mere insulting or otherwise comments that the other member has said?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, I can. And I can also confirm they are existing provisions under the Human Rights Act that apply to colour, race, or ethnicity. What we are proposing is to add the word “religion”. If the member believes that these provisions are wrong, then he should oppose the existing law, not simply the proposal. And I’m glad we have clarified that.
David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister know how many parents have been fined for their children’s non-attendance of school under section 244 of the Education and Training Act, and if she’s not prepared can she just tell us: is it closer to 10, 1,000, or 10,000 in the last year?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’m not sure that it’s fair for the member to claim that it’s a question of preparation. I’m always happy to provide the member with the latest numbers if he puts them on notice. What I can tell the member is that we’ve considerably increased in the Budget funding on attendance services because we have set an aspiration of lifting those numbers despite the decline since 2015.
David Seymour: So is the number of parents fined for students’ non-attendance at school closest to 10, 1,000, or 10,000 in the last year?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I already answered the member in my first question, but what I would also caution the member in looking at the context of the numbers when I am able to provide them to him directly is, of course, you would be looking across a year where we’ve had the greatest number of influenza—and a pandemic, which will measurably impact the attendance numbers and the consequences for parents.
Hon Chris Hipkins: Has the Prime Minister been advised that harsher penalties for parents who don’t send their children to school, which were implemented or were legislated for by the previous Government, have seldom been invoked because they have been found to be ineffective?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes. At the same time, the same National Opposition that criticises attendance also did not invest in attendance services. Not only did they change the system markedly, which reduced the effectiveness of attendance services, they increased their budget by about 2 percent. When you compare that to the last two Budgets, where we’ve put in a 26 percent increase in those services.
