Peters Winston: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Peters Winston: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 October 2007. Volume:643;Page:12705. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Advocating a vote for the ACT party is not sedition; it is just plain stupid and senseless. I ask members to consider this: “If the Government tried that sort of [expletive deleted] here the people up north wouldn’t take it. The boys would be out on the streets with guns and I’d be with them.” That was said recently by a New Zealand member of Parliament. I ask members to also consider these words: “When I first saw the planes fly into the towers I jumped for joy. I was so happy that at long last capitalism was under attack”. That was said by Annette Sykes a person who is tonight being quoted as someone being wronged by the laws of this country in respect of 9/11. 
I want to make it very clear that this country has become terribly naive when it comes to security and protecting its citizens and that is what the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill we are talking about tonight is all about. All sorts of weak-kneed decisions have led to this country having very bad border control. The warnings on our airplanes are so kind as to be of no concern to anyone seeking some nefarious purpose that will threaten the biological security of New Zealand let alone anything else. 
Then there is the question of medical clearances. Who was it that let out hundreds and hundreds of people already suspected of having tuberculosis because it was said they had been confined too long and they needed to be with their families? In Auckland today one can see whole wards paid for by the taxpayer filled with tuberculosis victims all of whom were not born here but were brought in and never properly supervised on the way through. The response from the authorities in New Zealand is to hide the truth from the people because in other countries it would be the cause of a full-scale inquiry and people being fired. Here there is nothing. I can tell members right now that Aids is increasing in New Zealand and its increase can be measured precisely with transient worker movements around New Zealand. That is how precise it is. Why do we not hear from the authorities? Because someone would be responsible for that. In New Zealand no one has to be responsible and that is why we have the kind of soft lily-livered discussion that has characterised the debate in the last 2 days. All sorts of people have been standing up majestically talking about freedom and liberty who by their past actions understand nothing about it whatsoever. Who checks the documentation from all sorts of sources of those coming to this country? In the main the answer is no one at all. 
I am told that the Law Commission says we should do this measure so we will do it. Well who heads the Law Commission? Sir Geoffrey Palmer who is a very esteemed former parliamentarian. But Sir Geoffrey is a former MP a former Minister of Justice a former Deputy Prime Minister and a former Prime Minister and in all the time he was here he was not moved to do this. What has changed since 1979 and 1990 and now? Actually the circumstances internationally are worse. The concern regarding terrorism is far worse than it ever was back then. 
I see these sorts of phrases in the explanatory note of the bill: “[sedition] can be more appropriately dealt with by other provisions of the criminal law.” Which ones? Have members heard? Not in tonight’s or yesterday’s debates. It states so blandly: “more appropriately dealt with by other provisions of the criminal law.” This is the marvellous sort of legalese that so many people repeat in this House. Let me ask members this: which areas of the criminal law? Were members told? No. Apparently members are going to vote for this without knowing. I ask members to consider this phrase: “the present law invades the democratic value of free speech for no adequate public reason:”. Is that true? How? Were members told how it does that? No. Apparently members are going to vote for it even though they do not know. 
This is meant to be a debating chamber where sometimes things should be seen beyond the political divide and for their merit because they may have some legal historic or present substance. I believe that this law has present substance—more present now since 9/11 and the events since—than it had in any past period in this country’s history. I know that some people were wrongfully prosecuted but some members decided tonight that we never prosecuted under that law. So why are those examples part of the reason being used? In short it becomes a straw man. For example inciting racial disharmony is not really the core of the sedition legislation. Sedition is about the promoting of rebellion and anarchic acts that have nothing to do with democracy or a vote but rather to supersede the will of the people— 
Ron Mark 
: Like the Russian Revolution. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Like the Russian Revolution as was recited tonight. It has been 90 years since the Russian Revolution. What a breakout of freedom that was! I cannot believe that that was used as an example tonight. Did a glowing plinth of freedom not waft across the world as a consequence of that! 
Let me ask members this question: why would one repeal these offences when there is every reason to believe if one listens to certain radio stations that in New Zealand today sedition is more of a concern than it has ever been? I know of radio stations receiving all sorts of calls cheering on Osama bin Laden whenever he gives a warning to the West about what is going to happen next. The radio stations hum with approval condonation and acceptance of it. There are some naive people in this Parliament if they do not know that. Maybe they should get out on the streets and find out a bit more about what is going on in their own country because it is going on in this country. If members do not believe that what makes us so exempt from the circumstances of certain activities in Britain France and other parts of the world? Those countries are known to be as strong believers in the rule of law and freedom as we are but their circumstances have led them to believe certain things and they are not just suspicions; they are based on detailed investigation and fact. What would make New Zealand in 2007 exempt from that? Nothing. 
The point that Ron Mark made on behalf of New Zealand First is simply this: members now will have suppression laws that set the stakes very very high when it comes to reasons of proof and causality in a court case. Members may well find themselves missing or failing to sheet the charge home when a charge of sedition would have been more appropriate. Alas because this Parliament has been swooned into thinking that that charge is no longer required it will abolish it. Well who was the last person charged with necrophilia in this country? 
Rodney Hide 
: Couldn’t tell you. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Then we had better get out there and repeal it. It was not Rodney. Members could imagine it would be Rodney by the look of him—his eyes are too close together. Rodney is a nice guy and he would not think of that but I know people who would suspect him of it. When was the last time someone was charged with necrophilia and is that really cause reason or logic to say: “Well we’ll repeal the law because of it.”? Sometimes things on the statute book are to prevent people from even conceiving of committing those offences. 
But the point I come back to is this: would we as a country feel safer having repealed this law? Not 12 lovely sentimental feelings but one hard fact is what parliamentarians should be governed by; not a whole lot of sentiments and applause from outside from a certain lot of people who are not committed to or charged with the security of this nation but rather one hard fact in respect of what happens inside the Parliament of this country and the Government. 
I have just given members a whole lot of explanations of how weak-kneed liberal wrong-headed decisions have got this country into severe trouble. On medical security border security and questions as simple as Aids which we have sought to confront for over two decades now—and all in the main by way of increase imported. And today we have imported some further liberal lily-livered stupidity.