King Colin: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
King Colin: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:12594] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is indeed a pleasure to rise and speak during the Committee stage of the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill. It gives me great comfort to review the work of those members who were on the Justice and Electoral Committee to see that the issue has been well and truly canvassed and in effect has been tested. 
I take reasonable comfort also from the knowledge that when representatives from the New Zealand Police were speaking to their submission they did not give any indication that they had any concerns whatsoever. In fact I take it from their position that they were reasonably comfortable about there being the ability to address any matters for serious concern through other parts of the Crimes Act. 
When I note that the police stated that these laws of sedition are really up to the independent interpretation of the police I take comfort that the Law Commission deemed it necessary and appropriate that we should be looking at removing these offences from the Crimes Act by repealing sections 81 to 85. The Law Commission said it was necessary and desirable to do that because those provisions infringed on the principle of freedom of expression. 
One would like to think that over the annals of time we have progressed as a democracy to the stage where we do not need to be as concerned about freedom of speech as the monarchies and Governments of yesteryear were. I take Mr Fairbrother’s point that since 1961 we have had this review of the Crimes Act—over some 40 years. That probably lays to rest the comment made by Ron Mark that we should wait a while should pause and see whether this is a sound judgment. 
It is very important to balance the common interests the appropriateness of what freedom of speech and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act attest to—that is the justification of expressions and the right to express viewpoints verbally or through apparatus be it electronic means or otherwise. Over time there is no doubt that the meaning of “sedition” has changed. We can think of Anglo-Saxon law back many many years ago when the offence of sedition would have been enacted originally. However I take this opportunity to raise a concern relating to the Minister’s reply around the freedom of speech. A lot of us in the House would take a view that the Electoral Finance Bill gags freedom of speech and suchlike. On that basis Mr Mark’s suggestion that we pause wait and see probably has some merit. 
The meaning of “sedition” certainly has changed over time. Presently the law invades our democratic values—the freedom of speech—and that makes it all the more important that we move on. The situation around the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act has been well canvassed with regard to the unqualified right to be able to express one’s own views and opinions. 
On that basis and considering what other members have said especially members on this side of the Chamber I must commend them for having given us the confidence to be able to remove this legislation from the statute book even though we express a level of concern about the present Government’s act of bringing forward the Electoral Finance Bill. But we trust that at the end of the day the Government will live up to the true essence of democracy and allow for freedom of speech. On that basis I take great pleasure in supporting this bill. Thank you.