Auchinvole Chris: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeAuchinvole Chris: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 10 October 2007. Volume:642;Page:12278. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): I rise to speak on the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill. Sedition is a term of law that refers to covert conduct such as speech and organisation that is deemed—wait for it—by the legal authority as tending towards insurrection against the established order. Sedition includes suppression or subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent or resistance to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion—though not aimed at direct and open violence—against the laws. Sedition can include words in writing that are seditious libel. In a modern sense it comes from the Elizabethan era of 1590. Henry VIII and subsequently his daughter improved on it and that time is remembered as a remarkably litigious period.Christopher Finlayson: Which daughter—Mary or Elizabeth?CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Elizabeth—oh yes it was Elizabeth definitely. Another feature of this period was the remarkable intrusiveness of government into the private lives of citizens. In fact it is largely ironic that the select committee that has considered the repeal of seditious offences the Justice and Electoral Committee is also considering another bill that will create a whole new level of offences during elections. But we will have more of that later.There is a quote which is unattributed from the Elizabethan era that describes sedition as “the notion of inciting by words or writings dissatisfaction towards the State or constituted authority” and “Sedition complements treason and martial law while treason”—I ask Mr Finlayson to listen to this bit—“controls primarily the privileged ecclesiastical opponents priests and Jesuits as well as certain commoners.”; and “Martial law frightens commoners sedition frightens intellectuals.” Hear any echoes from the past?The law in New Zealand has been reviewed by the Law Commission. The Law Commission report as commented on by the current Minister of Justice found that the present law of sedition attacks the democratic values of free speech for no adequate public reason. Let us repeat that: the present law attacks the democratic value of free speech for no adequate reason. It is interesting that Mr Burton said that in his speech on the first reading of this bill on 14 June this year. He went further—and I am sure this point will be noted; in fact it already has been noted by my colleague Mr Christopher Finlayson—in saying specifically that the present law falls foul of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. That is exactly the point that was made earlier—that when it suits Labour it invokes the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act; when it does not suit that Act is surprisingly absent from consideration.During the select committee’s call for submissions it was confirmed by law enforcement authorities and other legal bodies that there are ample opportunities to charge perpetrators of criminal acts under existing law without relying on the arcane measures of the particular legislation we are considering at the moment.I note from the speech made by the Hon Peter Dunne leader of United Future on the first reading of this bill that he wanted to acknowledge the support of MMP parties for this bill. He specifically mentioned his own party the Greens theMāori Party and ACT all working in unison in the interests of the value of free speech. In connection with sedition he instanced a couple of times when it had affected his Irish forebears. He spoke of the mild nature of acts of civil disobedience or the expression of views that could rapidly bring one under threat of charges under the act of sedition. Mr Dunne stated: “A country that is confident about itself and its direction does not need laws of this type to regulate its behaviour.”I agree with the sentiments he expressed. As a free-born Scot with a great pride in my New Zealand nationality and citizenship I place high value on free speech. Like most members in this House—I would hope like all members in this House—I have a deeply held commitment to being able to speak out not only for myself but also for all the others around. I live in a part of the country I am very proud to live in on the West Coast of the South Island at Moana in the ever-increasingly marginal seat of West Coast - Tasman and we celebrate free and open speech down there. Indeed I fully support the report of the select committee and endorse the bill on that basis. I take particular note of the part of the report that states: “the need to ensure that free speech and impartiality in censorship are protected.”To conclude I have to express surprise and astonishment to find that the Justice and Electoral Committee having worked so well and so sensibly together on removing legislation that reduces the value of free speech is now embarking on the consideration of a bill that puts all the frighteners back in again. There seems to be a thunderingsilence towards all who speak against it—a thundering silence from the very parties that Mr Dunne commended for speaking out against the Sedition Act.The Electoral Finance Bill in the minds of an ever-increasing number of people fits in the category of the Elizabethan description by being designed to control suppress prosecute and frighten people out of expressing their personal views towards the current Government. I am happy to support the sedition laws being chucked into the frying pan of discarded bills but I note that the proposed Electoral Finance Bill will take us into a fire of democratic discontent disquiet and dispute. The present Government will only live long enough to be ashamed by it. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker.