Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill

In speaking to these clauses I will take a brief call to congratulate Mr Locke in particular, because as Mr Hide said in an excellent speech in the second reading debate the other night, this really is Mr Locke’s bill. Mr Locke is the person who became interested in this issue and worked with other parties to see that the issue was taken up by the Law Commission, which published, as the Minister said, a very good report. It has led in no time at all to the introduction and rapid passage of this legislation. So I congratulate Mr Locke on being a staunch supporter of fundamental human rights. He has worked hard on this bill and has secured its passage. I simply do nothing more than ask him to apply that zeal for human rights to his party’s analysis of the Electoral Finance Bill. Were he to do so—were he to examine clause 5, for example, and were he to examine the definition of “third party”—he would see that there are some very real human rights concerns.

It is fair to say that when I first came into this House, I thought a lot of Mr Locke’s views were not just out of the mainstream but loopy. However, I have come to respect him and I acknowledge that I was wrong. I respect him as a zealous guardian of human rights and, in many respects, as the conscience of this Parliament on some of these issues. We do not always see that in members of Parliament. For example, in the Labour Party we see people who spout about human rights when it suits them, but, then—we can take the example of the Attorney-General—failed to provide a section 7 report on the Electoral Finance Bill. Why? It is because it is too hard, and because loyalty to party is more important than loyalty to the democracy in which we live. One would never ever say that about Mr Locke, because he is a man for whom loyalty to principle comes before loyalty to party. If there is a conflict, he will rise above it and deal with the hard issues. So I congratulate Mr Locke, and I hope he does not think that these are simply weasel words, because they are genuinely felt. He is a man of principle and he has achieved a great victory in getting rid of these odious sedition laws. I ask him to apply that zeal to the rotten Electoral Finance Bill.

The second point I will make is in answer to Mr Mark, because he raised two objections to the repeal of this legislation. By way of analogy to the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill he said that that phrase “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” was vague, and asked the National Party why it applied one standard to the sedition legislation but a different one to the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill. With the greatest of respect to Mr Mark, I ask him to look very carefully at the report of the Justice and Electoral Committee on the bill, because the bill does have its problems. It seeks to repeal already repealed legislation, and it seeks fundamentally to alter the jurisdictional section of the Treaty of Waitangi Act, which, if the legislation were passed, would render the Waitangi Tribunal redundant. There is much to be said of the arguments of Mr Paraone in the select committee that some of these clauses need refinement and better definition, but the bill is defective and we are certainly opposing it for that reason.

Mr Mark’s second point was an interesting one and I will briefly touch on it. He urged us to leave the laws as they are just in case they are needed, and that is an argument not without merit because sometimes there are reasons why, out of an abundance of caution, legislators may keep a statutory provision on the books to see how the law develops. But I do not think there is any dispute—certainly from the majority of this House—that having looked very closely at the Law Commission’s report, and having looked carefully at the bill, there is no other argument to be made but that this particular kind of offence against public order is redundant and therefore justifies repeal. It is in much the same way as section 412 of the Crimes Act provided that as from the time of passage of the Act certain ancient provisions would be repealed, including such old legislation as the Corruption of Blood Act 1814—the statute that my friend Mr Auchinvole referred to, which goes back to the time of King Edward I and deals with elopement with adulterers and the taking away of nuns—the Whipping Act of 1820, and the Witchcraft Act of 1735.

These are examples of legislation that was justifiably repealed at the time the Crimes Act came into force and, frankly, I am surprised that in the 1960s, under a great reforming Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, the Hon Ralph Hanan, a former member for Invercargill, the sedition laws were not repealed then. As I say, in all of the time the Crimes Act has been in force, the only person who was prosecuted for treason was Mr Selwyn, who lobbed an axe through the Prime Minister’s electorate office window. That perhaps gives an answer to Mr Mark—that although the legislation may have had a reason for being in existence hundreds of years ago, it has long since ceased to have any justification. Like the Whipping Act of 1820 and the Witchcraft Act of 1735, it is high time that the sedition provisions were put in the trash heap of history.

As has been noted, of course, the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill will bring into force on 1 January 2008 this measure that repeals the sedition laws of New Zealand. In so doing, it amends the Crimes Act 1961.

I too want to acknowledge the sincerity of the work and the views that many of my colleagues around the House have brought to this matter. It was interesting, and not only a measure of sincerity but also astute political timing, I think, to spot the train coming and to announce its arrival just before it got to the station. But the Greens, United Future, ACT, and the Māori Party did that, and they did it with a certain amount of flair. I acknowledge their political acumen for that. In no way does it detract from the sincerity of the views that the members themselves hold; I believe that to be the case.

I think Mr Finlayson could perhaps have brought his praise to Mr Locke had he left alone the reference—

💬 Darren Hughes: Yes, that’s the only reason he said the first part.

Well, that is right. If Mr Finlayson had left alone the reference to the Electoral Finance Bill, then his praise may have had the ring of genuine sincerity about it. But, of course, he could not let that one go by.

As a result, I will have to respond to the member on it, and I will say just this. There is plenty of opportunity yet for debate on the Electoral Finance Bill. That bill, in contrast to this bill, is one that is most timely. It is very much relevant to this Parliament and to this country’s electoral system, because it is about protecting the right and the voice of ordinary New Zealanders to be heard and not to be overwhelmed by vested interest and vast sums of money, which can be wielded like an electoral weapon by the few to overcome, stifle, and drown out the voices of the many. There is absolutely—absolutely—no valid comparison between that bill and this one.

I will not go down that path any further, but I would simply say to members that it is timely that we progress with the abolition of these provisions, whose repeal is now long overdue. I think that the statute book will be, as one or two members have already said, a little tidier and a little more modern for their passing.

It has been an enjoyable debate to listen to up to this point in time, and, clearly, I am looking forward to the third reading. New Zealand First just wants it firmly put on the record that we move with great caution on this issue. We make no bones about the fact that we have reservations about the need to totally repeal this legislation. We have made it clear that we believe that if there are issues of vagueness, of broadness, or of scope, then those things could have been easily dealt with through amendments to the existing legislation, but that the seditious offences law at this point in time should not be repealed.

I look at the title of the bill. There are a number of titles for this legislation that New Zealand First could possibly put up, given the debate that we have heard. It is interesting to hear the debate from around the Committee that is supported by the National members. I recall Stephen Franks, who is a colleague I miss in this Chamber—

💬 Tariana Turia: Do you?

I do. Stephen was a great advocate for the ACT party. I do not subscribe to all of the views of the ACT party, but I recognise talent and sincerity when I see it. Stephen brought the House’s attention very sharply to focus on the Government’s intention to pass legislation to prevent hate speech. I remember the National members rallying in behind that call because it was a direct attack on freedom of speech. Now the Government says that it is getting rid of sedition laws because it is a direct attack on freedom of speech. Well, it did not have that view when it was advocating for the passage of legislation to prevent hate speech. The National Party, the ACT party, and New Zealand First were very firm in their belief that no legislation should be passed that impinged on people’s rights to legitimately argue against the Government and legitimately define or argue against something they fundamentally disagreed with.

It is interesting that the boot is now on the other foot with the Government today. It is interesting to hear the debate from National members advocating freedom of speech as being paramount, and saying that if someone wants to advocate violence we will pick up some other piece of legislation and maybe get a conviction there. In regard to freedom of speech, do these names spring to mind—Marilyn Waring, Peter McCardle, Michael Laws, Christine Fletcher, John Banks, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and, most belatedly, Brian Connell? I ask National members where these great principles about freedom of speech were when those MPs dared to stand up to tell their caucus colleagues that they disagreed—and this was not about advocating violence, nor about overthrowing the Government, which National was in the days of Christine Fletcher, John Banks, Winston Peters, Michael Laws, and Peter McCardle. These people just wanted to be heard to have a differing philosophical and policy view, but they were shut down. We are not talking about 1881 or 1886; we are talking about this year—Brian Connell.

What did Brian Connell do? He spoke the truth. What did he get? He got kicked out of the caucus and banished into the never-never. He was not permitted to speak in the House, and now he is squeezed right out of the electoral race. I ask National members to tell me where their principles on freedom of speech are. It is great and fine to stand in this Chamber and advocate that the legislation should be repealed because it denies freedom of speech, but I have two words to say to National members: Brian Connell. I have two more: Winston Peters. I have two more: John Banks. I can go on—Marilyn Waring. All of these people had committed one crime, and it was not sedition.

💬 Hon Member: Banks?

Well, John Banks caused all sorts of troubles in the National Party by advocating views in this Chamber that its other members did not agree with. In fact, he sat right in that seat over there when I was the junior whip for the Government. The National members certainly made it clear to John Banks on those occasions that they did not agree with him. They did the same for Christine Fletcher—she was out of caucus for a little time, was she not?

💬 Christopher Finlayson: No.

She was certainly outside the caucus psyche and off to one side from the rest of her colleagues, who labelled her all sorts of things behind her back for simply having a different view. Brian Connell is the most poignant example to point to right now. What did Brian Connell do wrong, other than to express freely the words, the views, that he held? Who shut him down? The Government? Did the police march in with the seditious offences legislation and charge Mr Connell for daring to say terrible things about the Prime Minister-elect—or almost Prime Minister-elect; he did not quite get there, did he? No. Was Brian Connell right? Well, he had to be right, because the person about whom he spoke disappeared out of this Parliament like a flash. Mind you, it is the same people who sat Brian Connell down who stuck the knife into the boss and kicked him out the door, too.

So let us be clear, when we talk in such high and mighty terms about the need to preserve freedom of speech, about what our track record is. Winston Peters was kicked out of the National Party. Brian Connell was kicked out of the National Party. A number of titles for this bill spring to mind in citing those examples, but probably half of them are unparliamentary if I am to be truthful. All of us in this Chamber, deep down, sincerely wish to protect freedom of speech, and because of that New Zealand First understands the reason why parties—and the Government, in particular—wish to repeal this legislation. We fully accept Mr Locke’s view, because he is consistent—unlike some people who make some rather condescending speeches about him. We understand that, and we are not saying no; we are asking, right now, what the need is. Can we not deal with the issues that have been raised in legitimate debate in this House by narrowing and refining? Going forward, with terrorism being the issue it is and with matters unfolding inside of our nation, are we sure that this is a timely moment to be repealing this legislation?

All of us stand for freedom of speech. All of us want the right to campaign, to change Governments, and to change the direction of this nation through legitimate, lawful means. But we stand firmly—as New Zealand First always does—against the pursuance of objectives by people through violent means, advocating violence, promoting violence, or legitimising violence, and then saying that it is all being done because they are freedom fighters and they are in pursuit of a legitimate political cause. New Zealand is a free and democratic nation that has such a proud history of 150 years of democratic rule, and it is a leader internationally for having such a long, sustained period of democratic rule. We all stand for that. But people who wish to take a path politically through force of arms need to be stopped.

Every honourable member in this Chamber is here, whether or not we agree with each other, because he or she has a genuine belief in the philosophies and policies that his or her parties advocate, and every member truly wants to make a difference. But those members choose to do it by lawful means. No member in this House chooses to achieve his or her objectives by inciting other people to violent recourse. That is the concern that New Zealand First has.

I have heard some very good arguments articulated by Russell Fairbrother and by Chris Finlayson, but we are a little bit, I guess, disappointed at the rather—and that ”h” word keeps coming into my mind, and I am trying to find another word for it—differing positions that are so clearly demonstrated by some people who would advocate for freedom of speech. I make no secret about it. I, and New Zealand First, have a lot of respect for Brian Connell. We have a lot of respect for people who protect freedom of speech, such as Keith Locke. But we do not have a lot of respect for people who advocate it on the one hand and then deny it on the other.

First of all, I would like to thank Chris Finlayson, the Minister Mark Burton, and also Ron Mark for the complimentary remarks they made about me and the Green Party for our stand on these issues. I think, just reflecting, it shows a maturity of MMP, and over the last year in particular it has been the work of the smaller parties that has had a lot to do with it. But it is not just the smaller parties; there has been a maturing on many of these issues, with people not just sitting in their camps and defending their position—they are genuinely listening a bit more to what others are saying. That is a very good thing for our society. That is what happened on this issue of sedition. It did not have much momentum in the Parliament a couple of years ago, but it has picked up that momentum, and Geoffrey Palmer had a big role to play there, in addition to the role played by the smaller parties.

I think that in respect of the highlighting of the sedition laws, Parliament is reflecting more the feelings of ordinary New Zealanders, because if one goes into the pubs and various meeting places in New Zealand, one finds a very robust democracy where people speak in very blunt terms. A lot of eccentric people say funny things. People say outrageous things that are often very damning and critical, and sometimes foreigners do not understand that. They say: “Oh why are you being so violent in your language to that other person?”, and then they find the two people with their arms wrapped around each other as best mates an hour or two or a day or two later. That is the nature of our society—our democracy—and one of the reasons why it is particularly important to get rid of the sedition laws. People in New Zealand say all sorts of things, like to be allowed to say those things, and are tolerated for it.

Some speakers say that Chris Finlayson should not have challenged me on the Electoral Finance Bill, and that there was a sting in the tale, but I welcome the challenge, and I think the Green Party as a whole welcomes the challenge on such issues. It keeps us all up to the mark and we have to answer the particular points. The Electoral Finance Bill is one with so many cross-currents and issues involved, and Mark Burton pointed out some of them, as well. I think we should all welcome those challenges.

It sets a better stage for discussion on matters such as the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill, which will be coming up again shortly for its second reading. I was actually quite impressed—and it was before all the latest developments around the Ureweras and whatnot—that in the first reading of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill there was much more considered dialogue between the different speakers than was the case when the original Act was discussed and passed back in 2002. So I think people are a bit more conscious of human rights and a little bit more conscious how those can be undermined in the current world situation, and how we have to protect people and have to think about New Zealand’s interest, and the interests of New Zealanders.

I did say in my first reading speech on this particular bill, if I remember correctly, that in the Committee stage I might be moving an amendment on the blasphemy aspect of the Crimes Act, which is another thought-crime provision, but I decided not to do it at this stage, because I want to take part in what, I think, is a celebration of our all being together on this bill, and not necessarily pursue that particular track at this time. There are a few ends to be tied up in the Crimes Act as regards thought-crime, but we can do that at a later time.

I join the other speakers who have paid tribute to the Green Party and to Keith Locke for his advocacy, on a consistent and principled basis, for the provisions of this legislation. I commend the other parties in the House that have joined with the Government to support the repeal of the sedition legislation, based on the very detailed and well-reasoned provisions of the Law Commission. I am sorry that in the end we were not able to persuade Mr Mark and his party of the merits of the decision to push for repeal, but it is encouraging that there has quite clearly been, for the most part, a good-humoured acceptance of the need to hear the arguments and respond to them. That is always something that the public respond to well when they listen to this House. It is a shame, in my view, as a relative newcomer to this place, that there is not more of that sort of thing and less of the ad hominem argument that is all too often a feature of debates, even in the Committee stage.

A previous speaker referred to a reforming Attorney-General of the 1960s, who certainly made some good progress, but obviously we should record our thanks to the great reforming Attorney-General of the 1980s, Sir Geoffrey Palmer, without whom we would not have had the Law Commission sedition report and the present legislation. So with those brief comments I conclude my contribution on the Committee stage of this bill.