Finlayson Christopher: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Finlayson Christopher: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 October 2007. Volume:643;Page:12696. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I have only a few brief comments to make about the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill. I too very much enjoyed the opportunity to look at this legislation—legislation that for most lawyers is looked at in law school then is never gone near again. But it was a very interesting exercise as the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee said to receive a limited number of submissions from interested parties to reflect on those submissions to read the Law Commission’s report and to send this bill back to Parliament for a full debate in the Committee of the whole House. 
As the National Party spokesperson Dr Worth said National supports this legislation. It is timely for a repeal of the offences related to sedition. I do not intend in the course of this speech to spend any time analysing those parts of the Crimes Act that are to be repealed; I covered those aspects in my second reading speech and in the Committee debate we had last night. Rather I want to confine my comments as follows. 
In the United States Congress when members of the Senate or the House of Representatives sponsor legislation sometimes as an honour to them the legislation is named after them. So for example a former Democratic senator from Maryland Senator Paul Sarbanes and a United States Congressman by the name of Oxley sponsored securities enforcement legislation that is now well known throughout the world as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. 
I think that if we were to accord names to this legislation then it could be called the “Locke-Hide Bill” because those two members from smaller parties are responsible for running with the idea that sedition is a crime whose time has now passed in New Zealand. They worked very effectively in this MMP Parliament to persuade the Government to ask the Law Commission to look at this issue and then sponsor legislation. I repeat what I said in the Committee on the bill last night in congratulating Mr Locke on his passion for human rights and on his dedication to the cause of reforming the law of sedition. I also repeat what I said last night in hoping he applies that same zeal for freedom of speech and for fundamental human rights to the vile Electoral Finance Bill which this Government is sponsoring aided and abetted by some parties that should know better. 
I also congratulate Mr Hide on the work he did with Mr Locke to ensure the passage of this legislation and on the hugely significant speeches he has made in this Chamber on the subject of sedition. His second reading speech on this issue is far and away the most impressive contribution that I have heard for some time. Certainly it would far exceed anything the Minister of Foreign Affairs would ever contribute. I suggest that instead of wittering away like an oaf he should listen very carefully to what is being said in the course of this third reading speech because important issues are raised by this bill. 
Sedition is a crime that was used from time to time in the 20th century. Various speakers including me in both my first and second reading speeches and the Minister in the Committee stage outlined some of the historical charges that have been brought against New Zealanders. There was the very sad case of Te Whiti there was Bishop Liston in Auckland and we heard mention of various Labour party politicians including the late Walter Nash over the years. 
Then nothing was done for many many years—for at least 42 years after the Crimes Act 1961 was introduced—until the legislation was used in the infamous case of Mr Selwyn who hiffed an axe through the front window of the Prime Minister’s Mount Albert office. Then there was another attempt to use it in Dunedin in respect of some students who were burning couches. Clearly when one looks at the legislative history and at the number of prosecutions that have been brought over the years one sees that sedition is an offence that has not been used very much at all and that the rationale for its existence has been called into question. 
The most powerful argument that was raised against repeal was raised by Mr Mark and I acknowledge his very careful and considered speeches on this issue. I know that the New Zealand First Party was initially in favour of repeal but in light of recent events has changed its mind. Mr Mark’s speech last night was a very considered one. He raised the issue of whether in light of the events of recent times it would be better to keep the offences on the statute book in order to determine whether there is a rationale for them. 
I reflected long and hard on what he said but I think that when one looks at other legislative mechanisms available to the executive one sees that they address more effectively the kinds of issues he raised than the sedition legislation does. I refer particularly to the Terrorism Suppression Act which was passed in the aftermath of the dreadful incident in New York in September 2001. Although I am not on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee I understand that the committee has been looking at that legislation again recently. So although I note Mr Mark’s concerns I think that Parliament need not be too troubled by those concerns and that the legislation can safely be repealed. 
I too join with the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee in congratulating the members who have worked so hard on this particular issue; the Law Commission which once again has shown what good work it can do for the State and has produced a very important report—a very interesting historical report—at reasonably short notice; the officials of the Ministry of Justice who have brought together this legislation; and all those who have made submissions to the select committee. Whether we accept their views is almost beside the point because important constitutional and criminal law issues were raised and they all made a contribution. 
At the end of the day this is very simple legislation comprising only two parts. As Dr Worth said the effect of it is that the definition of sedition in the Crimes Act goes the particular seditious acts that are covered in the Crimes Act go and there are some small consequential amendments to the District Courts Act. 
In conclusion it is an idea whose time has come. Sedition has never been a particularly good servant of the criminal law particularly in the 19th and early 20th century when it was used as an instrument of oppression. As I said there are much better legislative devices for dealing with some of the issues that can be raised by sedition. It is for that reason that the National Party having reflected on the Law Commission’s report and having noted very carefully the submissions of those who came before the Justice and Electoral Committee has concluded that this legislation is timely and should be supported.