Fairbrother Russell: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Fairbrother Russell: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:12598] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 I do not want to speak in support of the previous speaker Chris Finlayson because of the threat in his concluding comments although I would have trouble escaping that label on many occasions particularly since coming here. However I have to say that this legislation demonstrates the folly of the law of sedition. The law of sedition is a serious crime in the Crimes Act if it ever was fully realised because it is a crime against the State not far removed from the crime of treason in concept. But of course because it relates only to words it is a rare instance when it can properly be charged and those instances cannot be morally justified. 
In 1981 this crime was brought within the range of criminal trials that could occur under the District Courts Act. The District Court was created following a commission of inquiry set up by Justice Beattie as he then was who recommended a review of court structure. He envisaged a District Court being known as the “People’s Court” where trials would take place in as many court districts as possible so that one would have trials at District Courts that sometimes may be only 30 kilometres apart. That was a very good idea to start off with and court rooms were modified so that 12 jurors and a range of counsel could be squeezed in but it proved to be totally unworkable because the buildings did not accommodate that sort of activity and the staff were not so trained so gradually the District Courts retreated back generally to the High Court jurisdiction venues and then they ran in parallel series but dealing generally with less serious offences. 
So it was a little strange and perhaps it is a reflection of the time that in 1981 no one cast his or her mind as to whether the law of sedition was intrinsically serious enough to remain in the High Court with other very serious offences or whether it was too trivial to worry about at all. The irony is that someone could be charged with treason—as was the case then—and that would be tried in the High Court and someone could be charged with sedition and that case could be moved down to the District Court by election of either the accused or the determination of the deciding High Court judge. In 1981 when this was placed in a schedule that is very hard to read even to this day we had a reasonably mindless following through of what was an innovative view of the courts back then by the then Justice Beattie’s review of the court system. 
My experience in Parliament now is that parliamentary counsel are rigorous—and it probably reflects the computerised age I might say as well as an overall high standard of competence of parliamentary counsel—and that any consequential amendments to other legislation are picked up and are generally brought before the notice of a select committee if not to sign off then at least to consider. It would be my view that back in 1981 if this matter had been brought to the attention of the House and if there had been a select committee considering the establishment of the District Courts and what offences they should deal with then there would have been a more careful consideration. Someone would have asked: what are we really doing with this law of sedition; is it relevant; what prosecutions will follow; does it have the certainty required of our Crimes Act; should we be even bothering with it; and why do we not recommend in a report to the House the abolition of it? If that had occurred given that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act followed only 9 or 10 years later one could imagine that this debate could have been sparked off back in 1981. I daresay then that Timothy Selwyn may have been saved from being convicted of the offence of sedition but he surely would have been caught by other crimes such as inciting wilful damage. 
What we have today by this concentration on Part 2 which seems entirely technical and of a very narrow compass reflects a movement in our legislative lawmaking in this Parliament from what was obviously a cumbersome process back in 1981 to a very sophisticated process today whereby select committees are enjoined by parliamentary counsel and by their advisers to look at consequential changes and to take a more holistic approach. What we are really doing today is a clean-up of the statute book which should have occurred back in 1981 in my view and certainly back in 1990 when the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act went through its legislative changes. It is difficult and I think everybody except New Zealand First agrees that there is no substance these days to the law of sedition. It is a pity that was not seen back in 1981.