Hide Rodney: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHide Rodney: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 10 October 2007. Volume:642;Page:12281. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): It is a great pleasure to follow Mr Keith Locke who is largely responsible for putting this Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill on to the parliamentary agenda. I also think we should acknowledge the work of the Law Commission which did the original research.It raises an interesting point because we have a lot of law on the statute book that does not actually get reviewed and looked at systematically. Once we do have a look at the sedition laws we think that they are wrong and they should go. But it requires some effort to go back and look at the basic structure of our law so bodies like the Law Commission do a good job in drawing parliamentarians’ attention and indeed the public of New Zealand’s attention to it. Mr Keith Locke then got hold of the issue and talked to the other MMP parties which are all agreed and thankfully the Governmenttook the opportunity to put this bill before Parliament so that we could end this crazy idea that speech or thoughts can somehow be undermining of a Government. It is shocking that what one says could be a criminal offence even if it does not infringe anyone’s rights.It is nice to be in our Parliament and have agreement about freedom of speech. We look around the walls of this Chamber and we see memorials dedicated to the men and women who surrendered their lives for freedom of speech. I want Mr Locke to reflect on this point: yes we can debate fascism and Stalinism in New Zealand and that is a good thing but of course under a fascist regime a Stalinist regime or a totalitarian regime we could not debate anything. What we talked about or indeed even thought would be dictated by the State. What a horrible world that would be. Men and women gave their lives fighting against fascism and because they gave their lives we in New Zealand can advocate fascism. That is extraordinary if we think about it because if the Fascists had won I do not think we would be here debating democracy or free speech.But I want Mr Keith Locke to reflect on this. He said it is important that in a free society in a democratic society even people who want to advocate hateful ideas like “binLadenism” should be entitled to do so. I agree with him. I ask him to reflect on the outrage that people in New Zealand poured on the Exclusive Brethren. I do not want to argue whether what they said was right or wrong or whether they should have done what they did but it seems to me that people should be able to print any pamphlets they like and they should be able to put in them any political idea that they like even if they are wrong. It is a different story if we defame someone because then we are taking away a property right. But to be debating a political idea as the Exclusive Brethren Church did seemed to me to be entirely consistent with free speech. It was not even sedition. As it turned out it was not even against our current electoral laws. Yet there was moral outrage from some members of Parliament against people exercising their right of freedom of expression which includes operating a printing press does it not and includes the publication of pamphlets. Where was their right to freedom of speech? So we could have a situation where we stand up and say that yes it is OK to advocate fascism and yes it is OK to advocate “binLadenism” but the Exclusive Brethren who attacked the Greens broke the law and we are going to change the law so that they cannot do it.I have to say that ACT gets attacked a bit but I do not think about changing the law so that people cannot do that. I do not think of changing the law so that people cannot spend X amount of dollars because we have to have a level playing field for freedom of speech. I do not remember the men and women who gave their lives for our freedom saying that it does not apply if one spends over a certain amount of money on a printing press. No it was a principle.If members are prepared to stand up in this House and say that it is OK to advocate fascism Stalinism “binLadenism” and every other ism that we can think of—and then some—I agree. So what is special about election year? Suddenly in election year we are going to pass a law saying that a person would not be seditious; he or she would just be in breach of our electoral laws. Where is the sense in that? Tonight we are passing a law here quite rightly so that people can advocate what was commonly called sedition but we are also contemplating passing a law that says people cannot put out a pamphlet saying they do not like the Government they do not like the National Party they do not like theMāori Party or they do not like the ACT party. It does not even have to be untrue; it just becomes unlawful.Have we not got this a bit skew-whiff? Stalinism and fascism killed millions of people but I do not think the Exclusive Brethren have hurt a flea actually. I do not think that what they were advocating was dangerous. It was just their political views. Itmight be wacky. It might not be what one agrees with. But if we can stand up in this House like Mr Locke and say it is OK to advocate fascism it is OK to advocate Stalinism and it is OK to advocate “binLadenism” then surely it is OK to criticise the Greens surely it is OK to criticise Helen Clark and surely it is OK to criticise the National Party and the ACT party. Surely it must be OK to run off a few pamphlets and put them in a grateful nation’s letterboxes so that people can say “Absolutely!”. Because one would not read this in theNew Zealand Herald. One will not see this on TVNZ.Now we have a Government and a Parliament that want to dictate to the media what is OK.Hon Member: They’re scared of the people!RODNEY HIDE: Now they are scared of the people. They are scared of allowing New Zealanders to advocate their ideas to spend what little money they have after the taxman has been—and Michael Cullen has spent it—on printing a pamphlet and sticking it in a neighbour’s letterbox. That is an outrage. So yes let us rejoice that we are passing a law to end the heinous abuse of State power that the law on sedition is. But let us reflect that if we stand here for freedom of speech then that is a principle that should stand unsullied. Talking about level playing fields and democracy will not wash and talking about what is done in other jurisdictions will not wash because we should be consistent and allow people to advocate all ideas and to produce whatever pamphlets they like. That is what living in a free and democratic society actually means.