Mark Ron: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mark Ron: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 October 2007. Volume:643;Page:12697. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I was beginning to think for a moment I was going to be denied my freedom of speech and I would have to bring a member’s bill to the House to ensure that the right to speak at an appropriate time since I am a member of the third-largest party in this House is respected and accorded. We know now how many people in this House are determined to uphold the freedom of speech. I can only conclude from the debate and discussion—and it has been a good debate and in the main in good heart—that the only parties who have stuck firmly to principles that they believe in are the Maori Party the Green Party ACT and New Zealand First. 
It might seem strange that I should say that because we have all taken different positions on the legislation. The Maori Party the Green Party and ACT are supporting this legislation for reasons that they have stated very very clearly; New Zealand First is opposing it for reasons that I believe we have put very very clearly. The National Party and the Labour Party are supporting this legislation but I note that in the debate we have just concluded—on the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill—they also both supported that. If we are to go through the reasons that have been espoused by those in support—[ 
Interruption 
]—and Mr Hide has just twigged to what I have just said and he agrees. 
Rodney Hide 
: It wasn’t that hard! 
RON MARK 
: For some it is I say to Rodney. For some it is very hard out there. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: First names! 
RON MARK 
: Mr Hide. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. 
RON MARK 
: I am sorry Mr Assistant Speaker. We are actually good mates and we do refer to each other by our first names on occasions. I know that it does not often happen in the Labour Party; often members refer to each other by surname only over there but Mr Hide and I do refer to each other by our first names all the time actually. 
But let us stop and think about what has just happened in this House; we have a Minister standing up to say that this legislation needs to be repealed because it is not used. Well hello—neither has the Terrorism Suppression Act until very recently. But then he goes on to say that this legislation needs to be passed because the Seditious Offences Act has been inappropriately used in the past and that is not a good thing. Well hello—there are people saying that the application of the Terrorism Suppression Act right now has been inappropriately used. The Maori Party has said that and continues to argue that—and so do the Greens. They have consistency not schizophrenia. 
The Minister then went on to say that this legislation brings with it a whole lot of historical baggage. Well I ask the Minister the following question. If 6 or 8 months or 2 years down the line when the current processes have been followed through and we have a decision out of the courts that is not in the police’s favour and we have a whole heap of political baggage attached to the Terrorism Suppression Act do I take it from what the Minister said that the Government will go back and repeal the Terrorism Suppression Act? Will it now have tagged to it a whole heap of political baggage? It does not make a lot of sense does it? 
How can one stand up in this House and argue the passage of highly controversial legislation aimed at protecting our democracy aimed at protecting our citizens and then come to the House within 1½ hours and argue that legislation that does exactly the same thing should be got rid of because it denies freedom of speech? Well hello—people are arguing and have always argued about this and I have to point to Mr Locke. He has always said the Terrorism Suppression Act denies freedom of speech. How can he argue that it should be repealed because it is not used? Well hello—we have only just been debating the Terrorism Suppression Act and currently at this point in time that legislation has not been used despite all the claims and all the hoo-ha out there. How can he come here and say we must repeal it because there is a lot of political baggage? Well excuse me—there is a whole heap of political baggage around the Terrorism Suppression Act right now. It seems to me that the two major parties share a lot in common and now it would appear that one of those things they share is schizophrenia. They have one thing to say on one day and completely the opposite thing to say on the same thing the next day—in this case within 1½ hours. 
A lot has been made of the need to protect freedom of speech and New Zealand First has been consistent. We will stand and defend people’s right to say what they are able to say no matter how stupid we think it is no matter how bizarre we think it is no matter how inappropriate we think it is—right up to the point—[ 
Interruption 
] Here we go hold on to the varnish again she is back. I can hear her somewhere around here. I ask members whether Sandra Goudie is in the House or whether that is the plaintive cry of one of those Wairarapa parrots that seem to be inhabiting my place lately—I cannot quite figure it out. But let us just be clear— 
Sandra Goudie 
: Back to this bill for instance. 
RON MARK 
: There it goes again. It is one thing to stand up to advocate freedom of speech and demand it whilst at the same time shutting down Brian Connell and kicking him out of the caucus for saying simply what was on his mind. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: That’s true! 
RON MARK 
: And the real gut-ripper the undies-tearer is that what he said was true! [ 
Interruption 
] I ask members whether it was true. Did he ask? In fact did he ask a question of the leader? Well Mr Assistant Speaker you want me to narrow my focus to the third reading. 
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am taking a point of order because I do not want to lose speech time. I see you waving the bill at me and indicating to me that I should narrow my debate. But am I not correct in saying that the third reading is an opportunity to canvas the entire debate that we had at all other stages and that where the debate was allowed to move in certain areas during the second reading and Committee stage so too should it be allowed to be dealt with in the third reading? Is that not true? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The third reading is a wrap-up of the debate. 
RON MARK 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I will continue. It is fine and we support people who advocate that this bill needs to be repealed because it impinges upon freedom of speech. But let us not have people coming into this House saying that that is what they stand for when they fired and got rid of one of the brightest stars to ever grace their political party—the Rt Hon Winston Peters. And there are others. Marilyn Waring—what did she do that was so bad that was so wrong? This party whose members now stand here and say they support the Government legislation on the main principle of ensuring freedom of speech is littered with the corpses of people who have been shot for daring to speak their minds. 
I ask members to think back. In fact my colleague Barbara Stewart was reminding me that when she was sitting over on that side of the House in the last term sitting beside her not in front of her was a former senior member of the National Government—Maurice Williamson. Why was he at the back? It was because he dared to speak the truth freely and openly on television. He criticised his leader and one is not allowed to do that in the National Party. 
New Zealand First has said that it objects to this law being passed because we do not believe that the response to repeal is an appropriate response and particularly not now. We believe that the other options that were put forward by the commission and that were ruled out by the commission and ruled out by the Government and the National Party were worth exploring further. Specifically we believe the focus should have been on an amendment to deal with it that would have zeroed in very tightly and narrowly on violence—and purely violence—and any challenge to lawful authority and the lawful institutions that underpin and actually give us our democracy. 
We have heard the arguments and we understand them that say that other legislation will cover these offences. But we actually believe that democracy is special that Parliament stands above that and that there are institutions that give us the democracy that we enjoy that underpin our society. Their value is far greater than having them treated just within common law within the Crimes Act or through other legislation as has been claimed. We are concerned that some of the historical examples that have been used have been misrepresented. Specifically we talk about the example used to justify the passing of this bill of Te Whiti o Rongomai and Tohu Kakahi being charged with sedition. Everybody seems to forget that the charges of sedition were dropped and never resumed and that they were imprisoned using other law. It is the very thing that people are saying that they want to happen now. 
My nana always used to say: “Be careful what you wish for you just might get it.” If what we are saying now is that we will use other laws then I am sure that is of no satisfaction to Te Whiti o Rongomai given what happened to him. I caution the Parliament and say that from New Zealand First’s perspective we would have supported an amendment but we certainly do not support the repeal at this time.