Statutes Repeal Bill- Committee Stage- Clause 3 – Video 1

Statutes Repeal Bill- Committee Stage- Clause 3 – Video 1

Articles, Blog , , 0 Comments


the question is a clause to stamp out those of that opinion will say I for the contrary no the eyes have it members we now move to Clause 3 this is debate on clause 3 and she drew one and the question is a clause three Stan Park I caulk recipients mr. chairman I’m very happy to take a call on an amendment which I have put forward supplementary or a paper three one five and which I’m told now is the appropriate time to debate that so I certainly intend to take that opportunity that removes bless for me from our statute books an amendment that as well overdue and one that I was very interested in researching to make this contribution today that was drawn to the attention of the then Minister the Honorable Amy Adams Minister for justice beckoned 2015 and her response at the time was that whilst she agreed that place for me should be repealed from New Zealand’s statute book she had higher priorities one can only assume from the fact that we’re debating this bill that amongst her priority her higher priorities were a repeal of the Christchurch Littleton Road tunnel Authority dissolution it the church property trust Canterbury amendment act many many Finance X from 1930 onwards the customs lauric of 1908 and so forth all of these that would appear are higher priorities because despite this met are being drawn to the Minister for justice as a tension baked into 2015 there was still no proposal by the government to remove place for me from New Zealand statute books so I welcome this opportunity for us to vote on this today to do this in a way that’s clean inefficient that doesn’t unnecessarily waste the time of the house for those who might want to raise an objection to the process first of all I’ll get into the substance and a moment but for those who want to make an objection to the process and say well it should have been included in the bill in the first place and that 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 and perhaps more important of that was that as a result of those four submissions five additional acts were added to the bill so this bill is already amended already has five additional acts added to it that were not on it when it received its first reading and when it was first referred to the Select Committee and submissions were called for so if we’re going to object to an additional act being added around bless for me or an additional provision being added around place for me are we also then going to object to the five additional acts that were added by the Select Committee because if that is the government’s objection to repealing blasphemy as part of this bill then they must also object to repealing the five additional bills or five additional aches 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 bless for me we condemn other countries who use draconian laws like this to do very draconian things to people we condemn them when they do so and yet we’ve got a law on our own statute books that allows the government of New Zealand to do just that how is that 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 so I think it’s high past time that this law was taken off our statute books it violates our commitments under the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights New Zealand is a part of that covenant and we should live up to it it violates a fundamental human right to freedom of expression now there are things that people might say that might be regarded as is blasphemous but some people might find as offensive they are absolutely entitled to tell the other people that that they are offensive but the idea that the person who seed them should be could potentially be thrown in jail for saying them isn’t consistent with our modern expectations around freedom of speech and in fact the Minister the Attorney General Chris Finlayson said if the church cannot defend themselves against this against place for me being goodness me they’re in some trouble I think that the churches are perfectly capable of defending themselves against place for me and I don’t think they need this law in effect 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 bless for me to be removed from the New Zealand statute books I’m going to call David Clinton Thank You mr. chair

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *