Burton Mark: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Burton Mark: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:12201] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. The Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill has been reported back from the Justice and Electoral Committee which recommends that it be passed with no amendments. The bill implements the recommendations of the Law Commission in its report  
Reforming the Law of Sedition 
. In the report the Law Commission concludes that the seditious offences are overly broad and uncertain that they infringe on the principle of freedom of expression and that they have the potential for abuse. 
I thank the committee for its efficient yet thorough consideration of this bill. I also thank those people in groups that made submissions on the bill; there were 17 in all. The overwhelming majority of submissions received were in support of the bill and echoed the arguments for repeals advanced by the Law Commission. This is reflected in the report of the select committee which did not propose any changes to the bill as introduced to this House. 
This bill repeals the seditious offences in New Zealand which are contained in sections 81 to 85 of the Crimes Act 1961. These offences cover making or publishing a statement that expresses a seditious intention conspiring with a seditious intention and using apparatus for making seditious documents or statements. 
The offences hinge on a seditious intention. This is defined in the Crimes Act extremely broadly. A seditious intention is an intention “To bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against Her Majesty or the Government of New Zealand or the administration of justice;” or “To incite the public or any persons or any class of persons to attempt to procure otherwise than by lawful means the alteration of any matter affecting the constitution laws or Government of New Zealand;” or “To incite procure or encourage violence lawlessness or disorder;” or “To incite procure or encourage the commission of any offence that is prejudicial to the public safety or to the maintenance of public order;” or “To excite such hostility or ill will between different classes of persons as may endanger public safety.” 
Behaviour covered by the sedition laws that still needs to be criminalised can be more appropriately dealt with by other provisions of the criminal law that do not carry with them the historical baggage that is attached to sedition. Offences relevant to sedition are dealt with in other statutes including the Summary Offences Act and other provisions of the Crimes Act. Of particular relevance are the ancillary offences of incitement and conspiracy which can be used in conjunction with other offences to cover some of the seditious offences—for example the incitement to commit treason or a riot. There are also other offences that may be applicable with or without incitement of conspiracy. These include for example the threatening offences under the Crimes Act or inciting racial disharmony under the Human Rights Act. 
I am pleased that this bill enjoys considerable parliamentary support. Indeed we saw the almost unique situation on 24 April when the Greens United Future ACT and the Maori Party called on the Government in a united sense to repeal sedition laws saying: “they are an archaic piece of legislation that is damaging to freedom of expression in democracy”. The Government agrees as did the select committee. 
In conclusion it is time for the sun to set on these now outmoded provisions of seditious offences and to retire them once and for all from the statute book. I thank the Justice and Electoral Committee again for its consideration of the bill. I commend the bill to the House.