Auchinvole Chris: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Auchinvole Chris: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:12590] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 I thank my colleague Mr Worth for the perceptive and kind remarks he made during his speech about the presence of myself and Mr Finlayson on the Justice and Electoral Committee. It is a select committee that is a pleasure to be part of not so much for the way it is managed but more for the opportunity it gives to discuss very interesting content that is of great moment to solicitors and legislators but also is particularly important to ordinary people. When it comes to ordinary people one does not get much more ordinary than myself. 
The Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill has its origins right back in the early litigious period of history in England the period of Henry VIII and his daughter Elizabeth I— the Shakespearean period. It was a period of intrusiveness by the Government into the private life of citizens—the like of which we had not seen until the present Labour Government someone suggested to me. 
I was interested in the speech from New Zealand First. The difficulty I have with the comments made by Ron Mark is that if we simply have a pause before we remove legislation we would still have crimes like elopement with an adulterer or the taking of a nun. Those laws from the Edward I period were not removed from the Crimes Act until the 1960s. We would still have the civil rights of convicts law of 1828 from the period of George IV. All those things would still be there. When we have legislation that is serving no great moment I think it is a good use of the House’s time—even though Labour clearly has a problem with its legislative programme and is searching for things to do—to remove clearly redundant legislation. 
But is this law clearly redundant? The New Zealand law on seditious offences is set out in sections 81 to 85 of the Crimes Act 1961—the same Crimes Act that cleaned up this business I mentioned earlier of eloping with an adulterer. The main offences are making or publishing a statement that expresses a seditious intention or conspiring with a seditious intention. Section 81(1) states: “A seditious intention is an intention—(a) To bring hatred or contempt … against Her Majesty or the Government of New Zealand or the administration of justice; or (b) To incite the public … to attempt to procure otherwise than by lawful means the alteration of any matter affecting the Constitution laws or Government of New Zealand; or (c) To incite … or encourage violence lawlessness or disorder; or (d) To incite … or encourage the commission of any offence that is prejudicial to the public safety or to the maintenance of public order; or (e) To excite hostility or ill will between difference classes of persons as may endanger the public safety.” 
Prosecution for sedition as has been mentioned by other speakers was extremely rare in the second half of the 20th century. The last recorded successful prosecution seems to have been in 1942 when the Rev. Ormond Burton published an anti-war poem. 
I will give reasons why the current law is undesirable. The parameters of the offences are extremely wide. All the offences rely on establishing a seditious intention. As can be seen from what constitutes “seditious intention” the current definition covers a wide range of types of activities and also applies at a very low and very uncertain threshold. I know that earlier speakers have addressed this question and I do not doubt that subsequent speakers will do so. It is a sort of catch-all job. Someone suggested to me that it is a case of if we cannot get someone on anything else we get him or her on sedition and that is not really justice is it? It is a form of law enforcement. 
Ron Mark 
: You still have to prove it. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Yes of course. But the fact that one still has to prove it does not make it reasonable to drag people through the courts simply on a whim. That is not justice and I am sure the member realises that. 
The latter point is particularly troubling as merely encouraging these types of activities is deemed criminal under the current definition. I am put in mind of the policeman who used to say: “We know you did it we saw you do it and your mother said you did.” One does not have any defence and it is much the same with this thing. The overall breadth and uncertainty make for very dangerous law. In particular criminal law should be clear; otherwise individuals cannot modify their conduct to ensure they stay within the bounds of the law. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker.