Mark Ron: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Mark Ron: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:12544] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 Is it not interesting that at a time when are debating an issue as important as this and not long after the parliamentary prayer when we agree to put aside all personal interests the only thing the National Party can do when it comes to discussing such key legislation as the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill is to talk about personal interest things such as how it will get money for its next campaign. That is about as hollow as the party has become and it truly is a sad reflection on what was once a great party led by my late local MP in Pahiatua Keith Jacka Holyoake. I lament that loss. 
The Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill is sadly one of those bills that seems to be lumped in the warm fuzzy basket of things we are going to hug. It has become legislation that could probably be described as fuzzy meaning nothing and “touchy-feely” and it is tragic to see parties such as the National Party and the ACT party support it. We need to take off the rose-tinted glasses and look at what the current legislation is in place for and at what it does and not get carried away by all the lefties in our midst who say it is outmoded and outdated and needs to be repealed. Right now at a time in our history when the police are engaged in operations such as they have been engaged in for the last week one would have thought that the National Party would pinch itself wake up and have a bit of a think about this legislation. 
Freedom of thought and speech are ultimate legal values. They are quite rightly described as part of the lifeblood of democracy and of political expression. Comment about the Government and Government policy usually enjoys the greatest protection and is often described as being at the core of the right. If the State does not permit the expression of opinions in a lawful framework however unpopular or objectionable those opinions may be then the State is empty of moral content and is perceived in terms of force alone. In New Zealand the importance of freedom of speech is recognised in section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act which provides that “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression including the freedom to seek receive and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.” 
It is indisputable that in order to have a fair and participatory democracy a wide degree of freedom of expression must be allowed. Even speech that promotes unpopular unreasonable distasteful or dangerous ideas must be allowed. As the Law Commission says “expressions should not be branded as criminal simply because they involve dissent and political opposition to the Government and authority.” Although our constitutional systems will not work if they are not respected and protected it is equally true that they will not work unless there is freedom of speech. Therefore respecting and protecting our constitutional systems and permitting free speech to the maximum extent possible are both necessary in order to ensure that the system works properly and that everyone is prepared and able to engage with it. 
However sometimes the right to freedom of expression comes into conflict with other principles. When that happens it is essential to bear in mind that the right to freedom of expression is not absolute. The National Party of all parties we would have thought should understand that. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act itself recognises that when it states in section 5 that there may be limits on rights as long as they are “reasonable” and “prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” Similarly the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which New Zealand has ratified provides that the right to freedom of expression can be limited if the limitations are “provided by law and are necessary: … For the protection of national security or of public order”. 
The first thing we need to think about when we look at the seditious offences is their central function. The central function of the seditious offences is to protect lawful authority. That includes the system of government the head of State the justice system the judiciary Parliament and its members and the institution of Parliament itself—in other words the seditious offences are designed to protect the institutions and processes of democracy and government. It seems that the National Party has forgotten that. Its members would rather make speeches about getting more money for the next election. Generally speaking seditious offences give that protection by making it illegal to incite or urge the use of violence. We have a Government over there that says that at the top of its law and order agenda is the curbing of violence but it wants to get rid of this legislation—provisions about violence or force being used against lawful authority; provisions about violence or the use of force against the principles of democracy. Why would anyone want to repeal laws that are there to give us that kind of protection? 
The second issue is that the seditious offences represent a common commitment to democratic institutions and lawful authority a respect for them and an appreciation of their importance. They do that by recognising that the urging of violence against lawful authority is a different type of crime from that of generally urging violence because of the importance of the authority that is threatened. Our constitutional system will not function unless we have a common commitment to it and unless we all accept the importance of the system and institutions. Repealing the seditious offences and leaving the constitutional system protected by only the general criminal law as the Law Commission has recommended implies that constitutional systems and institutions are nothing special and do not deserve any extra protection or recognition. In short it devalues democracy. It devalues the very freedoms that Nicky Wagner has just been saying she wants. 
Well I am sorry but New Zealand First says that such a devaluation is not just a theoretical or abstract problem; it fosters an attitude that democratic processes and institutions of government are optional or even irrelevant which is likely to lead to them being bypassed. If that attitude were to become widespread it would undermine our constitutional system. The democratic system functions well only if everybody respects it everybody engages in it and everybody agrees not to bypass it and pursue change and power through other means. Once that system has begun to be undermined it becomes more likely that people who want to achieve change and power will resort to other means instead of taking part in the democratic process. In other words there is a risk of a downward spiral. 
One would have thought with the unfolding of events right now that people’s minds would have focused on that. But oh no the National Party and its hollow men—and women—focus only on money. I urge them to wake up and to rethink their commitment to the constitutional values this country seeks to uphold—to democracy to its special nature and to its need for special protection. Let us not fool ourselves: the central function of the seditious offences legislation is to protect lawful authority. Taking away that protection devalues lawful authority and therefore our constitutional system. Democracy also requires the broadest possible range of free speech. The only speech that should be prohibited is speech that intentionally urges violence against lawful authority and that creates an immediate direct danger of that violence. We have just had a wake-up call and whatever unfolds as the police progress their case and the justice system works through the happenings in our country right now we need to rethink. 
New Zealand First urges the Government to park this legislation put it to one side give us a chance to see how the law and the general criminal laws do and do not work whilst we face the current situation and rethink. The laws of sedition were put there by our forefathers our forebears and our grandparents for a purpose. They have value. New Zealand First supports them. We will oppose this bill.