Pillay Lynne: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Pillay Lynne: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 October 2007. Volume:643;Page:12694. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand and speak again on the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill this time in the third reading. At this stage firstly I would like to thank the Law Commission— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The last thing I want to do is interrupt this speech— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It has only just started. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I know and the last thing I want to do is interrupt it. I know there are rules Mr Assistant Speaker by which you choose whom the next speaker will be but if you are going to have all “for” and none “against” then the rules somewhat change. As you well know from the previous speeches the National Party in its inimitable style goes along with the Government as it does on most issues and is for the bill. The Government is proposing the bill and it is for it too. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Peters. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No no. You have missed my point. There is a party here that is against the bill. In the interests of parliamentary debate can we hear the other side as soon as possible after the start of the debate not at the end? That is why we have had this adjustment in the rules and I am just reminding you of it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for his point of order. If he wishes to raise something like that then it should be done through the proper channels. All I can say is that this is a Government bill and that the rules of debate have been established for some time—since the start of this Parliament. The honourable members will have an opportunity to debate the issue. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know when the rules of this Parliament were set and how many times they have been changed. Where there is a need for a debate not just repetition of one side of the argument the order of the call as called surely should be changed and that has been recognised in the past by Speakers. It is time in this debate we heard from the other side. You have heard two “for”; how about one “against”? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just say to Mr Peters that I have already called the member to speak and under Speaker’s ruling 24/5 she has the call. I cannot take it back. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I am sorry to cause so much concern to the member and I look forward to hearing the debate. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: We’re all looking forward to hearing from him. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Yes indeed. Meanwhile the debate might seem a little repetitive but I am standing to speak in support of the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill at the third and final reading. 
As I started to say I think it is very important to acknowledge the Law Commission’s work. Its consultation document on reforming the law was produced in October 2006. Then the report which advocated repeal was published in March 2007. The bill is now before the House for its third reading. I think that is very efficient and probably indicates except for one or two parties pretty widespread support for this bill in the House. 
I would like to talk very briefly about the select committee process. The Justice and Electoral Committee received 17 submissions from groups and a variety of individuals and heard five submissions. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: 17. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Yes 17. Only two submitters opposed the bill. The committee did take those points into consideration but in the end all members agreed that the bill should progress without amendment. 
I also want to acknowledge the submission made by the New Zealand Police. We listened very carefully to the evidence particularly about sections 81 to 85 of the Crimes Act. The police advised that these sections had very rarely been relied on by police officers that in bringing charges they were quite confident that there were other means to address the crimes and that there were no specific guidelines for officers on the application of those sections. That indicated that the sedition laws are not in the mainstream of charges—if I can use that term—that police officers consider when they are looking to prosecute. 
It was good to receive a unanimous report from the committee that the bill should progress unamended. We have some important work before the select committee at the moment and I hope that we are able to have a meeting of the minds on that legislation but we will have to wait and see. I also think Dr Worth spoke very articulately about cases of sedition and about having perhaps a more common-sense approach to cases that may have previously fallen and may currently fall under seditious offences but would easily be covered by a number of other charges. 
If we ask ourselves and I know that I have done so in previous speeches whether repealing the offences of sedition leave gaps in the law I think the majority of this House agrees there will not be gaps left in the law. Incitement and conspiracy like sedition can be either thought or intention crimes. One can be found guilty of incitement of an offence even if the offence one was inciting was not actually committed. Additionally if the inciting leads to the commission of an offence then the inciter could be prosecuted as a party to the offending under section 66 of the Crimes Act. 
Dr Worth mentioned offences that are particularly relevant to sedition: treason riot unlawful assembly criminal nuisance offences under the Summary Offences Act and inciting racial disharmony which is an offence under the Human Rights Act 1993. The fact that a victim of an offence was targeted because he or she was part of a particular group—such as race colour nationality or religion—can be taken into account at sentencing as an aggravating factor under the Sentencing Act 2002. The offender may therefore be subject to a higher sentence if it can be shown that the person incited the offence because of his or her attitude towards the victim’s race nationality or religion. Thus behaviour covered by the sedition laws that still needs to be criminalised can be more appropriately dealt with by other provisions of the criminal law. Like the majority of the members in the House who support this bill I cannot think of an instance where the lack of a sedition charge would result in justice not being served. Quite clearly there are other means and other ways of dealing with those misdemeanours 
I have said before that the heart of the case lies in the protection of freedom of expression and in particular in this day and age of political expression and its place in our democracy. We can all feel very proud to live in a country where democracy is celebrated and where people may hold dissenting views. [ 
Interruption 
] 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I cannot quite hear what the member Sandra Goudie is saying but I am sure the member’s comments would like sedition be considered unpopular and unreasonable by most people. However such expressions— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: That’s just within her own caucus. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: The member may well be right. Such expressions should not be branded as criminal simply because they involve political opposition or a political statement. [ 
Interruption 
] 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Yet again I cannot quite hear what the member is saying— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Unintelligible. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: It is unintelligible. I am sure we could not envisage a day or an age where something a member says in this House—no matter how offensive or silly—would be ruled unlawful. I think that applies to sedition as well. 
This bill certainly did not spend a huge amount of time in the select committee process but members of the Justice and Electoral Committee can put their hands on their hearts and say that everybody who wanted to be heard was heard and that all submissions were considered very carefully which is a very important part of the select committee process. I am very pleased to commend the bill to the House at its third reading.