Worth Richard: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Worth Richard: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 October 2007. Volume:643;Page:12692. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 I suppose it is fair to say that in the process of a bill through Parliament the highlight for that bill is the third reading for a number of hurdles have been surmounted—sometimes effortlessly sometimes with great difficulty. Now in the final stage there is but one perhaps small further part to follow before we see this legislation in its full-blown form. That final stage of course is the Royal assent which sees in due course the enactment of the legislation. 
I have had the opportunity as has the Minister Mark Burton of making several contributions in the course of the perambulation of the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill through the Parliament. I will pick up three or four points that I think summarise where this bill sits in the context of a number of issues. The starting point—and the Minister dwelt very briefly on this—was a report by the Law Commission that was tabled in Parliament in 2007 called  
Reforming the Law of Sedition 
. I note that the Law Commission and the report that it did then recommended the abolition of New Zealand’s seditious offences. Sir Geoffrey Palmer the ever-popular president of the Law Commission said in the comments he made at that time: “These offences are too wide. They are unclear. They can be misused to suppress dissent”. He went on to say: “Sedition has been used to muzzle vehement and unpopular political speech. It is high time the offences were removed from the New Zealand statute book.” So it is that the report recommended that the seditious offences set out in sections 81 to 85 of the Crimes Act be repealed and not replaced. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No no no. Fix up the police; don’t change the charge. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: I am interested in these faint interjections which have come from the current Minister of Foreign Affairs. I hope that when there is an opportunity for him to speak in the debate he will give us the benefit of the suppressed excitement that he currently feels. 
Another point that Sir Geoffrey made which I think is probably important was: “Where behaviour that would be covered by the existing sedition provisions needs to be punished it can be more appropriately dealt with by other provisions of the criminal law. By abolishing sedition we will better protect the values of democracy and free speech.” 
We have been treated in past debates on this topic to a history of the law of sedition and that has been marked by references to a number of cases that have occurred over a significant period of time illustrating various aspects of those offence-creating provisions. But I suppose in the New Zealand context what really stirred up those who follow these issues with interest was what happened to Tim Selwyn in 2006. Tim Selwyn faced a number of charges including sedition after sending emails calling for militant action against the Government’s foreshore and seabed legislation. He smashed the Prime Minister’s electoral office window. He published two sets of pamphlets. He was jailed for 15 months for an unrelated fraud-related offence and the District Court judge seeking to do justice in all the circumstances added a further penalty of 2 months for criminal damage conspiracy and publishing a seditious statement. 
What is sedition? It is variously defined but I think for present purposes it is neatly picked up in the proposition that it is a term of law that refers to covert conduct that is deemed by the legal authority as tending towards insurrection against the established order. In very simple terms it is stirring up rebellion against the Government in power. It is more about encouraging the people to rebel whereas treason—to which the Minister has referred—is actually betraying the country. 
One of the issues that I very provisionally explored last night was to suggest that in the context of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 we are talking about balances. We are talking about on the one hand the desirability of continuing with an offence called sedition and on the other hand these rights of free speech and free expression which are contained as freedoms and as rights in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It needs to be said that they are not absolute rights; I dealt with that last evening. 
I would say something about freedom of speech in the context of the sedition law. Freedom of speech is the concept of being able to speak freely without censorship. It is often regarded as an integral concept in modern liberal democracies. The right to freedom of speech is guaranteed under international law through numerous human rights instruments. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an illustration of that and in a domestic setting we have our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The right is called freedom of expression or freedom of speech—maybe “freedom of expression” is the preferred term because the right is not confined to verbal speech. 
If one looks at the writings of those to whom this is an aspect of interest one sees that the most important justification for free speech is a general liberal or libertarian presumption against coercing individuals from living how they please and doing what they want. However there are a number of specific justifications that are commonly proposed to justify freedom of speech. I think of the decisions of the Canadian Supreme Court—in particular in a case called  
R v Keegstra 
 in 1990 which was a case on hate speech where one of the judges identified four elements that he thought characterised free speech. He said: “free speech promotes ‘The free flow of ideas essential to political democracy and democratic institutions’ and limits the ability of the state to subvert other rights and freedoms.” The second thing he picked up was a concept that has been freely floated by philosophers which is that free speech promotes a marketplace of ideas. That is a concept that people like Oliver Wendell Holmes and others have propounded which includes but is not limited to the search for truth. Thirdly the judge said: “It is intrinsically valuable as part of the self-actualisation of speakers and listeners;”. The fourth point the judge made was: “It is justified by the dangers for good government of allowing its suppression.” 
I guess we all know that there are significant restrictions on free speech. That is where part of the debate arises. A well-known example—I do not want to dwell on this in any detail—is typified by the statement that free speech does not allow one sitting in a crowded theatre to shout falsely: “Fire! Fire! Fire!”. That has been a classic statement in a number of decisions. There are a whole lot of restrictions on free speech. They include defamation slander and libel; hate speech that is defamatory or causes incitement to violence; and a third illustration is of course what we are concerned with here—sedition. 
What happens now in terms of this legislation is that a chunk of the Crimes Act 1961 is changed; it is repealed. A whole lot of offences that touch sedition disappear from the statute book. If one looks at what is left in Part 5 of the Crimes Act which deals with crimes against public order one sees that still quite a lot remains. As I said last night it is somewhat of a hotch-pot really that is left behind. Treason remains espionage remains unlawful assembly remains forcible entry and detainer remains—[ 
Interruption 
]—and of interest to the Minister of Foreign Affairs offences like piracy and dealing in slaves are still there. The Minister has a detailed knowledge as I know from my past associations with him of those important issues. 
There is another criminal provision that sits in section 98A of the Crimes Act which deals with participation in criminal gangs. I am not sure whether the Minister has had any interest in that but doubtless we will hear about that. That is why National supports this legislation. It looks at some arguments propounded by New Zealand First and says: “How sad. How stupid.”