New Zealand Government Announces Plan to Strengthen Hate Speech Law
A decision has been made to not introduce new hate speech legislation, which is expected to be disappointing for many minority advocacy groups and potentially the Human Rights Commission.
The New Zealand coalition government has halted the development of hate speech laws that were started under Labour. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith announced on X (formerly Twitter) that he had directed the Law Commission to cease work on the project.
This decision comes despite a 12 percent increase in “hate incidents” reported to the NZ Police between 2022 and 2023, totaling 9,351. The majority of these incidents were racial abuse (83 percent), followed by incidents targeting individuals based on their sexual orientation (9.7 percent) and faith (5.8 percent).
More than a third of racial incidents were aimed at individuals of Asian descent, with people of color accounting for 8.9 percent of cases and Māori individuals being targeted in 7.2 percent of incidents.
The previous Labour administration had initially planned to address hate speech but scaled back its efforts due to strong opposition from proponents of free speech and a commitment from the National Party to repeal any new legislation if elected.
These laws were part of the government’s response to recommendations following the Royal Commission into the Christchurch attacks, in which a gunman from Australia killed 51 Muslim worshippers in two mosques.
Labour faced challenges in reaching consensus on the scope and operation of the proposed law, with Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Justice Minister Kris Faafoi expressing conflicting views on the matter.
Related Stories
Initially, Ms. Ardern assured that political opinion would not fall under the new laws’ purview, but later stated in Parliament that it was not off the table, implying that public consultation would determine its inclusion.
Individuals found guilty of violating the proposed law would face a maximum penalty of three years in prison or a fine of up to $50,000.
Labour’s Watered Down Proposals
When Kiri Allen assumed the role of justice minister, she announced a narrowed focus on incitement against religious groups, with other aspects being deferred to the Law Commission for review.
However, Prime Minister Chris Hipkins intervened to delay even this provision and refer it back to the Commission to thoroughly assess this complex area of law.
The coalition agreement between National and New Zealand First stipulated ceasing work on hate speech legislative reforms.
By December 2022, Mr. Goldsmith had already pledged that a National-led government would halt any reform efforts.
In 2023, he stated, “Hate speech legislation is unnecessary and would unduly restrict free speech and expression in our nation. Pursuing new hate speech laws would divert attention from more urgent issues that the Ministry of Justice should be addressing. Encouraging more speech and debate is the most effective response to dissenting views—not prohibitions and police involvement.”
Mr. Goldsmith’s decision is likely to be met with opposition from minority advocacy organizations.
When Labour referred its proposals to the Law Commission, Chief Human Rights Commissioner Paul Hunt criticized the shift as surrendering to misguided political debates driven by opportunism.
On the other hand, Aliya Danzeisen, the national coordinator of the Islamic Women’s Council of New Zealand, expressed frustration, stating, “How much longer must people endure hate before our lawmakers take the necessary action? There is no need for further delays or deliberation.”
Support for the decision came from the coalition partner NZ First, which tweeted, “Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of democracy. We have stopped progress on Labour’s Hate Speech legislation as the proposed laws were overly broad and hasty enactment was prevented.”
The Free Speech Union also voiced its approval, stating, “Inciting violence is already unlawful. This was the case before March 15, and hate speech laws do not address incitement to violence,” in response to concerns about potential violence against Muslims due to Mr. Goldsmith’s decision.
Contrary to claims, the Law Commission had not commenced any work on the proposal when Mr. Goldsmith intervened.
