Church leaders, academics, broadcasters and conservative groups are among a growing faction condemning proposed laws that would block all New Zealanders from expressing certain opinions.

A parliamentary select committee yesterday held the first day of an inquiry in Auckland into possible legislation to ban "hate speech".

An overwhelming majority of submissions slammed the proposals as a threat to freedom of expression and the democratic process.

But the committee chairwoman, Labour MP Dianne Yates, last night appeared to back away from the significance of the inquiry, describing it as "a little luxury". There was no policy and no bill, she said.

"What we are hearing today is that there are enough laws, but maybe people need to use them more.

"Always in a democracy there's a balance between freedom of expression and freedom to function and be free from harm and persecution. We have to find that balance."

In her submission, Auckland resident Joan Braddock said: "At best it sets the scene for whining, bickering and retaliatory immaturity. At worst it turns us into a police state, kills democracy and gives power to a dictator."

Scott McMurray, a spokesman for conservative think-tank the Maxim Institute, said last night that it would be impossible to determine fairly what qualified as hate speech if legislation was introduced.

"We asked the committee: 'Would it be acceptable to make jokes about Australians, but not Chinese, for example?' The question is where would they draw the line?"

The government and administration select committee is looking at whether fresh legislation is needed to tighten up laws around what can and cannot be published, broadcast or said in public.

Existing laws prohibit racist speech. Largely, this inquiry is about the possibility of introducing parallel laws to ban homophobic speech.

But critics say it is an unjustified limitation on free thought, free expression and freedom to practise religion.

"Existing legislation already provides adequate restraint on speech and publication, so there is no need for any more laws," said Nicki Taylor, lawyer for the Maxim Institute.

"The inquiry is considering a solution that is looking for a problem."

The inquiry was prompted by a Court of Appeal decision which ruled that two Christian videotapes expressing disapproval of homosexuality were not objectionable.

The Film and Literature Board of Review was forced to allow the films to be released, but in a footnote mentioned it was a shame that the law allowed no prohibition of what it called "hate speech".

The thrust of the select committee's report, released last year, was that the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act should be modified to encompass hate speech.