Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard
ORAL QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Question No. 1—Prime Minister
1. TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central) to the Acting Prime Minister: What commitments, if any, will the Government make to ensuring the 44 recommendations from the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Terrorist Attack on Christchurch Mosques continue to be implemented?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Acting Prime Minister): First, we would like to acknowledge that March 15 was one of the darkest days for New Zealand. In light of ongoing work, the coordinated cross-Government response to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Terrorist Attack on Christchurch Mosques has been concluded. As we announced earlier in the year, the Government made decisions on all remaining royal commission of inquiry recommendations as the coordinated cross-Government response concluded, as well. The majority of the recommendations were either implemented fully or were still being progressed. We implemented 36 of the 44 recommendations, demonstrating the Government’s commitment to ensuring the intent of the royal commission of inquiry is still met with the ongoing work that Government agencies are still doing to keep New Zealanders safe.
Tamatha Paul: Will he commit to continue to fund He Whenua Taurikura, the violent extremism research centre, noting the increase in Islamophobia and antisemitism and royal commission recommendations on improving how we respond to extremism?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, the fact is that the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet is looking at better options for the best use of that funding. Now, detailed questions should, of course, have been addressed to the responsible Minister.
Tamatha Paul: How is weakening firearms controls consistent with the royal commission’s recommendations to tighten firearms licensing systems?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The question concerns a subject that is a work in progress at this point of time. The Government has committed to a significant programme to reform firearms law over this parliamentary term and work is substantially already under way. In January this year, the responsibility for the Arms Act 1983 was reassigned from police to the justice portfolio and delegated to the Associate Minister of Justice (Firearms). Reform provides a chance to modernise the regime and simplify the requirements on licensed firearms owners without compromising public safety. And, of course, detailed questions should be addressed to the responsible Minister.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order. Just noting those statements at the end of both questions, this was a question that was transferred, and I am concerned that after the Government has transferred that question, we just kept getting told that those questions should have been referred to the adequate Minister, when the Government side chose to actually make the Acting Prime Minister answer questions on this topic.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Speaking to the point of order, any experienced parliamentarian will know that generic questions can be answered by the Prime Minister, but when it comes to specific details, if they are seriously being sought, the specificity of the detail should be asked of the responsible Minister.
SPEAKER: I think the problem is that the question was originally asked to the responsible Minister, but then got transferred to the Acting Prime Minister. That means that it’s quite inappropriate to then say that the member should ask the appropriate Minister when, in fact, they did, and the Government, somewhere along the line, decided that it would be the Acting Prime Minister who answered it.
Tamatha Paul: Will the Government commit to introducing faith as a protected category, noting the royal commission’s recommendations to ensure Aotearoa has fit for purpose hate crime laws and policies?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I’m sorry, Mr Speaker, I didn’t hear the questioner’s question. Could you repeat the question, please?
SPEAKER: Ask it again, and can you just face your mike—sometimes, they don’t pick everything up. Thank you.
Tamatha Paul: Yep. Will the Government commit to introducing faith as a protected category, noting the royal commission’s recommendations to ensure Aotearoa has fit for purpose hate crime laws and policies?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Could I just reply, on behalf of the Government, that we will consider all reasonable requests if they are made for the purpose of ensuring that we’re a safer country.
Tamatha Paul: How will the Government commit to ongoing support for whānau of the shuhada, the bullet-wounded, and the impacted families?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: As someone who sat around the Cabinet table preparing all the work in terms of supporting those families—which was immense and highly responsible and was applauded all around the world—I would say that we’ve continued to make that commitment, going forward.
Tamatha Paul: How will the Government address the fact that police data shows that 58 percent of all reported faith-motivated hate crimes target Aotearoa’s Muslim community?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Let me say that we’re willing to look into all information, but the country that I belong to is a country called New Zealand, and it will be that way until the New Zealand people decide to change its name—not by some elite purpose, but because we believe in referendum and consensus.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order. Litigating whether my colleague used “Aotearoa” as opposed to “New Zealand” fails completely to address the question on actually quite a serious issue.
SPEAKER: No, it definitely addressed the question; whether it addressed it satisfactorily is another matter. Did the member can have another question? No—OK.
