Chauvel Charles: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Chauvel Charles: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:12595] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 Having sat on the Justice and Electoral Committee and heard the submissions I would like to speak to the Committee stage of Part 1. It seems that for once in his life Mr Finlayson did not notice me at an event! Just starting with the summary of the submissions I have made a note that the committee received 16 submissions; 14 supported the bill and two were opposed. Interestingly none of the submitters provided comment on the specific clauses of the bill. Three submitters made oral submissions and we invited the New Zealand Police to give some evidence which was extremely useful in my view. 
Of the 14 submissions that expressed support for the bill most were short and provided comments such as that of Associate Professor Geddis of the University of Otago faculty of law. He stated: “My submission is brief. I support this bill for the reasons outlined in the Law Commission’s very thorough report. The select committee in my opinion should report it back to the House in an unchanged form.” Similarly the Canterbury community law centre stated: “We support this bill and are pleased that law reform is finally happening in this area.” 
 There were two opposing submissions which one member opposite has described as weak—and I think he is right. They were the submissions of Brian Anderton and the Maxim Institute. It just goes to show that Mr Finlayson can get it right on occasion. Mr Anderton submitted that the sedition provisions should not be repealed because they may one day be needed. I think Mr Mark made this point in his speech and I would like to deal with why the committee rejected that view. It really refers back to the Law Commission’s report. 
The Law Commission noted the argument that as we do not know what the future will hold we should not remove sedition as a weapon from the law enforcement armoury. But the Law Commission’s response—and I agree—is that the concern about the offences can be described in the same vein because we do not know what the future will hold. We must try to ensure that the law does not contain a weapon that might be used by a future regime to suppress dissent. 
Another point the Law Commission noted was the importance of protecting freedom of expression to the greatest extent possible while ensuring that inciting violence is prohibited. A balance needs to be struck as in all matters. The commission did not think that the current law with the broadly drawn offences that are contained in sections 80 to 85 of the Crimes Act caught this balance correctly; hence it recommended repeal. 
The Law Commission’s third point is that a number of offences dealing with the essential elements of the seditious offences are being retained. Lynne Pillay made this point in her speech. In fact she listed most of the existing elements of offences where there is a double-up in substance between a current provision of the criminal law and the provisions relating to sedition. So that was the third limb of the argument made by the commission in favour of repeal. 
We heard from the Maxim Institute the other submitter that suggested the current offences should be amended rather than repealed. It acknowledged that the current offences are too broad and are open to misuse but rather than repealing the legislation it suggested amendment. It said that the function of the sedition provisions—and again this echoes the arguments made by Mr Mark—is to protect lawful authority. It suggested that taking away that protection would devalue lawful authority and therefore our constitutional system. It said that the speech that should be prohibited is speech intentionally urging violence against lawful authority and creating an immediate or direct danger of that violence. 
I think it is fair to say that the committee again adopted the Law Commission’s effective three reasons for rejecting those submissions. First rather than advocating amendment it thought that repeal was the best course. Amending the offences so that they focused on incitement to violence against lawful authority did not add anything to the existing offences of incitement to commit other crimes that are already proscribed by the Crimes Act. The Law Commission noted that the term “sedition” has historical baggage and that baggage alone was enough reason for getting rid of it rather than retaining it as argued by the Maxim Institute. Again what was suggested should be covered by sedition is adequately covered by the current law. 
I would like to conclude by dealing with the submission from the New Zealand Police. It was an extremely helpful one and it will be seen that the report of the committee records this. We asked the police to provide us with information on their current application and use of sedition laws in order to assist us in our consideration of the bill. The police provided us with information on how decisions are made about whether to charge and what offences should be used. Although all sworn members of the police have the discretion about which charges to lay checks and balances are built into the system. Also a number of factors are taken into account including the nature and seriousness of the alleged offence provable facts and then those are matched with the appropriate charge. These are then reviewed before being laid in court. 
The police commented on their recent use of the sedition charge. They commented that of the three known recent prosecutions two were actually withdrawn after a review determined that they did not fit properly with the elements of a proof of a charge of sedition. In response to questions the police rejected quite emphatically the suggestion that there was ever any political interference in these decisions commenting that the commissioner guards his independence fiercely. I think that is an appropriate point to record in the debate on this Committee stage of this legislation.