Grigg Nicola; Salesa JennyNICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Oh look Madam Speaker I've just I think got a split call on this the Human Rights (Incitement on Ground of Religious Belief) Amendment Bill. As has been made clear the National Party is going to oppose this bill but it's not because we don't agree with the intent—in fact the intent is laudable—but as is so typical of this Government this proposed legislation demonstrates a real lack of intelligent academic scrutiny. It is a complex and convoluted area and I do think that we do need to start from the beginning.As a previous speaker has alluded to this has come about why way of one of the recommendations of the royal commission on the Christchurch terrorist attacks which the National Party does take very seriously. Nobody in this room or indeed in this country would condone the acts of atrocity that took place on 15 March 2019. I myself see the ramifications almost daily in my own electorate I have a number of widows and families impacted by that attack living in region. However this proposed amendment bill is not going to impact the very crux of the issue that caused that attack to come about. I think Golriz Ghahraman when she made comments about how atrocities begin with hateful speech—that is true. It's true. I agree with her. But it the societal condemnation of that hateful speech that is the solution; it's not passing once-over-lightly bills like this.The legislation proposes as has been discussed that it will be a crime to bring into contempt or ridicule upon any group due to their religious belief" which risks criminalising speech that is a part and parcel of public discourse. We ask on this side of the House: how on earth will that be policed and how will it be enacted let alone how will it be proven?National firmly supports building greater social cohesion and inclusion and we value diversity above many many other aspects of society but to achieve this safety for these kinds of groups we need to be able to ask questions we need to be able to discuss and we need to be able to debate. For example I think a right-thinking society should be able to challenge a fundamentalist organisation that murders homosexual people on the grounds of its own religion; we should be able to call them persecutors and terrorists.I'd like to ask the question: will there be impacts on the survivors and critics of religious communities like Gloriavale? We've seen many many examples of evidence go in front of the courts recently where girls and women are sexually assaulted where they are raped and where they are forced into marriages on the grounds of religion. Surely we as a society have a place and indeed have a right to criticise that. That by the definition of this bill will make us in breach of this law.We do not support adding religious belief to criminal hate speech laws it is going to significantly narrow the scope of free speech and expression in this country. Many people may not enjoy having their religious beliefs insulted ridiculed held in contempt or questioned but as many speakers in this Chamber this morning have discussed that is a fundamental right of the freedom of expression and speech in our society. This is a Draconian bill with a Draconian penalty regime that is only going to impact one of the fundamental tenants of a liberal democratic country. More speech not less speech and more debate not less debate is the best response to speech that people disagree with—not bans and police investigations. We oppose this bill. Thank you.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call on Naisi Chen for five minutes."