Sedition — Law Commission
5. KEITH LOCKE (Green) to the Minister of Justice:
Does he agree with Law Commission president, Sir Geoffrey Palmer, that in a free society like New Zealand, which respects the democratic value of free speech, people should not be able to be punished for defaming the Government; if so, will he act to implement the recommendation of the Law Commission “that the seditious offences set out in sections 81 to 85 of the Crimes Act 1961 be abolished.”?
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice):
The Law Commission’s work on this matter is in response to the Government’s request for it to review seditious offences and to make any necessary recommendations for reform. The Law Commission released its consultation document 3 days ago, which includes this proposition. The Government will carefully consider and respond to the Law Commission’s final report, which will, no doubt, be written following this period of consultation.
Keith Locke:
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that the Government is considering the report, but the first part of my question asked about whether the Government agreed with Sir Geoffrey about the question of being charged for defaming the Government. Could I have a response to that part of the question.
Madam SPEAKER:
The Minister did address the question, but if he wants to add anything more —
Hon MARK BURTON:
No.
Keith Locke:
Has the Minister any fears that Labour politicians could be in danger of sedition charges under a future National-led Government, given that three former leaders of the Labour Party were convicted of sedition under anti-Labour Governments — namely, Harry Holland, Peter Fraser, and Walter Nash?
Hon MARK BURTON:
I have no fears in the foreseeable future. I do not anticipate there being a National Government for some time. Given the member’s question, I do think it is timely that the Government’s initiated sedition review takes place — as it is doing.
Dr Richard Worth:
Why would New Zealand move to abolish seditious offences when, in just the last year, the Australian Government is moving in the opposite direction with its recent tightening of anti-terrorist laws as part of its war on terror?
Hon MARK BURTON:
The Australian Government has reviewed and, I think, quite significantly changed — the proposition and definition of seditious offences in that update. More to the point, the Government has not taken a position — only that it is timely to have a review, and, indeed, that is what we are doing. It is an opportunity for wide consultation with members of the public, and people will have their say.
Keith Locke:
Does the Minister agree with Sir Geoffrey that if sedition offences were proposed today, they would attract an adverse report under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act; if not, why not?
Hon MARK BURTON:
As I said in answer to the primary question, 3 days ago a discussion document was released. It would be inappropriate for either me or the Government to offer an opinion on the discussion document rather than respond to what I am sure will be a final report.
Keith Locke:
Does the Minister agree, in response to Richard Worth’s question, that the anti-terrorism legislation we have now is fully adequate to deal with any terrorist activity, that the sedition laws are a relic of a bygone era, and that those charged with sedition in the past now look like a roll-call of our heroes, from Te Whiti of Parihaka to the Tūhoe leader Rua Kēnana, to Catholic bishop James Liston, to conscientious objectors Ormond Burton and Bob Semple?
Hon MARK BURTON:
The Government and I certainly agree that it is timely to have a look at the sedition laws, which is why we have asked the Law Commission to have the current review and to engage in public consultation, which is what is going on, and I await its report with interest.