Talk:New Zealand repeals sedition law

Original reporting notes

I watched the debate from the public gallery and took notes on it. This was a third reading debate, lasting from 19:30 to ~21:30 in the evening. I have notes from 11 speakers, though I may have missed one, as there were 12 slots. All but 2 of the speakers supported the bill.

• Mark Burton: opened the debate, ran over the Law Commission report and the reasons for repeal.
• Richard Worth: spoke in support of the bill.
• Lynne Pillay: spoke in support of the bill.
• Chris Finlayson: suggested that the bill should be named after Keith locke and Rodney Hide for their work in persuading the Law Commission to look into the topic, and then gettign it on the government agenda.
• Ron Mark: opposed the bill, claimed that historic prosecutions had been "misrepresented" (Te Whiti and Tohu for example while charged with sedition were punished under a bill of attainder). Suggested that the current terrorism scare meant that there was a need for the law.
• Keith Locke: noted that "the roll-call of those charged is a roll call of our political heroes". Also said that sedition was originally enacted in the UK (from which NZ inherits its legal tradition) to put the monarch beyond the criticism of both people and Parliament. Thanked Tim Selwyn for being the spur for change.
• Tariana Turia: said the bill was a victory for MMP, being an example of legislation driven by small parties. Also stressed the repeated use of the law against Maori for demanding justice and claiming ownership of their land.
• Rodney Hide: supported the bill on freedom of speech grounds.
• Winston Peters: opposed the bill as "liberal, lilly-livered stupidity". Believed NZ was "terribly naive" about security, and that the sedition law had a "pressing substance" which was all th emore necessary in the wake of 9/11.
• Chris Auchinvole: supported the bill. Called the law a "legal frightener" designed to intimidate dissent (much to the agreement of Ron mark).
• Russell Fairbrother: supported the bill on free speech grounds and said there was more work to do, notably around the law of treason. Argued that te tino rangitiratanga (Maori sovereignty) is a deep-seated and honestly held belief, that debating it will require a full and robust public debate with all that that involves ("rhetoric, overstatement, and challenging authority"), and that sedition law was a barrier to this debate.

A full Hansard transcript will be online sometime next week.

The final vote was 114 (Labour 49, National 48, Green 6, Maori Party 4, United Future 2, ACT 2, Progressive 1, Gordon Copeland 1, taito Phillip Field 1) for, 7 (NZ First) against.

The full text of the bill is on the NZ Parliament website, alogn with links to previous readings. Note that for some reason URLs on that site are unstable. URLs to legislation.govt.nz are even more unstable, and end up pointing at random bits of law.

The full law commission report is available on their website.

Note that I have been an advocate for this bill, so my reporting may be considered biased. However, I think this is a fair representation of the debate tonight. --IdiotSavant 12:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

POV

"At a time when many countries are tightening anti-terrorism legislation and cracking down on freedom of speech" that doesn't seem very neutral to me. Contralya 13:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I re-wrote that part (it wasn't so hard to fix). Just one question, if you seen that then why didn't you fix it? I thought we were supposed to be BOLD. —FellowWiki Newsie 17:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Australia recently revamped its sedition law, leading to widespread fears it would be used again. And the UK has recently outlawed "advocating terrorism" or praising those it deems terrorists. By contrast, New Zealand appears to be moving very much in the opposite direction. --IdiotSavant 02:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)