Mark Ron: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mark Ron: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:12588] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First and this is rather a strange situation actually. I am more used to the situation where another party stands alone on a point of principle; that is often the position taken by other parties in this House. But this time New Zealand First finds itself completely on its own in speaking against the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill. I guess what we are saying at this part of the Committee stage is that it is timely to analyse some of the statements that have just been made in support of the bill including the statements made by the Law Commission in advocating the need for it. I am just going through the summary that I have received and a couple of things stand out very clearly to New Zealand First. 
One of those is the reason given for repealing the sedition law: that the legal profile of the offence is broad variable and uncertain. That is just like the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi which this House has had no problem in enshrining in scores of pieces of legislation. It seems to defy logic from New Zealand First’s perspective to say that the sedition law is broad variable and uncertain. I am really puzzled as to why the National Party seems to accept that argument when it too agrees with New Zealand First that the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are vague. Those principles are not defined they are not clear and concise they differ in statement of intent after statement of intent and in annual report after annual report and they are the cause of much angst in their application. That argument does not stack up. 
Let us look at the statement: “as a matter of policy the present law invades the democratic value of free speech for no adequate public reason;”. What poppycock! The “adequate public reason” is that where sedition occurs it involves by definition the promotion of violence. We find it quite bizarre that Labour members advocate that the New Zealand Police’s main aim is to reduce violence in the community. Well maybe that is why we are seeing such an escalation in violent crime because the police actually pay only lip service to that statement. They are actually not interested in curbing people who would promote violence. But ironically we have the police engaged in a major operation right now bringing to the courts of this land people who are accused of promoting political objectives through the use of the force of arms. No good adequate public reason? We would have thought that above all the things we stand to uphold in this country freedom of speech and democracy stand supreme above all others. Democracy deserves better protections than the humdrum legislation people are alluding to that exists right now to give us that protection. 
People have said that the law against sedition has not been used. Well let us thank God for that. Just because a particular law has not been exercised that does not mean it serves no purpose or has no place. New Zealand First says there is good public reason for keeping it. Some of us have worn uniforms and carried weapons in funny places in order to preserve freedom of speech. The last thing we in New Zealand First would ever want is to see freedom of political expression denied curbed or ah— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: Interdicted. 
RON MARK 
: —interdicted in any way. Thank you. But to stand up and say it is OK for someone to advocate his or her political disagreement and promote violence in achieving his or her goals is completely different from that. 
We might well agree with the Government and with other parties that other laws serve their purpose but the test is yet to be seen is it not? We would have thought given the events unfolding in New Zealand right now and the charges that have been laid that we should pause take a deep breath and watch with interest to see to how effective those laws are. It is probably time for us to have one of those famous Labour Party cups of tea and to sit down and watch. It should be a case of less haste less waste as my nana used to say. What is to be lost by pausing at this point in time? Nothing. What is to be gained? Well a whole lot if this move proves to be wrong. We will advocate throughout this debate that it is wrong. We do not agree with it. We will be voting against this bill and against this part of it. We look forward to hearing more of the arguments about the bill. 
Looking specifically at one of the other statements that has been made—that the present law falls foul of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—I ask how new that is. This House regularly accepts that some of its laws and statutes stand outside the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act does it not? Let us look at superannuation for a start— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: The Electoral Finance Bill. 
RON MARK 
: The honourable Dr Worth says the Electoral Finance Bill stands outside the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: No it doesn’t. 
RON MARK 
: The Labour Party member says it does not. New Zealand First supports the Electoral Finance Bill. We say there is legislation that is in breach of the basic New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. For example one cannot qualify for superannuation until one is aged 65. That is a breach of basic human rights is it not? The National Party contested for years that legislation or policies aimed at closing the gaps were outside the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It was quite happy to campaign at election after election against State funding going towards specific ethnicities because that was outside the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. What has happened? What has changed? Oh I forgot; Don Brash has gone. Maybe that is the change. The fundamental principle needs to be addressed. We do accept that in some special circumstances there is justification for legislation being outside the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. New Zealand First would advocate that this is one such occasion. 
It has been argued that the law on seditious offences can be inappropriately used to impose a form of political censorship. Well hello! We have seen that sort of thing going on in this country. That issue comes down to the role of this House does it not? The people we have in power—the Government—are not permitted to use laws to shut down political debate or political opposition to their policies initiatives and philosophies. We all stand for that; let us be sure of that. Going back to the time of the 1981 Springbok Tour I say people made it pretty clear then that they were not about to accept the policies of the Government of the day. They were successful. Not all of us agreed with them but they were successful. 
We are saying that the excuses that are touted out as reasons for repealing the sedition law do not stack up to legitimate scrutiny. We are engaged in this House in an element of feel-good legislation—probably designed to fill up a rather bleak-looking legislative agenda and suck up House time—and the National Party has fallen for it. We ask the Committee to stop pause take some time out and put this bill to one side. Let us test the legal systems as they currently exist and see post the current investigations where any deficiencies lie. That may quite clearly show us in New Zealand First quarters that there is ample legislation to deal with acts of sedition going forward and that there is no reason for giving democracy an enhanced status—or the preservation of democracy—or for the protection of the judiciary or the Government institutions that underpin and give democracy an enhanced status. It may show us that there is no special case for having special legislation to protect the very things that are depicted on the walls around us—the men and women who went to the various battles and wars that are all highlighted on the walls of this Chamber. It may show us that there is nothing special that needs protecting. 
If those things can all be tied up in the humdrum everyday bits of law that we have around then let us take a look at those humdrum bits of legislation that people say are effective. Let us talk about our non-association laws. Let us talk about the ability of the police to lay charges against people for associating with criminal elements. It could be argued that that legislation is ineffective. Maybe that is why we have seen some amendments to it. But still that offence has not disappeared from the slate has it? A simple principle is that just because something is old that does not mean to say it is past its use-by date. Some parties tend to have that view of our elderly and senior citizens in this country. That is why those parties consistently and persistently attack them with cuts in their superannuation and cuts in the increases and with an inability to meet promises made to them. 
In terms of legislation the law against sedition is very old admittedly. It has a very specific aim. If that aim needs to be narrowed and zeroed in on to make the law a little tighter then let us look at doing that. But to throw out the legislation at this point in time New Zealand First would advocate is not wise. We might actually be a lot better off to take a pause right now put the legislation to one side and revisit it post the police operations in the situation they are dealing with right now. Let us see just how effective the laws are in dealing with that situation and in getting convictions before we repeal this law.