Power Simon: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Power Simon: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:9982] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I know that two of my colleagues have gone before me in respect of making contributions on the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Bill. In no way do I want to attempt to relitigate matters that they no doubt have covered during the course of their full explanations in relation to this matter. I will depart slightly from some of the matters that the member who just resumed his seat Russell Fairbrother covered although I will come back to them because I think the time is nigh for National to make a contribution on those particular matters. 
I guess what we are seeing here is MMP at work. The smaller parties have got together and decided that this is legislation that needs the support of the House to progress. The two larger political parties—and New Zealand First latterly—have come to the view that the bill is worth supporting to a select committee and that it is worth having a discussion about some of the issues that have been raised. As no doubt my colleagues who went before me on this issue have outlined National will be supporting this bill to a select committee. In fact as I make the count all members of this House—although I cannot speak for the two Independent members—will be supporting this bill to a select committee. National will reserve its position at that point to make sure that any matters that might require further attention are not buried here in the first reading and that a thorough discussion does occur in relation to the impact of the bill. 
It would be a mistake for the Parliament and the select committee process to assume that just because a bill receives the full support of the House at its first reading it will necessarily progress through all stages without proper examination and investigation. That would of course be quite wrong—although some of the speeches we have heard from some parties today have been shall we say enthusiastic in their repeal of seditious offences—because what we are looking at here is a historic series of offences that do require close attention. 
Just because the Law Commission comes up with an idea does not make it right. We will come to another bill later tonight where the Law Commission has just come up with an idea and we are all supposed to fall over ourselves and say that it is perfect in every regard. As the Minister of Justice knows there are some aspects of that particular bill that National agrees with in a wholehearted manner and there are some aspects we do not agree with. I will indicate now that we are in for an interesting debate on that bill. But I think it is a necessary debate because I know that the Minister to give him his dues has approached this matter reasonably open-mindedly and I know he will be interested to know what National will propose during the Committee stage of that bill. 
But I come back to the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Bill because it is the one we are debating presently. I am minded to remind the House that National will support this bill and for this reason: one of the reasons outlined in the report from the Law Commission for repealing the sedition provisions in the Crimes Act is that a seditious offence can be inappropriately used to impose a form of political censorship. That is if anybody was saying negative things about the Government or a Government department or ministry that person could be—the Law Commission would lead us to believe—seen to be committing or allegedly committing an act of sedition. 
Being a member from the Opposition who has had a couple of departments and one ministry firmly in his sights for some time I say that I would most certainly want to avoid being charged with sedition and politically censored for making comments and bringing to the attention of the public some of the shortfalls of that ministry and a couple of departments. That is all part—[ 
Interruption 
] Harry Duynhoven over there shakes his head. He is a diligent member. But that is all part of the rough and tumble of democracy. That is all part of the toing and froing the yin and the yang of the political process. Members opposite when they grace the Opposition benches in years to come will be pleased that they too will have preserved an ability to criticise to probe to investigate and to bring to light matters that they believe to be unsatisfactory from time to time. Of course there will be a lot less “time to time” in that set of circumstances than there currently is in this set of circumstances. 
Just to reiterate any present law that falls foul of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—and this is a serious point—does deserve the attention of the House. I am a firm believer in upholding the principles of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act wherever possible. I have to say that I think in my 7½ years here we have had only two occasions that I can recall where the Attorney-General has said that a particular piece of legislation that the Government was tabling did impinge in the Attorney-General’s view on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. We had that debate at that time. But it is an important safeguard. The role of the Attorney-General in Cabinet is an important one in bringing that independence to bear. 
With those few remarks I say that although National will support this bill to a select committee it is important that the investigative and exploratory processes at the select committee are used fully before the bill progresses further. 
Bill read a first time. referred to Justice and Electoral Committee 
Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.