Pillay Lynne: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePillay Lynne: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 10 October 2007. Volume:642;Page:12277. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere): I see disappointed people over there on the other side of the House. I want to congratulate ChrisFinalyson who was very confused at question time today but now seems to have got his brain back into a little bit of order. He is certainly saying the right thing when he says he supports the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill as do I. In rising to take a call I would very much like to congratulate the hard-working members of the Justice and Electoral Committee—probably in times when they had less of a chip on their shoulders. None the less they worked very hard and it was very good to get unanimous endorsement from the committee on this bill. I am not sure that we will be able to do that with work currently before the committee because I think that a little bit of self-interest is entering there.A seditious offence as outlined in the Crimes Act 1961 is the making or publishing of a statement with seditious intention. But that can range from exciting dissatisfaction against Her Majesty or the New Zealand Government—that happens quite frequently with the Opposition—or exciting ill will between different classes of people such as may endanger public safety. The Law Commission worked on this bill and published a consultation document on reforming the law in October 2006. Its report which advocated for repeal was published in March 2007 and I am proud to say that the Labour-led Government agrees as indeed I believe all members in this House do with the sentiments of that commission’s report.The heart of the case lies in the protection of freedom of expression particularly political expression and its place in our democracy. Democracy is something we hold very dear and value very much. That is why we have the Electoral Finance Bill which will be coming back to the House in the near future. People may hold and express dissenting views. That is something that no matter how unpopular and unreasonable those views are—and we certainly hear those often enough in this House—we recognise the right for such expressions to be made without their being branded as criminal expressions simply because they involve political opposition to the Government or authority or lack any real credibility as happens with the Opposition.I would like to talk a little about cases of sedition that have been brought in the past. In the late 19th century sedition charges were laid against leaders in relation toMāori resistance. What was it about? It was actually about establishing a movement forMāori peace. There was a campaign of passive peaceful resistance toMāori land confiscations. That was deemed sedition. The next case was in World War I in relation to conscription when sedition charges were laid against some men—men by the name of Bob Semple Fred Cooke James Thorn Peter Fraser and Tom Brindle—for speeches made in relation to their opposition to conscription under the Military Service Act of 1916.Hon Harry Duynhoven: Were any of them Tories?LYNNE PILLAY: They may well have been. It is time to reflect that if that happened now it would be par for the course. Certainly in terms of the Bolshevik resistance a young woman student was charged with sellingThe Communist. That was deemed to be sedition and on the basis of that she was convicted and fined £10 and her studentship at Wellington Training College was terminated. I ask this House what it would be like if our students today were actually charged for daring to speak against theGovernment or for any political position they supported and lost their ability to be a student and to learn in this great country—with of course interest-free loans under this Government but opposed by the Opposition.So in 1968 Sir Kenneth Keith cited the law of sedition as the prime example of an attempt to control all expressions of political ideas and their consequences. I think that that was very visionary in those times and I am very pleased now that this House has come in unity in a collective spirit to actually support this bill. I think that is commendable. Where the protection of public order or the preservation of the constitution or the Government is at stake other more appropriate criminal offences can be used to prosecute offending behaviour. Many many laws can be and are used if there is danger to people or if people go beyond what is reasonable.However in a democracy which we enjoy today where we govern ourselves—and New Zealand is indeed a proud democracy—it is hard to see how or why speech—[Interruption] I can hear the Opposition babbling but we believe in a democracy where it is not just the size of people’s bank balances that determines their campaign; it is the ability of all people in New Zealand to have a voice. That is something that we in the Labour-led Government hold very dear. I know that the National Party gained tremendously from the contribution of the Exclusive Brethren. I think it is quite significant that that party’s former leader a self-confessed agnostic had some quite long meaningful meetings—Hon Member: Atheist.LYNNE PILLAY: He is an atheist not an agnostic but he still thought it was very very important to meet with the Exclusive Brethren.Sandra Goudie: What about the unions?LYNNE PILLAY: The unions were upfront. The unions spoke and said: “This is what we believe. We believe that the National Party deals to workers in New Zealand and we are quite happy to put our name to it and say it.” Frankly I say that they are right. But I will not allow Opposition members to distract me. We are here today to talk about the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill so I just ask that they stop distracting me so that I can continue.I am really pleased as I said before to have chaired the Justice and Electoral Committee. It would be fair to say that it was in happier times. We were a smaller happier group I have to say before we had those other members join us for another bill before us. But of the 17 submissions we received only two were opposed to the bill. I think it is really important that we listened to what people said. Chris Finlayson was a little scathing about those who dared to oppose but it is important in the spirit of free speech that they came and had their say. It was really good that the committee unanimously agreed that this bill was a good bill and I am very pleased to stand in this House and commend it at the second reading. Thank you.