Finlayson Christopher: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFinlayson Christopher: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 10 October 2007. Volume:642;Page:12275. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): I am delighted to take the call. It may not take the 9 minutes I have remaining but there are three points that I want to make tonight. Firstly I want to take a brief look at the current law; secondly I want to go through the various reasons for its repeal; and thirdly I will make brief reference to evidence given by the police force.Part 5 of the Crimes Act deals with offences against public order and sections 80 to 85 deal with the category of seditious offences. It is proposed by this bill that sections 81 to 85 be repealed. Section 80 will remain. It deals with an offence that I have never thought was a seditious offence—that is the crime of persuading someone to take an oath to commit an offence and there are various categories of that. [Interruption] It does not come within seditious offences—I can hear Dr Mapp interjecting on me—but rather it is a stand-alone offence and it will be retained after this legislation passes.At the moment seditious offences are defined in section 81. The most well-known one is a seditious intention to bring into hatred or contempt Her Majesty Her Majesty’s Government or the administration of justice. But when one looks at section 81(1)(d) one sees that the terminology of what is a seditious intention is very vague because it includes inciting procuring or encouraging the commission of any offence that is prejudicial to public safety or the maintenance of public order.Indeed in the 20th century a large number of charges were brought against a variety of people under that subcategory of section 81 as a means of trying to shut them up. An obvious example would be the Roman Catholic Bishop of Auckland BishopListon and various members of the Labour Party. In the 19th century of course as I said in my first reading speech the victims of the sedition charges wereMāori. The other sections deal with seditious conspiracies seditious statements and the publication of seditious documents. Section 85 refers to the use of an apparatus for the making of seditious documents or statements. That is the current law and it is proposed that it all be swept away.The rationale for the repeal emerged strongly from submissions heard by the Justice and Electoral Committee to which I referred last night. I will briefly refer to them. Essentially there are five reasons why the Government introduced this legislation and five reasons why submissions in favour of repeal said that these sections of the CrimesAct should be repealed. The first one—and it emerged from for example section 81(1)(d) which I have read out to members—is that the legal profile of the offence is very broad variable and uncertain and the meaning of sedition has changed over time. As I said a little earlier in the 20th century it was used against Roman Catholic bishops. Of course it is used by Labour Party members these days against those who speak out against the Labour Government.The second reason—and it is an important matter of policy—is that the present law invades the democratic value of free speech for no adequate reason. We should be able to debate issues not only in this place but in the community and stand by our words. If our words are not good enough we will be defeated but democratic debate should not be shut down by seditious offences and it is good to see that the Government recognises that in relation to the repeal of seditious offences. However it is not quite so strong on that issue is it I say to Dr Mapp when it comes to the Electoral Finance Bill because it certainly intends to shut down debate when it comes to that legislation.Another very interesting reason advanced in the course of submissions and also referred to in the bill itself is that the present law falls foul of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. We know that this Government is very good at referring to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act when it suits it. So on occasion we have the Attorney-General making reports to this House under section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act but he singularly omitted to provide a section 7 report on the Electoral Finance Bill—the most egregious example of legislation that falls foul of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.Dr Wayne Mapp: Does Mr Chauvel care? No he does not.CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Mr Chauvel does not care because like all Labour Party members he invokes the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act when it suits him then falls silent when it suits him because that is the sort of person he is.The next category I want to refer to is that seditious offences can be inappropriately used to impose a form of political censorship. Time and time again through the 20th century that is exactly how the seditious offences regime was used—to shut down public debate. Even poor old Walter Nash got done for possessing a pamphlet that was later found to be in the Parliamentary Library. So who needs sedition law these days with the Electoral Finance Bill on its way because the Government will use that for the same end.Finally the law is not needed because those elements of it that should be retained are more appropriately covered by other offences. That is certainly the case in the post - September 11 world we live in with for example specialist Acts dealing with terrorism offences. So sedition is a crime that has outlived its usefulness and it is time to move on. The rationale came through all the submissions which as I said last night were overwhelmingly in favour of repeal with the exception of two rather weak submissions in my opinion.The third point I want to refer to is the select committee’s report which succinctly states and summarises what those submissions were all about. We were very keen to hear from the New Zealand Police on the subject because the police had used it on a number of occasions in the not so distant past. They emphasised—and Mr Chauvel was most anxious that the report record this—that prosecutions for the offence as for others are a matter of independent judgment for the police. Mr Chauvel as I said was anxious that that be recorded and it is only fair that we record it inHansard—that those decisions by police to use the seditious offences provisions against New Zealanders were independently reached by them and were not a result of political influence. So there we have it.The second reading debate is timely. I cannot understand why the junior whip for the Government was so anxious to avoid this debate. I can only conclude that the Government had decided that this is in fact excellent legislation with which to oppress its opponents and that it goes hand in hand with the Electoral Finance Bill and that it had decided like St Paul on the road to Damascus to change tack and keep the legislation in force. But the second reading debate is timely and National supports it.