Chauvel Charles: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Chauvel Charles: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:12548] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 As a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee I am pleased to follow my friend and colleague in the law and in the Labour caucus Russell Fairbrother to speak in the second reading debate of the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill—not the “Seditious Officers Bill” as Ms Wagner seemed to think it was called. 
This bill is the latest in a long series of Law Commission recommendations to be progressed through the legislative process by this Government. I did a count while I was considering what remarks I might make today. As far as I can tell it is the 14th report to be progressed by this Government legislatively or on the basis of publicly announced executive consideration. 
The 20th anniversary of the Law Commission conference last year drew to the attention of politicians the academic world and the public the somewhat unfortunate logjam that had built up in New Zealand—as it has built up in the United Kingdom and Australia—of unimplemented Law Commission reports. In case members are interested the other 13 reports the Law Commission has put up to the Government that are either under active consideration or likely to be implemented legislatively relate to access to court records; Waka Umanga; the Limitation Act; minority buy-outs; costs in criminal cases; problems in the law of trusts; wills; succession homicide; arbitration amendment; property law; damages; interest on money claims; sentencing guidelines and parole reform; and customs. 
As I pointed out in previous remarks to the House this month on other bills being progressed as a result of Law Commission recommendations this is a remarkable record of progress on the part of the Minister responsible for the Law Commission the Hon Mark Burton. I would just like to record my appreciation of the Minister’s vigorous record of progressing Law Commission reports. It is an unparalleled record in our history. The dispassionate consideration and implementation of these reports in my view is an important aspect of the practical observance of the rule of law. I just repeat my commendation of the Government’s record on this score. 
It is interesting to note that the progress of this bill represents one of the swiftest examples to date of the implementation of a Law Commission report. The commission formulated its terms of reference under section 16 of the Law Commission Act on 16 October 2006 and its report was transmitted to the Minister just some 4 months later on 12 March 2007. The bill was introduced just under a further 3 months later on 8 June 2007. It was read a first time on 19 June and referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee where submissions were heard and a report back to the House produced on 24 August. 
It is now my hope that in future we will see similar expeditious progress on uncontroversial Law Commission recommendations under the procedures for dealing with Law Commission reports that were announced by the Prime Minister on 24 July at an event to mark the publication of the 20th anniversary papers to which I referred in more detail in previous remarks. 
It is good to note from previous speeches by members that there does appear generally to be multiparty support for the repeal of this archaic legislation although I note with concern Mr Mark’s apparent withdrawal of support for the legislation. Notwithstanding Nicky Wagner’s speech against the bill I am encouraged that it appears that the National Party still supports its repeal. 
In my respectful view though it is a shame that there has been some pettiness and inaccuracy in some of the contributions made on this legislation in the House. I would like to deal with one or two of those contributions. The first is a matter that deals with evidence that came before the Justice and Electoral Committee—specifically that of the New Zealand Police. In total we heard from five of the 17 submitters who made submissions before the committee. Of those five oral submitters only two did not favour the bill in its present form. We asked to hear from the New Zealand Police on its use in practice of sections 81 to 85 of the principal Act. The police came before us and gave very fulsome evidence—in my view—on the sections in question. 
They said the sections were very rarely relied upon in practice and as a consequence because of the rarity of their use there are no specific guidelines on their application. That really helped—certainly in my mind and I think in the minds of others on the committee—to confirm that the Law Commission was absolutely correct to recommend the repeal of those sections. These comments might help Mr Mark because as the Law Commission report points out all the elements of the applicable law in respect of the sedition offences clearly are able to be covered by other offences that will and do remain on the statute book. 
In my view there is an unhealthy trend as Mr Fairbrother said in New Zealand politics for some politicians to suggest that there is some political motivation on the part of the police in their decisions in individual cases as to whether to bring prosecutions. I know that this is an absolutely despicable and untrue allegation. I asked the police when they came before the select committee to confirm that they act in decisions to prosecute in respect of sedition as they do in respect of all other matters—with complete political independence. I am very glad to note that the committee recorded that evidence in its report. The House should note it for the record as well. Politicians who bandy about suggestions to the contrary should be ashamed of themselves. In making that suggestion for short-term political gain they denigrate the integrity of the New Zealand Police and the excellent work it does and whether or not they realise it they also denigrate themselves in this House. 
The second matter I want to speak on in this debate is the linkage that has been made in the minds of some between this legislation and the matter of certain arrests that have occurred this week. We have already heard some discussion of that imagined link in the debate today. In reality there is no link between the two matters. We know from public statements by the Commissioner of Police on the one hand and by Ministers on the other that the police are acting as they always do on the basis of evidence they believe is sound. 
Under certain circumstances in respect of those arrests the Solicitor-General will also need to be satisfied that evidence is sound if charges are to be laid under the Terrorism Suppression Act which Mr Fairbrother adverted to. But in either case the courts will make the final decision. It is not and never should be for members of this House whether in the Chamber in press statements or on  
Morning Report 
 to start thinking they can decide what the actual facts are. 
In my view it will be seen in due course what evidence the police have and what the courts make of that evidence; members should not be rushing to any form of judgment. If there are concerns about the way in which the police have conducted themselves then of course members of the public will have the ability to have recourse to the Police Complaints Authority. The processes for that are well-laid-out. 
New Zealand stands for the right to peaceful protest and the repeal of this legislation is confirmation of that. Indeed as Mr Fairbrother pointed out many within Labour have engaged in peaceful protest in the past and it is quite right that such activity should not be punishable by the law. As Mr Fairbrother said the Terrorism Suppression Act is quite specific about that matter. But in respect of the events of this week as with arrests and potential prosecution under this or other legislation members should surely refrain from making extravagant comments in order to avoid potential embarrassment in the future. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker.