Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. Look the House has canvassed this bill in quite some detail now. We canvassed the bill in quite a lot of detail at the Justice Committee. Members will be aware that it makes three reasonably small but significant changes to the Crimes Act and it looks like it's going to pass through the House unanimously which is very good. Other members have commented on the year and a day rule and the spousal immunity to a crime after the fact. I want to make a brief contribution about blasphemous libel and freedom of speech. It is interesting times for freedom of speech in New Zealand. I'm not sure if the House is going pass this bill before the rising this year. I suspect we won't given that we're on the second reading but at some point in the next few weeks and months the House will pass this bill and I think it's a good thing that we're doing that this year or at least close to this year because it has been quite an odd year for freedom of speech and in some small symbolic way the House is sending a message about the importance of section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 which of course codifies international human rights instruments and their commitment to freedom of speech.This year we've had the debacle of Don Brash being banned from speaking at Massey University. We have had the imbroglio over Mr Molyneux and the woman whose name I forget trying to speak at a venue in Auckland and I think it's good that the Parliament will send a message that religion is not immune to criticism basically. I note that the law hasn't been enforced or at least hasn't been used since 1922. You need the Attorney-General's permission to use the law anyway. It hasn't been used since 1922.Religion should not command respect because of the force of the law. Religion should command respect because of the precepts because of the faith and the fellowship that it provides because of the spiritual sustenance and nourishment it provides for those who have particular faiths. And of course blasphemous libel back in 1922 when the Parliament of New Zealand—or before then when it was enacted on to the statute book. Back then religion would have meant the Christian God because the people who came to New Zealand first of all were predominantly of the Christian faith—the Church of England I suspect; C of E" as they call it—and of course we live in a pluralistic multicultural multi-religious society these days with people who worship all sorts of gods and all sort of deities and all sorts of faiths. I think this is the Parliament sending a small subtle—Hon Andrew Little: Don't forget Julius Vogel.CHRIS BISHOP: Don't forget what?Hon Andrew Little: Julius Vogel. CHRIS BISHOP: Julius Vogel was correct—Hon Andrew Little: The Jewish Prime Minister.CHRIS BISHOP: Yep the Jewish Prime Minister; very well said. We're a country of many faiths and have been for quite a long time as Andrew Little points out. Just as we head towards Christmas which is a Christian holiday it's quite a nice I think subtle but important message for Parliament to send—that religion shouldn't command legal protection to be immune from criticism. It should command respect on its own merits and no one of the Christian faith or of any faith has anything to fear from removing this small section from our statute book. It's a good thing to do. It looks like it's going to pass the Parliament unanimously and I welcome that. I look forward to its passage through the House."