SpeechSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): You wouldn't believe that 2½ years ago this Parliament reversed blasphemy laws in New Zealand. Now I better be clear: that in itself was not unbelievable. I personally think reversing our blasphemy laws at that time was a good and appropriate activity. As some with wit put to me the big guy upstairs isn't easily offended and nor is he going to turn up in the court room.But what is unbelievable is that 2½ years later the left wing and the Labour Party are reintroducing in effect a blasphemy law into New Zealand. It is here to entrench a very particular view on hate speech. And let's be very clear as I have been in the House before: this piece of legislation has very little if anything to do with hateful speech but speech which the left in particular hate. It's a very very dangerous bill. There is no need for it in general and there is absolutely no need for it around this ground of religious belief and I want to tease a little bit of that out.First and foremost this is another attack another affront on one of the most core and basic elements of a democracy: free speech. It is being eroded. It's already been eroded. This Government has form when it comes to undermining and dividing this country. It doesn't matter if it's the notion of co-governance which as I've written recently is absolutely mutually exclusive to democracy. We've had a Government that's passed laws which restrict where people can stand and protest. They've passed laws which even restrict the speech that parents and professionals can have with their children and other people. This is a Government that already has form when it comes to eroding and undermining our democratic principles. And here we are today on this morning debating how from the left they can undermine freedom of speech.We must as a House push back against this. There is no need for it. Free speech is what enables us to get along and the irony in free speech at times is that those conversations those speeches freely had can be confronting challenging critical—you name it. That's the very nature of democracy. What is being suggested here is the social cohesion theory which is bouncing around at the moment that somehow as human beings we can all just be wonderful and civilised and we're just all going to agree and it's all going to be nice. Well that's not how it works. The only regimes in history where everyone agrees are called totalitarians regime and everyone is monological.Now let's be really clear: I don't like argument as such. I don't like angry aggressive nasty critical speech. However we're human beings; we have different views different viewpoints different things we are passionate about different moral views different ethical views—this cuts and undermines the heart of it.And we already see—we already see—those barrelling in behind this law who think it's a wonderful law. These are the people already who tried to exercise the thug's veto across the society. They're the very people who stopped women talking about women's rights at the Auckland University of Technology earlier this year. They are the same people who tried to ban others turning up to university to talk about such topics as I don't know the Treaty of Waitangi. These are people who protest the ability of others to speak a different viewpoint. They're the ones who have all the isms and all the phobias that are thrown about in labelling people to condemn and stop them. They are the ones enthusiastically behind this bill because as I said at the start their interest is not really around hate speech—what even that is by the way? The media and others throw the word hate" around like lollies these days. What does it even mean? How is it even defined? Who gets to define it? My previous speaker and colleague Chris Penk put it forward: how does one define "harm" and "hate"? Do I get to define it or does someone else get to define it? It's indefinable and that is quite deliberate here because this is ultimately about power and control which is what this left-wing Government is wanting to exercise.And be under no illusion this is a stalking-horse piece of legislation. The Minister confirmed it at the start—this is just the first tranche. They think this is an easy win to bring in religious belief as a grounds to limit speech. Be under no illusion: those who suffer from PVS—or what I call "perpetual victim syndrome"—are already lining up to add themselves in here that they must be protected. Their views on life are so fragile—so fragile—they need laws to protect them from as they would call it harm. We do not need this legislation. We actually do not need to protect many if any groups for hate speech per se. We should all be free to critique and challenge and this is deeply deeply inappropriate.I want to turn to the religious side. There is as I say no need for this for at least two reasons. First and foremost I am proudly a religious man unapologetically Roman Catholic. I do not want this. I don't need protection. I get challenged every day for my views. If I wanted to use this piece of law I could say it's all hateful and harmful to me. "Someone challenged my belief system." Well la-di-da I can accept it. That's the nature of religion. Religion by its definition is arrogant. It really is and I say that as someone who's well theologically trained. The thing about religion is it makes massive moral claims. I'm Catholic because I don't agree with views on other religions and other religions are not Catholic because they don't agree with me. I don't need a piece of law to stop those people having conversations. What we do is we talk more. We talk we challenge. It's called ecumenism. You talk. This attempt at law is to shut that down. It says that if you say something that might insult my religion ridicule my religion insult or be contemptuous it could now be hate speech. That is going to shut down discussion in something which is by its nature—by its very nature; religion as I say is bold it's beautiful but there is an arrogance to it. It believes it's right—it believes it's right—and that's going to be stopped effectively by this law. And I say again as someone with a religious belief there is absolutely no need for this. In fact if we're going to confront the challenges if you will within religious belief we need more conversation not shutting it down.I mean what on earth is this going to look like where different groups and religious groups say "Well I don't like you challenging my belief about the big guy in the sky. You've insulted me." What's this going to mean for various cultish groups in society who claim that now they are being incited on the grounds of their religious belief? The Minister mentioned Islam predictably. That's fine. We've got Christianity Judaism Buddhism Zoroastrianism Pastafarianism—where's it going to end?Hon Member: Jedis.SIMON O'CONNOR: Jedis of course. God help us if anyone decides to say you know Star Trek's better than Star Wars—that's probably ridiculing. This is all about belief and this is why it is such a dangerous piece of legislation. There is absolutely no need for it. And I want to put on the record again as someone who supported the removal of blasphemy laws and unapologetically has religious belief: we do not need this.And I want to finish by suggesting to people who are listening at home of what to do and it's twofold. First and foremost submit to the select committee. Say that you believe in democracy that you believe in free speech and that you are against this increasingly left-wing Government which is attacking and undermining the core foundations of our democracy. Explain your reasons why you believe free speech matters why it so critically matters.And as I said at the start those supporting this bill are already the ones who try to exercise the thug's veto. They write copiously into media that everything that you know affects their argument harms them. They're the people who throw around those isms and phobias. These are the people who never—well actually anything they disagree with now is disinformation or misinformation. Of course often it's not the case; it's just simply that which is misinformation is what's put forward by someone who's not left wing.And the last point—the last point—and it's somewhat tongue in cheek but if this law unfortunately passes in the House it's certainly my encouragement to New Zealanders: use it. Overwhelm the system. Any time a person feels that their religious belief has been attacked write and call the Human Rights Commission call the police go to the courts. In recent weeks we've had people attacking the likes of Bethlehem College that they have a certain view on marriage and on religion. Well this is going to be great for them because you know what? That's now an incitement on the ground of religious belief. Take those people to the Human Rights Commission. Drag them before the courts. Overwhelm the system and show the absolute absurdity of this law.Now let me be really really clear in my final seconds: I actually don't want this bill. I don't want this to be happening but if this Government's going to pass such a stupid law show them how absurd it is and overwhelm the system any time your belief is challenged and show up those activists and others what this really means and just how dangerous this is for democracy."