Tisch Lindsay; Hipkins ChrisClause 3 RepealsThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We now move to clause 3. This is debate on clause 3 and schedule 1.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I am very happy to take a call on an amendment that I have put forward—Supplementary Order Paper 315; I am told that now is the appropriate time to debate that so I certainly intend to take that opportunity—that removes blasphemy from our statute book. It is an amendment that is well overdue and it is one that I was very interested in researching to make this contribution today. It was drawn to the attention of the then Minister the Hon Amy Adams the Minister of Justice back in 2015. Her response at the time was that whilst she agreed that blasphemy should be repealed from New Zealand's statute book she had higher priorities".One can only assume from the fact that we are debating this bill that amongst her higher priorities were a repeal of the Christchurch-Lyttelton Road Tunnel Authority Dissolution Act the Church Property Trustees (Canterbury) Indemnity Act many many finance Acts from 1930 onwards the Customs Law Act of 1908 and so forth—all of these it would appear are higher priorities because despite this matter being drawn to the Minister of Justice's attention back in 2015 there was still no proposal by the Government to remove blasphemy from New Zealand's statute book. So I welcome this opportunity for us to vote on this today and to do this in a way that is clean and efficient and does not unnecessarily waste the time of the House.First of all for those who might want to raise an objection to the process—I will get into the substance in a moment—and say "Well that should've been included in the bill in the first place." and "It wouldn't be good process to add this repeal to a bill after it has gone to select committee." I would point out two things: one is that there were only four submissions to the select committee process on this legislation but the second thing and perhaps more important was that as a result of those four submissions five additional Acts were added to the bill.So this bill is already amended. It already has five additional Acts added to it that were not in it when it received its first reading and when it was first referred to the Government Administration Committee and submissions were called for. So if we are going to object to an additional provision being added around blasphemy then are we also going to object to the five additional Acts that were added by the select committee? If that is the Government's objection to repealing blasphemy as part of this bill then it must also object to repealing the five additional Acts that were not part of the original legislation. So I just make that point and I certainly hope that the Government members will be supporting this legislation.To come to the substance of the issue of course we should be repealing blasphemy laws in New Zealand. I was absolutely astounded that somebody in New Zealand could be thrown in jail for up to a year for blasphemy. We condemn other countries that use Draconian laws like this to do very Draconian things to people—we condemn them when they do so and yet we have got a law on our own statute book that allows the Government of New Zealand to do just that. How is it consistent with the moral standing that we purport to hold internationally for us to condemn an action by another country when the New Zealand law allows us to do exactly that same thing? I think it is past high time that this law was taken off our statute book. It violates our commitments under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. New Zealand is a part of that covenant and we should live up to it. It violates our fundamental human right to freedom of expression.There are things that people might say that might be regarded as blasphemous that some people might find offensive. They are absolutely entitled to tell the other people that—that they are offensive—but the idea that the person who said those things could potentially be thrown in jail for saying them is not consistent with our modern expectations around freedom of speech. In fact the Attorney-General Chris Finlayson said that if the Church cannot defend itself against blasphemy then goodness me it is in some trouble. I think that the churches are perfectly capable of defending themselves against blasphemy and I do not think they need this law. In fact they have told us publicly through the media that they do not need this law. Tolerance—and I believe in a tolerant society—cannot be fostered through prohibition. It is well past time for blasphemy to be removed from the New Zealand statute book."