4. Question No. 4—JusticeHon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) to the Minister of JusticeQuestion No. 4—Justice4. 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 Grant Robertson: Free speech for Simon!Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Yes because they are informed by the royal commission of inquiry. I stand by the approach the Government is taking to respond to the recommendations of the royal commission because we are taking the proposals and giving New Zealanders the opportunity to have a say on them. The member is well aware that there are vigorously held views on the issue and those views should be fully expressed to inform the Government's further deliberations on the issue. Given the strength of feeling it is important for the member to note that the proposed changes do not lower the existing high bar for something being considered hate speech. The threshold for incitement remains as high as it has been since 1971 when the National Government of the time put the regime under the Race Relations Act and when a subsequent National Government consolidated the provisions of the Human Rights Act. What we are asking the public for feedback on is whether more groups beyond race nationality and ethnicity should be protected under these provisions also whether we should strengthen the penalties for inciting hatred against these groups and refining and modernising the language and the wording of the offence provisions.SPEAKER: Order! Order! Before we do that—I didn't want to interrupt the Minister while he was replying but there was a clearly out of order interjection from the Deputy Prime Minister who will withdraw and apologise.Hon Grant Robertson: I withdraw and apologise.Hon Simon Bridges: Hasn't he in fact set the legal tests or bars for criminal and civil liability much lower than incitement to violence so that potentially many more New Zealanders will be captured than would otherwise have been the case?Hon KRIS FAAFOI: No.Hon Simon Bridges: Does he accept that by setting those legal bars at what is in his document merely insulting and what is merely incitement to discriminate off-colour jokes about say ethnicity or sexuality may potentially land an ill-considered Kiwi in court and does he really seek to penalise that?Hon KRIS FAAFOI: The member is misinterpreting the changes that are proposed by the Government. I will remind him of comments made by the royal commission where they said The language of hatred and calls for violence"—that came about from the royal commission after the March 15 attacks—"that we propose would catch only extreme speech. We do not see the reframed offence as engaged by microaggressions and so on. Nor would it be [the] mechanism for criminalising the vigorous expression of opinion on controversial issues".Hon Simon Bridges: Would an off-colour joke about say Israel Folau a Christian or Laurel Hubbard a member of the transgender community under his proposals potentially see someone penalised civilly or criminally in court with huge consequences for them?Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Every case is different but I will remind the member of the proposed changes around the four elements that are needed for incitement of hate speech provisions within the provisions to be a criminal offence: first the intent to intentionally incite stir up maintain or normalise hatred towards; second a specific group that is protected under the Human Rights Act; and third the method through threatening abusive or insulting communications including inciting violence—and it can be done any method of communication including electronic. That is not the intent of the proposal—to talk about the kinds of cases that the member has outlined.Hon Simon Bridges: How can he say his proposals would only penalise "at the extreme end of the spectrum" when mere insults or discriminating speech that is treating a group differently to others would be captured and isn't he opening up an Orwellian Pandora's box that we as New Zealanders have generally been smart enough to steer clear of to date?Hon KRIS FAAFOI: The member might be smart enough to actually read the discussion document. I would reiterate for the member and those who oppose the changes that came out of the royal commission about the comments from the royal commission: "The language of hatred and of calls for violence that we propose would catch only extreme speech. We do not see the reframed offence as engaged by microaggressions and so on. Nor would it be a mechanism for criminalising the vigorous expression of opinion on controversial issues". That is the approach that the Government is taking and I welcome the member's submission to the discussion document."