Mark Ron: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mark Ron: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:12603] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 It has been an enjoyable debate to listen to up to this point in time and clearly I am looking forward to the third reading. New Zealand First just wants it firmly put on the record that we move with great caution on this issue. We make no bones about the fact that we have reservations about the need to totally repeal this legislation. We have made it clear that we believe that if there are issues of vagueness of broadness or of scope then those things could have been easily dealt with through amendments to the existing legislation but that the seditious offences law at this point in time should not be repealed. 
I look at the title of the bill. There are a number of titles for this legislation that New Zealand First could possibly put up given the debate that we have heard. It is interesting to hear the debate from around the Committee that is supported by the National members. I recall Stephen Franks who is a colleague I miss in this Chamber— 
Tariana Turia 
: Do you? 
RON MARK 
: I do. Stephen was a great advocate for the ACT party. I do not subscribe to all of the views of the ACT party but I recognise talent and sincerity when I see it. Stephen brought the House’s attention very sharply to focus on the Government’s intention to pass legislation to prevent hate speech. I remember the National members rallying in behind that call because it was a direct attack on freedom of speech. Now the Government says that it is getting rid of sedition laws because it is a direct attack on freedom of speech. Well it did not have that view when it was advocating for the passage of legislation to prevent hate speech. The National Party the ACT party and New Zealand First were very firm in their belief that no legislation should be passed that impinged on people’s rights to legitimately argue against the Government and legitimately define or argue against something they fundamentally disagreed with. 
It is interesting that the boot is now on the other foot with the Government today. It is interesting to hear the debate from National members advocating freedom of speech as being paramount and saying that if someone wants to advocate violence we will pick up some other piece of legislation and maybe get a conviction there. In regard to freedom of speech do these names spring to mind—Marilyn Waring Peter McCardle Michael Laws Christine Fletcher John Banks the Rt Hon Winston Peters and most belatedly Brian Connell? I ask National members where these great principles about freedom of speech were when those MPs dared to stand up to tell their caucus colleagues that they disagreed—and this was not about advocating violence nor about overthrowing the Government which National was in the days of Christine Fletcher John Banks Winston Peters Michael Laws and Peter McCardle. These people just wanted to be heard to have a differing philosophical and policy view but they were shut down. We are not talking about 1881 or 1886; we are talking about this year—Brian Connell. 
What did Brian Connell do? He spoke the truth. What did he get? He got kicked out of the caucus and banished into the never-never. He was not permitted to speak in the House and now he is squeezed right out of the electoral race. I ask National members to tell me where their principles on freedom of speech are. It is great and fine to stand in this Chamber and advocate that the legislation should be repealed because it denies freedom of speech but I have two words to say to National members: Brian Connell. I have two more: Winston Peters. I have two more: John Banks. I can go on—Marilyn Waring. All of these people had committed one crime and it was not sedition. 
Hon Member 
: Banks? 
RON MARK 
: Well John Banks caused all sorts of troubles in the National Party by advocating views in this Chamber that its other members did not agree with. In fact he sat right in that seat over there when I was the junior whip for the Government. The National members certainly made it clear to John Banks on those occasions that they did not agree with him. They did the same for Christine Fletcher—she was out of caucus for a little time was she not? 
Christopher Finlayson 
: No. 
RON MARK 
: She was certainly outside the caucus psyche and off to one side from the rest of her colleagues who labelled her all sorts of things behind her back for simply having a different view. Brian Connell is the most poignant example to point to right now. What did Brian Connell do wrong other than to express freely the words the views that he held? Who shut him down? The Government? Did the police march in with the seditious offences legislation and charge Mr Connell for daring to say terrible things about the Prime Minister-elect—or almost Prime Minister-elect; he did not quite get there did he? No. Was Brian Connell right? Well he had to be right because the person about whom he spoke disappeared out of this Parliament like a flash. Mind you it is the same people who sat Brian Connell down who stuck the knife into the boss and kicked him out the door too. 
So let us be clear when we talk in such high and mighty terms about the need to preserve freedom of speech about what our track record is. Winston Peters was kicked out of the National Party. Brian Connell was kicked out of the National Party. A number of titles for this bill spring to mind in citing those examples but probably half of them are unparliamentary if I am to be truthful. All of us in this Chamber deep down sincerely wish to protect freedom of speech and because of that New Zealand First understands the reason why parties—and the Government in particular—wish to repeal this legislation. We fully accept Mr Locke’s view because he is consistent—unlike some people who make some rather condescending speeches about him. We understand that and we are not saying no; we are asking right now what the need is. Can we not deal with the issues that have been raised in legitimate debate in this House by narrowing and refining? Going forward with terrorism being the issue it is and with matters unfolding inside of our nation are we sure that this is a timely moment to be repealing this legislation? 
All of us stand for freedom of speech. All of us want the right to campaign to change Governments and to change the direction of this nation through legitimate lawful means. But we stand firmly—as New Zealand First always does—against the pursuance of objectives by people through violent means advocating violence promoting violence or legitimising violence and then saying that it is all being done because they are freedom fighters and they are in pursuit of a legitimate political cause. New Zealand is a free and democratic nation that has such a proud history of 150 years of democratic rule and it is a leader internationally for having such a long sustained period of democratic rule. We all stand for that. But people who wish to take a path politically through force of arms need to be stopped. 
Every honourable member in this Chamber is here whether or not we agree with each other because he or she has a genuine belief in the philosophies and policies that his or her parties advocate and every member truly wants to make a difference. But those members choose to do it by lawful means. No member in this House chooses to achieve his or her objectives by inciting other people to violent recourse. That is the concern that New Zealand First has. 
I have heard some very good arguments articulated by Russell Fairbrother and by Chris Finlayson but we are a little bit I guess disappointed at the rather—and that ”h” word keeps coming into my mind and I am trying to find another word for it—differing positions that are so clearly demonstrated by some people who would advocate for freedom of speech. I make no secret about it. I and New Zealand First have a lot of respect for Brian Connell. We have a lot of respect for people who protect freedom of speech such as Keith Locke. But we do not have a lot of respect for people who advocate it on the one hand and then deny it on the other.