Penk ChrisCRIMES AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 19 February.Part 1 Substantive amendments to principal ActCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you for the opportunity to continue speaking on the Crimes Amendment Bill. Obviously there are a number of different aspects to Part 1 and I understand other colleagues will focus on some in which they have particular knowledge and expertise. And in my case now I'd like to focus on the repeal of section 123 of the Crimes Act 1961—that's clause 5 within the amendment bill the repeal of blasphemous libel. So to understand of course what we're doing with this piece of legislation we need to understand what it is that is being repealed. So it is then that we look at section 123 of the Crimes Act and the terms of that provision. The first thing to note—[Baby crying]—as I note with some dismay that my speech has not been well received in all parts of the Chamber but I did not think it was that bad Madam Chair and I fear that the Government whip is about to undertake the same action—is that blasphemous libel has a particular meaning within the law. Of course it's within the Crimes Act which is a code but it's worth taking a moment to understand the component parts of that. First libel has an ordinary natural meaning something akin to defamation which in our civil law is relatively well defined—as well defined as anything that is a tort can be—but in this context it is libel meaning essentially something that is adverse that is said and in this case in the context of blasphemy. The difficulty of the concept of blasphemy is of course that it defines an action that's unacceptable in relation to how another might view words or actions as acceptable or unacceptable in accordance with their own beliefs and in a pluralistic society where we don't all share each other's beliefs that is a problematic concept in itself. I won't take the committee's time—because I know it won't be allowed by you if for no other reason—to draw links between other problematic concepts such as hate speech so allow me to move on please and consider further what exactly it is within the Crimes Act that we will be repealing by way of blasphemous libel. So we see in the Crimes Act that blasphemous libel is a question of fact and a question of fact means that it's something that's not a question of law. So there again there's a particular meaning but again the problem is in the case of blasphemy that it's really a question of taste and the taste of one person in these matters is very different from the taste of another. And so it is in section 123(2) again of course within the provision that we will be repealing in this amendment bill before us now that we see that a question of fact would be determined by a court and that would have reference to a number of sort of nebulous concepts to do with the approval or non-approval of what has been said or done by one person. Looking a bit further at that detail at subsection (3) we see the expression good faith" and it's slightly ironic that the phrase "good faith" is used because it might almost have a sort of religious overtone to it. But within the law it has a particular meaning of course: I would say something like bona fides but I think that is nothing more or less than a translation back to the Latin. So moving on from the circularity of my own argument I would just note that it's a difficult matter to decide what is acceptable or not and so it is that we regard I think unanimously in this House that it will be worthwhile to repeal this aspect of the law and hence that is one of the things that this amendment bill is seeking to do. One of the other elements in defining an offence—or actually particularly to say what is not an offence of blasphemous libel—is the concept of decent language. And the quaintness of that expression might perhaps mask the fact that it is again a difficult concept to grasp and certainly to enforce in a legal sense because the concept of decency again will be very much a subjective one and yet with such consequences as up to one year imprisonment these are not matters that we should take lightly at all. So too it's difficult to define what is a religious subject. In many cases it will actually be quite clear and so the concept of blasphemous libel will be straightforward enough at least in terms of whether it might apply in the first place in some situations but in others what some might regard as an article of religious faith and others might regard differently a moral or ethical proposition or a philosophical one again is difficult to determine. So for these reasons we join with all sides of the House—as I say I think we expect that there will be no objection to the repeal of blasphemous libel.I think it's worth noting in that connection in my remaining time that the select committee reported that they received a number of submissions on this point. Ultimately they didn't recommend any changes to the bill that had proposed the repeal—in other words the select committee did support the repeal of section 123 and they did so noting diligently that submissions had been made about the possible encouragement of hate speech. As someone who believes in free speech—not as an absolute matter I suppose because there are always obvious exceptions to that but certainly erring on the side of believing that people should have the right to freedom of expression—it seems again an undesirable thing for the State or the instruments of the State through the judicial system to be deciding that which is hateful and that which is not. Anti-religious conduct was something that some submitters felt might be implicitly encouraged. I suppose in the way that all legislation might be said to encourage a person to do a thing in that it sends a message in this case I think it's worth weighing that up against the practical costs of having such a law on our statute book and in particular those chilling effects that I mentioned earlier.In my remaining time I'd just like to state for the record that while most members of this House—perhaps all members—might regard it as undesirable to allow things that foster resentment and division and so forth and certainly we don't say that this is a good thing by removing the law of blasphemous libel the limitation of Government is such that we can't and shouldn't expect that everything that is undesirable be banned by way of the criminal law by this House. And so it is that I will conclude by saying that section 123 on blasphemous libel within the Crimes Act will be a relatively easy matter I think for most in this House to support in repeal by way of this amendment Act and I look forward hopefully to hearing any comments that the other side of the House or indeed my own might have on that or the Minister; not that I have any questions in that. I think that at least is a straightforward matter. I thank you for the chance to speak."