Bishop Chris; Rurawhe AdrianCHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. Look I've been looking forward to the repeal of blasphemous libel for a number of years so I'm very excited by this bill. I know colleagues have already mentioned Paul Foster-Bell. Paul Foster-Bell was a great crusader for free speech wasn't he? He was a great crusader for getting rid of blasphemous libel and I know he'll be—well he probably won't be watching the debate tonight. He's almost certainly got better things to do but I know that when he eventually gets round to seeing that this bill has been introduced he'll be very very excited. So Paul this one's for you my friend.It is of some moment actually that 96 years after the last prosecution for blasphemous libel—the only prosecution for blasphemous libel—we are removing this stain on free speech from the statute book. You might say Well it's not such a big deal: one prosecution you need the leave of the Attorney-General" and that would all be true but you know we should always make sure our statute book is shipshape and in particular we should always make sure that we're as consistent with free speech as possible.I did find Darroch Ball's remarks a bit strange because I don't think he really got his head around blasphemous libel. He said "Well we agree with it but we've got some concerns." I thought "Well that's interesting. I wonder what his concerns might be?" so I yelled out "What are your concerns?" He said "Well we just want to make sure"—I think I'm quoting him correctly—"that people aren't able to insult religions." Except—Hon Member: That's the whole point.CHRIS BISHOP: —that is the whole point: that actually you should be able to insult religions. So it's a bit strange to say you support the repeal of blasphemous libel which allows you to insult religions—it's the whole point of repealing it—but then say "We do have some concerns about whether or not people will be able to insult religions." That's sort of the point Darroch. That's sort of the point. It's OK—I mean it's literally a one-clause segment. We will consider it in the Justice Committee. Sadly there are no New Zealand First members on the Justice Committee but if Darroch and the New Zealand First members want to write to the Justice Committee we will consider those very well-expressed apparent concerns.So I'm really pleased that blasphemous libel is going. As other members have mentioned there's only been one prosecution in New Zealand and the jury found them not guilty. It was the publication of two Siegfried Sassoon poems in a publication called the Maoriland Worker in 1921 and then in 1922—Hon Andrew Little: That's the Labour Party's paper.CHRIS BISHOP: It was a Labour Party publication? See there we go. The Labour Party causing mischief for 96 years—I knew it. We knew it. The Maoriland Worker published two Siegfried Sassoon poems and the jury in their infinite wisdom—their freedom-loving wisdom—in 1922 returned a not guilty verdict but they did add a rider to the verdict that the publication of things like this should be discouraged in the future. Isn't that the classic Kiwi way? And I suspect it reflects the standards of the time. But it's good we're getting rid of this. The other changes as other members have mentioned are useful as well. The hard-working Justice Committee will add this to our very long list of business and we'll get on with it.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call—five minutes. I call Raymond Huo."