Legal Beagle by Graeme Edgeler

It seems a bit of a stretch to argue that the proposed reform will somehow narrow the scope of prohibited speech. If you can draw a distinction between speech which is offensive enough to "excite hostility" but is not offensive enough to "stir up hatred", then hats off to you. But I can't really see any distinction at all.

Thanks for outlining this issue with such clarity.

The modifications proposed are in response to the Mosque shootings, but, ironically, wouldn't there be a case to prosecute anyone who published some Islamic religious texts, I'm thinking specifically of what they say about homosexuals.
See: https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Homosexuality

They would seem to contravene Section 131 of the Human Rights Act you outlined above, if those rights were extended to gay communities.

If someone publicly said that a particular New Zealander of Ruritanian descent should "go back to Ruritania", in a context where the plain meaning was that the Ruritanian–New Zealander was unwelcome here, could that be an offence, either under the current law, or the proposed changes?