Fairbrother Russell: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Fairbrother Russell: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 October 2007. Volume:643;Page:12710. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 I want to pick up on the challenge laid down by the Rt Hon Winston Peters in his speech tonight. He put to the House—and perhaps to the nation—the question of whether we will feel safer if the law of sedition is repealed tonight. Of course we will not feel unsafe if it is repealed tonight because the law of sedition does not accompany acts of violence or threats to property; the law of sedition concerns the offence of words said. It was described best perhaps by one of the submitters to the Justice and Electoral Committee the Maxim Institute which was reported to be the lone voice in support of sedition laws. On 16 August a person from the Maxim Institute said that to remove the law of sedition would be against democratic principles because it would erode the sense of respect that people hold for authority and may then lead to a lack of engagement with democracy which is a danger to democracy itself. So the Maxim Institute was saying that the law of sedition should remain because its removal may undermine the respect people have for our democratic process. 
What the Maxim Institute forgot—and what the Rt Hon Winston Peters forgot when he criticised Sir Geoffrey Palmer who during his time as Minister of Justice and Prime Minister failed to remove the law of sedition—is that in 1990 or just before Sir Geoffrey Palmer ushered in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 which in section 14 decreed that everyone is entitled to express their views on any matter and that free speech is a fundamental right in New Zealand. No one has criticised that tonight. If free speech is a fundamental right then one cannot have the present law of sedition that is contained in our Crimes Act. 
In contrast to the Maxim Institute we had a comment at about the same time from The Republican Movement of Aotearoa New Zealand which is a movement that has much going for it. It pointed out that the monarchists on the other side of the fence believe that if anyone questioned whether Prince Charles should become the King of New Zealand then he or she could possibly be committing a seditious offence. Clearly if that is the ludicrous level that the present crime has reached then it should be removed. 
More seriously than that we must also pick up on the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ comment that people in this debate have referred to other crimes or offences that make otiose the requirement to have the law of sedition in the Crimes Act. As that challenge has been laid down and as it has been suggested that no one had dared to enumerate or identify the offences I want to take the time of the House to put on the record what other offences could be included. First of all we have in our Crimes Act the crime of conspiracy. Conspiracy is when two or more people reach an agreement to commit another offence. 
Ron Mark 
: When was it last used? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: It is used frequently in drug trials particularly. It was probably used this year and as recently as last month. 
Conspiracy is when two or more people agree to commit an offence. It is the act of the agreement that is the crime but accompanying that is the agreement to commit a further offence. 
The crime of incitement is defined in section 311 of the Crimes Act. It states that everyone who incites counsels or attempts to procure any person to commit an offence is himself or herself committing an offence. In respect of the crime of incitement one does not oneself need to cause violence or property damage but one does need to set about encouraging others to commit a crime. The statement of encouragement to commit a crime is the act of incitement. 
Other relevant offences include treason which is still in the Crimes Act. That is surely another matter we should be looking at more closely. There is unlawful assembly. That is an interesting offence. It is a gathering of three or more people who have a common purpose to carry out conduct that is unlawful or to conduct themselves in a way that will cause disorder. Three or more people who act in a way that will cause disorder or is likely to cause disorder are responsible for the crime of unlawful assembly. Disorder does not need to occur and another crime does not need to occur but conducting oneself in a way that is likely to lead to disorder or is intended to carry out a crime is the offence of unlawful assembly. 
Also contained in the Crimes Act is the offence of rioting. A riot as defined in section 87 is a group of six or more people acting together and using violence against people or property. Every member of a riot is liable to imprisonment for up to 2 years. Another part of the Act deals with threatening to commit specific offences. Again that deals with a statement but the purpose behind the statement is to encourage others to commit offences. Then of course under the Summary Offences Act we have the offences of disorderly behaviour and offensive behaviour and under the Human Rights Act we have inducing racial disharmony and other similar offences. 
Ron Mark in speaking against this bill made extensive reference to the Terrorism Suppression Act and to its amending bill which had its second reading earlier today. I want to dwell on that for a few minutes. In his speech Mr Mark harked back to the events of last week and said that today of all days is the worst time to be removing the law of sedition. In fact I think today is one of the more appropriate times to be removing the law of sedition because one of the underlying issues in this country is the issue of Maori sovereignty. 
Sovereignty is not an issue that is unique to New Zealand. It is an issue that exists in countries around the world and on the international stage. We see the Kurds for example advocating their own degree of sovereignty. The argument for Maori sovereignty is a deep-seated and sincerely held argument and one with considerable merit. But for us to move to the stage of giving true expression to that in a constitutional sense requires vigorous debate challenging present authority and our concept of democracy and trying to understand how concepts of Maori sovereignty would be embedded into our constitutional principles. That can be achieved only by vigorous debate with excitement overstatement rhetoric and making clear the commitment to one’s cause. We have heard mentioned in earlier speeches today some of the radicals who are committed to Maori sovereignty and some of the members of this House who also hold that view. Of course there are valid arguments to support that developing concept. I say “developing” because although it is certainly a well-known concept many members of the public are unwarrantedly afraid of it. 
The Terrorism Suppression Act is not about repressing arguments in favour of Maori sovereignty; the Terrorism Suppression Act relates to acts of terrorism. Section 5 defines what terrorism is. There are three requirements: first the acts must be designed to create terror—the dictionary defines terror as real panic—second there must be a desired outcome; and third that outcome must be one that is specified in section 5 and that includes death damage to significant buildings or other infrastructure damage. Making inflammatory statements is not an offence under the Terrorism Suppression Act. Making inflammatory statements designed to bring about an outcome defined in section 5 of the Terrorism Suppression Act is an offence under the Act. 
That is the difference between the law of sedition as it presently stands—and by the end of the day it will have been removed from our statute book—and the Terrorism Suppression Act. One Act deals with the mere words—we are censoring people’s thoughts and the articulation of those thoughts and we might think back to the Springbok Tour. One can imagine many occasions in 1981 when the present law would have been applied if those in authority had not exercised common sense and restraint. 
The law of sedition is entirely about rhetoric overstatement and challenging authority. The Terrorism Suppression Act and the offences outlined in the Crimes Act the Human Rights Act and the Summary Offences Act—to name a few—are about encouraging dissent through the vehicle of violence through challenges to personal safety or at its lowest level through challenges to public disorder. The Terrorism Suppression Act of course is at the high end of that in that it threatens the welfare of the democratic State of New Zealand not by oral challenge but by physical confrontation—either death or damage to significant infrastructure or property. 
 So this bill is not about people feeling unsafe in their beds. It is not a challenge to the safety of anybody at all. It may in fact enable people in this country to move toward a greater agreement on some of the deep-seated dividing issues in New Zealand as we prepare and state our case on either side of for example the Maori sovereignty issue and find an ultimate resolution because the case is argued strongly colourfully and clearly. It is time that this bill passed and the sedition laws were repealed in this country.