Finlayson Christopher: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:12585] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 That was an interesting speech from the Minister—more akin to a first or second reading speech. Of course Dr Worth and I gave all those examples that the Minister has sought to repeat in the context of a Committee stage debate. But there we have it—it is good to see that he has been reading our speeches. He always quotes to me my maiden speech and it is good to see him quoting back to me this afternoon my first reading speech on the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill. What I want to do unlike the Minister is really to make a fairly close and detailed analysis of the provisions that we propose to repeal because as I have said earlier National supports the repeal of these particular offences. 
The seditious offences are dealt with in the context of Part 5 of the Crimes Act 1961. Part 5 deals with various crimes against public order. Examples include the crime in section 73 which deals with treason—an offence that the Prime Minister charged Tim Groser with when he decided to stand for Parliament for the National Party. However a close analysis of section 73 indicates that had the Prime Minister carried through and instructed Crown Law to prosecute Tim Groser she would have had a lot of difficulty. Section 77 lists another interesting crime against public order and that is inciting people to mutiny which is what is probably going on in the Labour Party caucus at the moment as people are being told that they are on their way. 
But the particular offences that we are dealing with are the seditious offences that are said to be contained—I will say something about that in a minute—in sections 80 to 85 of the Act. Section 80 is not going to be repealed. That is the offence of taking an oath to commit an offence. Everyone who does that sort of thing is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years. It is not really a seditious offence which is the point I made in my second reading speech and it is entirely appropriate that that particular offence remain. But the other offences are said to be seditious offences although section 81 as the Minister said defines exactly what a seditious offence is. In my second reading speech I went through that in some detail so I will not repeat myself here. But I agree with the Minister and the Law Commission that it is a very vague definition. When one looks for example at subsection (1)(e) which sets out one of the criteria that define a seditious intention one sees it is an intention “to excite such hostility or ill will between different classes of persons as may endanger the public safety.” What exactly does that mean? As the Minister said that is the kind of measure that was used to prosecute poor old Walter Nash even though the communist pamphlet he allegedly brought into New Zealand was as the Minister said when copying my speech contained in the Parliamentary Library. 
Then we have the actual offences that need close examination— 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Very insecure— 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Oh there is no copyright in this material I say to the Minister so I do not take offence; I am just mildly touched that he has decided to refer to that material and to quote yet another one of my speeches. Section 82 deals with seditious conspiracy. Section 83 deals with seditious statements and that is the one that really has been used over the years mostly to shut down public debate. Section 84 deals with the publication of seditious documents. Section 85 is an interesting and a most extraordinary provision: the use of an apparatus for making seditious documents or statements. It deals with the sorts of things that one would have seen in  
Doctor Zhivago 
 where the revolutionaries had their printing presses and were printing posters to stick up around St Petersburg and the like. So that is the kind of thing that section 85 is directed at. 
The Minister is right; those offences have outlasted their useful stay on the statute book and it is time to repeal them. On behalf of the National Party when dealing with Part 1 of this bill I simply say let us get on and repeal them as quickly as possible because I frankly do not think the Labour Party realises what wonderful instruments of oppression they really are. Of course we have the Electoral Finance Bill and we have the other offences the Government has introduced over the years. But the seditious offences are ones that the Labour Party given its malignancy could use against people in the National Party as the Prime Minister said in relation to Tim Groser so the sooner they are repealed the better it will be. I think that if Government members gave it more than a moment’s thought they would realise that maybe those offences should not be repealed because they could be used say hand in hand with the electoral finance provisions to destroy the freedom of New Zealanders.