logo
Oral Questions for Thursday 14 August 2025

Oral Questions for Thursday 14 August 2025

RNZ News2 days ago
Questions to Ministers Hon CARMEL SEPULONI to the Minister for Pacific Peoples: Does he stand by his statement, "We absolutely have endeavours to get Pasifika people into employment"; if so, why? TEANAU TUIONO to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has "lost the plot"; if so, why? CATHERINE WEDD to the Minister of Finance: What reports has she seen on COVID-19 and the economy? Hon KIERAN McANULTY to the Minister of Housing: How many social houses funded in the 2024 and 2025 Budgets have been built? SCOTT WILLIS to the Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology: How many jobs, if any, have been lost in the science sector since the formation of this Government? SAM UFFINDELL to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made about health infrastructure? CAMILLA BELICH to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Will she formally consider the report to be published by the People's Select Committee on Pay Equity next January; if not, why not? Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL to the Minister for Mental Health: What recent announcements has he made in relation to a promotion campaign for better mental wellbeing for New Zealanders? ARENA WILLIAMS to the Acting Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (Grocery Sector): Does she agree with Nicola Willis, who said in 2023 that "National will take action to get food prices under control once more"; if so, why are food prices still going up under her watch? Dr DAVID WILSON to the Minister for Resources: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand resources sector? TIM VAN DE MOLEN to the Minister for Small Business and Manufacturing: What is the Government doing to support small businesses? LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE to the Minister of Internal Affairs: Does she stand by her statement that online casino-type gaming providers should not have to make community returns because that would create "a perverse incentive to increase gambling activity in order to increase revenue for these organisations"; if not, why not? Question to Member INGRID LEARY to the Chairperson of the Health Committee: Were any items of business relating to Health NZ removed from the Health Committee agenda this week after the agenda was originally distributed and before the meeting took place; if so, what were they?
To embed this content on your own webpage, cut and paste the following:
See terms of use.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Ban on protesting outside homes rebalances freedom of expression and privacy rights
Ban on protesting outside homes rebalances freedom of expression and privacy rights

RNZ News

time37 minutes ago

  • RNZ News

Ban on protesting outside homes rebalances freedom of expression and privacy rights

Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith has announced protesting outside someone's home will become an offence. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii The government's ban on protesting outside someone's home will rebalance the right to freedom of expression and the right to privacy, a law professor says. But another academic has questioned whether a new law is necessary, and says police may struggle to enforce it. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith announced on Friday protesting outside someone's home would become an offence, punishable with a fine or jail time. While it would apply to all residences, Goldsmith said there had been increased reports of demonstrations targeting the homes of public figures like MPs, judges and other officials. Otago University law professor Andrew Geddis said current laws around protests only related to public settings. "Protests that take place outside someone's home really do intrude into a sort of domestic sphere where people usually feel they should be able to exist unperturbed and unthreatened," he said. "So this particular change in the law will help to restrike that balance." Otago University law professor Andrew Geddis. Photo: RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly Geddis said the change would plug a legal gap highlighted by a Supreme Court ruling nearly two decades ago. The 2007 case, Brooker v Police, involved a man who was convicted of disorderly behaviour for standing outside a police officer's house playing the guitar and singing protest songs against her, he said. But the Supreme Court found his behaviour was not disorderly. "The Supreme Court said that disorderly behaviour only applies to the public consequences of your behaviour, how that affects the public place. "And just because it's intruding into someone's private home, that's not a consideration as to whether the protest is covered by disorderly behaviour," he said. It meant the balance between people's rights within their home and people's rights to protest in public was "out of whack", Geddis said. One of the judges noted the court's finding could lead to more protests outside people's homes, and Parliament would need to consider that at some point, he said. "It turns out he was right." Victoria University law professor Steven Price said police may find it hard to enforce the new law. Goldsmith said it would be tightly targeted and prohibit "unreasonable disruptions", but Price said the independent police watchdog's review of policing protests found officers struggled to make a call on that. "What the IPCA had to say about that ... is that police have trouble on the ground having to make fine distinctions about what's an unreasonable disruption and what's not, and that seems a fair point to make," he said. "But on the face of [Goldsmith's] press release, it doesn't really solve the problem." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

Who pays when a supermarket price tag is wrong?
Who pays when a supermarket price tag is wrong?

RNZ News

time2 hours ago

  • RNZ News

Who pays when a supermarket price tag is wrong?

A Whanganui SuperValue displayed some dodgy maths recently, with the price per 100g not adding up to the main price shown. Photo: Supplied When a Whanganui SuperValue displayed some dodgy maths recently, shopper David Bradbury argued he should have been able to choose to pay the lower of the prices on offer. He spotted bacon that was advertised as selling for a different price per 100g than the main display price. Shoulder bacon was 200g for $4.69 but then 94c per 100g, and middle bacon was 200g for $5.79 but $1.16 per 100g. "I pointed out to the closest person in a shop uniform the poor arithmetic ... He said the big number was the right one. I said I should be able to choose. He said no." A SuperValue spokesperson said the unit price was incorrect . "On our pricing tickets customers will find the price of the item and a unit price which enables them to make an informed decision of value based on the unit of measure. "In this instance, the unit price was incorrect on the 200gm Grandpas Shoulder Bacon and Middle Bacon products. The price was however the correct price the customer would have paid at the apologise for the error and any confusion caused. "We know how important it is that all of our tickets are accurate and we have now corrected the pricing tickets to reflect the correct unit price." Vanessa Horne, Commerce Commission general manager, competition, fair trading and credit said she encouraged him to report the concern so the commission could assess whether the shop was complying with the laws it enforced. "The trader could be prosecuted where there is serious non-compliance with the Unit Pricing Regulations. "The Unit Pricing Regulations are there to help consumers easily compare products based on the price-per-unit and make informed choices about which product offers them the best value." She said the Commerce Commission had ongoing investigations into supermarket operators . "We have recently filed criminal charges against Woolworths NZ, Pak'nSave Silverdale, and Pak'nSave Mill Street for what the Commission alleges was inaccurate pricing and misleading specials that may have breached the Fair Trading Act. "Supermarkets have long been on notice about the importance of accurate and clear pricing and specials, and we're not satisfied with the continuing issues we're seeing across the industry. "The major supermarkets are large, well-resourced businesses that should invest the time and effort to get pricing and promotions right." Consumer NZ spokesperson Sahar Lone said a supermarket that displayed incorrect unit pricing could be breaching the Fair Trading Act. "If you notice an incorrect unit price, point this out to a supervisor in store. The store has the right to correct its pricing mistakes. If it doesn't sort the issue, or it's widespread, you can lodge a complaint with the Commerce Commission." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store