Turia Tariana: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTuria Tariana: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 10 October 2007. Volume:642;Page:12283. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party):Tēnā koeTēnātātou katoa. In November 2005 a group described as “concerned Pakeha” claimed responsibility for an attack on the Prime Minister’sSandringham Road electorate office. Flyers were found circulated around Ponsonby Road that stated what the attack was a protest against—and I want to quote from that text entitledConfiscation Day.“This morning concerned Pakeha vented their anger and disgust at the Government’s attempts to steal by confiscation Maori land in the form of the Seabed and Foreshore Bill that is currently being disgracefully rammed through Parliament as part of a desperate back-room deal. By attacking the electorate office of the chief instigator the Prime Minister—who is due to abandon the mess she created by fleeing the country—we signal that a threshold has been crossed. The broken glass symbolises the broken faith broken trust and shattered justice; our axe symbolises the steadfastness of our determination.The ruthless Prime Minister will leave behind a vindictive law that will haunt this nation should the MPs be mad enough to pass it. Maori MPs complicit in this farce will never live down their betrayal. If this is destined to be Confiscation Day then we have marked it. We call upon all like-minded New Zealanders to take similar actions of their own to send a clear message that such a gross blatantly racist injustice to the Maori people will never be accepted.Ake!Ake!Ake”.Well unfortunately we did not have many like-minded New Zealanders in this House. A month later Tim Selwyn was arrested and charged with making a seditious statement seditious conspiracy and conspiracy to commit criminal damage.I have taken the time to share the statement of these “concerned Pakeha” because it raised in my mind the vital issues at the essence of this bill: what is the nature of justice the injustice and the criminal offending that we are debating here tonight? Is it the call for peaceful resistance? Is it the concept of civil disobedience? Is it the suppression of political expression? Or is the real crime that of a desperate Government a universally unpopular bill and the tragic consequences of “Confiscation Day”? The seditious statement of Tim Selwyn in calling for “all like-minded New Zealanders” to vent their anger in disgust has eerie similarities with another challenge made to another Labour Government decades ago. The statement to the Labour Party came with conditions thatthe Treaty should be embodied in statute there should be protection from sale of our lands no more land confiscation and compensation for stolen land. That statement came fromTahupōtikiWīremuRātana and it arose in the context of negotiations with Michael Joseph Savage in 1936. In his negotiations with SavageRātana placed four objects on the table: a potato a gold watch a greenstonetiki and ahūia feather. He explained the potato was the ordinaryMāori needing his land because “a potato cannot grow without soil.” The watch which was broken represented the broken machinery ofMāori land law. Thetiki representedMāori mana and thehūia feather was a sign of chieftainship which Savage could wear if he were to take on the resolution of these issues so important to theMāori.Over 70 years later manyRātana supporters have asked whether indeed it is timely once again to bring these four objects—if Labour can find them—out on the table and to assess whether the advancement of the people has occurred as anticipated so many years ago. This is the lesson of history that this archaic and outmoded legislation reminds us of. Whether it be the broken glass of the window or the broken glass of the watch the core component remains—the broken faith broken trust and shattered justice. One has only to look at the comments of the public submissions to see ample evidence of the way in which the restrictions on freedom of expression have led to broken trust.MalcolmHarbrow drew on the judgments of Sir Kenneth Keith in concluding that strict interpretation of the law could outlaw in effect all political dissent and we have heard some examples tonight from Mr Hide. Sir Keith had argued that the law could be used to target peaceful protest or those advocating civil disobedience including those whose political opinions were outside the mainstream. Another submitter Ashley Clarkson summarised the concerns of the 17 submissions. He stated: “The crime of sedition is an archaic law which is clearly incompatible with the right to freedom of expression. The right to freedom of expression in a democratic society should not be limited in any reasonable way particularly not in such a way as to suppress legitimate dissent against the actions and policies of the Government of the day.”It is of course highly fitting that as we debate this bill tonight we remember that 40 years ago in the south-eastern Bolivian scrubland the Cuban revolutionary Che Guevara was executed. Che Guevara rebelled against the onslaught of poverty oppression and disenfranchisement throughout Latin America. He stood up and he spoke out; he acted for the people. Indeed his life serves as a reminder of the value of robust uninhibited and open debate—as we would expect in a healthy democracy.When we joined with the Greens United Future and ACT—and I thank members of those parties for that—to appeal to the Government to scrap these outdated archaic laws it was the principle of the freedom of expression that motivated our actions. It was the call for justice that has been provoked by more than a century of previous prosecutions that act against this principle. We recall the charges of sedition being laid on theTūhoe prophet RuaKēnana for his simple statement: “This country belongs to us theMāori.”Sedition charges were also forced on Te Whiti oRongomai andTohuKākahi for daring to encourage passive resistance. And amongst their seditious evidence was a statement: “Nāku te whenua.”—mine is the land. For this comment Te Whiti was charged with “wickedly maliciously and seditiously contriving and intending to disturb the peace”. Sedition charges were also thrown at my very good friend and life member of the Labour Party the lateNiko Tangaroa and at Annette Sykes Mike Smith and Tame Iti in 1995 for daring to share their views in a free and frank manner at the Asian Development Bank conference. It was interesting to look back at news reports of the time and to learn the views of the then Labour leader Helen Clark who suggested: “Itis vital all political parties committed themselves to resolving the grievances which were behind the threats.”It is not usually my practice to come to the House and ask that all parties pay heed to the advice of Helen Clark but I will on this occasion make an exception. For when one thinks about the charges that have incurred sedition prosecutions forMāori we think about the Foreshore and Seabed Act we think about land confiscation and alienation and we think about maintaining our right to our own cultural integrity. It is indeed vital that all political parties commit themselves to resolving the grievances. When we think about the broken watch tended byTahupōtikiWīremuRātana the broken glass that arose from the actions of “concerned Pakeha” and the broken faith broken trust and shattered justice it is obvious that repealing the seditious offence provisions are not the only actions this Parliament must take if we are truly to restore and rebuild the values of democracy. Kia ora.