8. Question No. 8—JusticeHon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) to the Minister of JusticeQuestion No. 8—Justice8. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by all of his statements and policies on his proposed hate speech law changes?Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: Yes because this is a very important issue. It's been raised for a number of years and now most recently by the royal commission of inquiry report on the terrorist attack on the Christchurch mosques and also because in previous national debates on this issue that member himself said that we needed to have this conversation. And so we look forward to a constructive and mature debate nationwide.Hon Simon Bridges: Well in light of that answer that's been raised for a number of years; the Government's progressing these hate speech changes because it's actually just something they want to do not because of anything in the royal commission report.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On behalf of the Minister no the royal commission having inquired into the background events to the terrorist attack on the Christchurch mosques having spoken to many many communities minority ethnic communities and minority faith communities and heard their experiences and reflected on those experiences and the sorts of expressions that members of those communities come up against every day in the community and in the nation's schoolyards made a recommendation that it was time to revisit the existing law on hate speech—section 131 of the Human Rights Act—to update it and align it not only with our international obligations but also with like-minded countries.Hon Simon Bridges: Given his statements to the House yesterday that The proposals in the discussion document maintain the thresholds for incitement of hate speech as they currently stand and look to narrow the definition of hatred" why did he say in the introduction of that document itself that he is proposing changes to hate speech law that "strengthen Human Rights Act protections"?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On behalf of the Minister anything that makes the law clearer and more accessible to citizens of this country and those called upon to enforce it is strengthening the law.Hon Simon Bridges: Is the Government trying to maintain as he said in this question time actually in answer to the first primary or strengthen as he's just said hate speech protections in New Zealand?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On behalf of the Minister as I said in my previous answer making the law clearer and making it more accessible to people is strengthening the law. If what he's asking is in relation to maintaining the law maintaining current thresholds and the safeguards and protections that are in the existing law those will continue. Those safeguards include that there can be no prosecution for hate speech unless it is approved by the Attorney-General.Hon Simon Bridges: In light of his view just now that he is effectively strengthening the law how many more police prosecutions and convictions does he estimate and will the Government be resourcing up the police accordingly?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On behalf of the Minister making the law clearer and more accessible does not necessitate an increase in charges or prosecutions of that particular law. It is about sending a very clear signal as the royal commission recommended from its extensive engagement with minority ethnic and faith communities that we need to do something better than we have at the moment.Hon Simon Bridges: So is he now saying he's just making it clearer and not strengthening it?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On behalf of the Minister no the member clearly hasn't listened to my earlier answers. Making the law clearer and more accessible is strengthening the law. It doesn't change the threshold the prosecutorial thresholds or the thresholds that judges will apply in relation to a prosecution.Hon Simon Bridges: Isn't the reality that he is clearly proposing to lower the legal threshold and broaden the law of hate speech by for example adding in words like "maintaining and normalising"?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On behalf of the Minister no. The member is completely wrong and the royal commission in its analysis of its proposal was very clear: it did not accept that words like "incite" for example meant a great deal in modern vernacular. It looked to comparable jurisdictions like the United Kingdom and found that language that is more consistent with people's everyday use like "maintaining hatred against others" bearing in mind that any prosecution would have to be on the basis that that is an intended action and would have the further safeguard of the Attorney-General having to approve any such prosecution. The law and the thresholds that it has to meet would not change."