Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill

In the remaining time I have, I want to address the report of the Attorney-General in respect of this bill. In so doing, I preface my remarks by saying that the Attorney-General is a man of great integrity, courage, and enormous intellect. He may prove to be one of New Zealand’s finest as time passes. Certainly, he is the best Attorney-General we have had in the last 10 years. But like all good Celtic Catholic men, there are times when we agree to disagree. In paragraph 11 of his report he says that the bill appears to suggest that anyone sentenced to any period of imprisonment is a serious offender.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: I wouldn’t actually refer to Celtic Catholic men at the moment.

I say to Lianne Dalziel that in paragraph 12 he goes on to claim that the above statement is questionable and that non-serious offenders will be disenfranchised; for example, fines defaulters.

What the report leaves unstated is that the only reason fines defaulters end up in prison is because they refuse to pay their fines. A former Minister, the Hon Rick Barker, answered a question for oral answer on behalf of the then Minister of Corrections and said that the number of offenders being given custodial sentences in lieu of fines reflected the importance the Government puts on offenders being held to account for their actions, and that a custodial sentence is obviously a harsh sentence for serious fines defaulters. The simple fact is that terms of imprisonment are imposed for some offences that one might consider minor, but people are not imprisoned for those offences unless they become serious, such as not paying, on a serial basis, fines that are due. One might say that there are many people who have committed serious crimes—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): The member’s time has expired, but he does get a reply.

Is that right? We look forward to the debate.

I rise to advise the House that the Labour Opposition will be opposing the Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill. I do not think any mock outrage on the other side of the House will cut any mustard on this side of the House. We know why this bill is being introduced: it is called dog-whistle politics. There is nothing worse in this House than to see matters of substance raised in a debate such as this. I take the strongest possible exception to using an amendment to electoral law to argue this dog-whistle position to attack people who are in prison at a particular time.

This matter has a very, very strong history to it. It was the subject of consideration in 1986 by the Royal Commission on the Electoral System. During the royal commission’s consideration of our electoral system, it raised the issue that no prisoner could vote when that prisoner was in jail on election day. That is how the law applied at that particular time. That was the concern that the royal commission addressed, and it was ahead of its time. The royal commission was several years ahead of the passage of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is what led to the Crown Law Office writing the opinion that the member seems to think Chris Finlayson wrote all by himself, but that is by the by. The point I make is that the royal commission, which considered this issue in depth—and did not have the benefit of New Zealand being subject to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—decided that it was not correct to say to people that they do not have the right to vote if they are in prison on election day.

The question was raised in 1993, when changes to the Electoral Act were being proposed. In fact, the Solicitor-General at that time, John McGrath, advised the Government that denying all prisoners the right to vote was a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act by that stage. So the Government of the day—a National Government—under a very good Minister of Justice, Doug Graham, considered the whole question in the light of our obligations under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It was said that imposing a limitation across the board on those rights could not be justified. The limit was arbitrary.

💬 Paul Quinn: So why did it give 3 years?

The member should read the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It says that a limit cannot be arbitrary. In this case, the reason that it was arbitrary was because it did not take into account the seriousness of the offence. A person convicted of a minor offence, simply because of timing, lost the right to vote for 3 years, whereas someone convicted of a more serious offence might not have lost the right to vote at all. That was the unfairness of the situation.

I will talk about the right to vote. People talk about the right to vote. May I recast that a different way? I ask this House to think about the duty to vote, not the right to vote. Let us recast it as a duty. We have an obligation under our law to be enrolled to vote. Paul Quinn says with this bill that prisoners should not be allowed to go on the roll, yet we require by law everyone else to be on the roll. So we would say to people who have committed an offence and who happen to be in jail during the period of time when there is an election that they cannot be on the electoral roll, and yet we require by law everyone else to be on the roll.

💬 Paul Quinn: The current law says that.

The current law says that, because it was changed in 1993. The way the current law was changed was to ensure that there could be a distinction made between those who were convicted of more serious offences. The position was adopted of choosing the time frame of more than 3 years, which was a parliamentary term, and which actually solved the problem—drawing those people into the group of people who lose the right to vote because they go overseas for more than 3 years and have not been back within that 3-year period. So, actually, the whole thing makes logical sense. The only way that Paul Quinn can argue what he is arguing is if he does not accept that there is somehow a moral duty to vote. I do not think any person should stand or sit in this Parliament who does not believe that it is a duty to vote as opposed to merely a right. I think a duty is far stronger than a right.

The member Paul Quinn is saying that we should take prisoners off the electoral roll, which means that if they are in jail at the point that they are seeking to re-enrol, they will come off the electoral roll. I say that getting marginalised people in our society on to the electoral roll is one of the hardest things that we have to confront when we try to sign up people during the election campaign. Every member of this House will know how much resource we put into the Electoral Commission to make sure that people are on the roll in the lead-up to both the local-body elections, which take place this year, and the general election, which takes place next year. I think that people should think very carefully about what this bill really means. It is not about punishing people; it is actually about minimising the duty that goes with electing our members of Parliament and also electing our mayors, city councillors, community board members, and regional council—if we still had one in Christchurch.

I think that the fundamental issue is that the member Paul Quinn is using this as a dog whistle to those who want to see the Government as having a tough stance on our prison population, and who are saying let us get tough on prisoners. My view of that is that this idea is completely out of date and out of time, because it was considered in 1986 and it was implemented in an appropriate way by a National Government in 1993. The point I make is that the situation has become even stronger. The explanatory note with this bill says that the Royal Commission on the Electoral System failed to consider prior convictions before a custodial sentence was imposed. By the time one gets to a custodial sentence there are more serious offences that have been committed in the past. That was before the days of home detention, which in my view makes an even stronger case for the royal commission’s position. This bill states that if an individual gets home detention they are allowed to vote, but if they are in prison they are not allowed to vote.

💬 Simon Bridges: Well, there’s a less serious offence.

Oh, now the member has just given me the answer to that question! I tell that member that there were two young men convicted in Christchurch last year of exactly the same offence. One lived in Fendalton with a very supportive family. One lived in Aranui with a very unsupportive family. What happened? The one from Fendalton got home detention and the one from Aranui went to jail. So, why should one be taken off the electoral roll and told that he cannot be on the electoral roll when the other one from Fendalton is allowed to stay on the electoral roll?

I think that the Government has got this completely and utterly wrong. They need to work out that the underlying issue is much more important than this dog-whistle political bill. This bill will undermine what I believe every person in this country should accept: it is a duty to vote. It is not a right to vote; it is a duty to vote. It is a duty to be involved in our political system, whether it is local government or central government. All that this bill is doing is telling people who have been convicted for 3 years and who have to spend their time in jail, as opposed to home detention, that the Government wants to differentiate between those two. I say shame on the members opposite. It is an absolute shame that this bill is allowed to come before this House and bring this House into disrepute by not seeing this as the important issue that we are entitled to see it as. It is a duty to vote, and I believe that this bill undermines that very duty.

I will start by talking just briefly about the previous speech by Lianne Dalziel. It was not bad really; I agree with some of it. But I take issue with her view on the duty to vote. We do not have a compulsion to vote here, unlike in Australia. We are obliged to be on the electoral roll—we are duty-bound to do that—but we are not obliged to vote. Voting is a major right. It is a right that people have fought and died for. I am unaware whether any suffragettes died in this country, but certainly they did in England, in the early part of last century, in order to obtain the right to vote. That right was considered to be so important that women were prepared to go on to racetracks and be trampled to death in order to get the right to vote. There can be no democracy without voting; one inevitably follows the other.

I am afraid I disagree with Ms Dalziel’s view regarding criminals in prison, but she has made a good point: there are disparities in treatment between those who are in prison and those who are on home detention. Perhaps that could be addressed at the select committee, because on the face of it, certainly, someone who receives a sentence of home detention—

💬 Simon Bridges: It is for a less serious offence, David.

Yes, well, they can theoretically get home detention for a serious offence, so perhaps that disparity can be looked at. But by and large, contrary to what Ms Dalziel has said, people are in prison for very serious offending. They are deprived of their liberty, which is a right not much less important than the right to vote, perhaps. They are there for repeat violent offending, very serious violent offending, or for having stolen a lot of money. They have broken the social contract that we all make to abide by the laws that we make in this place. They are there for a reason. The question to be asked is simply why such people should be allowed to exercise a right that people have died for. That is not a melodramatic question; it is a very serious one.

Although this is a member’s bill, in my view it is part of a sea change that this Government has embarked upon in the law and order field. Along with measures to combat drug abuse and the other drivers of crime, the National-ACT Government is making it very clear that prison ought to be a place that people do not want to return to. Although it is incorrect to say our prisons are five-star hotels—I have visited seven or eight of them, and I know that is not the case—neither are they hellholes or particularly unpleasant. That is changing. This Government, with the full support of the ACT Party, is introducing container cells. Now, the party opposite wails and moans about the inhumanity of that. If members had a bit of life experience, they would know that anyone who has worked in a mine in Australia or on an oil rig has lived in something very similar to what is proposed for Rimutaka Prison. Container prisons will not be like the so-called “Milton Hilton”, the centrally heated prison in the South Island. They will not be like the Ngāwhā prison, which was opened under the previous Government. They will not have a large sculpture, at a cost of a couple of million dollars, to indicate the spirit returning to the sea.

Last week I was speaking to a Rotary group in the North Island near Ngāwhā about the “three strikes” bill, which is soon to pass in this House. After my speech, I took questions. One of the audience members was a doctor, and he asked me what I thought about prison conditions. I said pretty much what I have just said: prisons are not five-star hotels, but neither are they hellholes, and they should be places that people do not want to return to. Afterwards he came up to me and said that he treated all the prisoners from Ngāwhā prison who had ear, nose, and throat problems. Purely from his own interest, he had asked them how they found conditions there, and what they thought about life there. He said that every single one of them said that they were very comfortable, thanks, the food was great, they were not required to work, and they were very happy. Either that man was lying—and he did not seem like a liar to me—or we have made our prisons too comfortable. That is changing, and I applaud that change, as does my party. This bill is symptomatic of that change and is part of it, and we are proud to support it.

The Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill is nothing more than the latest in a long line of dog-whistle attempts to make the Government, the National Party, and its ACT Party fellow traveller over there seem tough on crime. This House should be gravely concerned that some of its members can come in here and propose legislation for those reasons, without any regard for its practical implications. Those members would place political image above fairness, above the value our society places on the civic duty of voting, above the effectiveness of our electoral roll, and above prisoners’ reintegration into society upon release, and in ways that would be impractical to implement for all the reasons that Lianne Dalziel set out in her very fine contribution to this debate.

As well as this bill being completely impracticable, the Attorney-General has notified the House that the bill is unjustifiable because it is inconsistent with the electoral rights affirmed by section 12 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

💬 Simon Bridges: This from the party that had Michael Cullen, who didn’t even put one forward for the Electoral Finance Act.

Unlike some of the members opposite, who are interjecting, I think it should be a matter for serious concern when this House receives a report of inconsistency from the Attorney-General.

Clearly Mr Quinn does not know what the process is relating to these reports. I will explain what that process is. The Crown Law Office looks at the legislation. It looks at overseas cases and comparable provisions in international agreements and legislation to consider whether courts or international tribunals have considered whether similar provisions are consistent with fundamental rights and freedoms. Let us look at the advice this House has received on that point. As far as a blanket ban on prisoner voting is concerned, it breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act because it is inconsistent with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the High Court decision in Re Bennett, and decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada and the European Court of Human Rights.

The advice states that inconsistencies with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act can be justified where the provision serves an important and significant objective, and where there is a rational and proportionate connection between the provision and the said objective. The stated objective of this bill is to disenfranchise the most serious offenders. The Attorney-General does not express an opinion on whether that is an important and significant objective but, regardless, he concludes that the objective to disenfranchise the most serious offenders is “not rationally linked to the blanket ban on prisoner voting”.

There are three reasons for that, which are worth having in the record of the House. First, not every person serving a sentence of imprisonment is necessarily a serious offender, and people who are not serious offenders will be disenfranchised.

💬 David Garrett: Wrong.

Mr Garrett knows better than the Attorney-General on this point, judging by his interjections! That is the advice on the record from the Attorney-General. The example given is a fines defaulter, who may be imprisoned, but who hardly qualifies as a serious offender. Secondly, an irrational inconsistency is created so that mentally impaired prisoners who are detained in a hospital or secure facility for less than 3 years could vote, while all prisoners serving sentences of less than 3 years in prisons could not vote. Currently both groups are treated the same. Nothing in this bill deals with that issue. Thirdly and finally, the advice states that the blanket ban on prisoner voting is both under and over-inclusive. It is under-inclusive in that a prisoner convicted of a serious violent offence who serves 2½ years in prison between general elections can vote, and it is over-inclusive in that someone convicted and given a 1-week sentence coinciding with a general election would be prevented from voting. There is a complete inconsistency there, which a select committee would be simply unable to resolve.

This bill has no intention other than to make the Government look tough on crime. In doing so, it is proposing impractical changes. If the Government were really tough on crime, it would not be taking police cars off the street, decreasing firearms training for the police, and slashing $21 million of funding from the police. Most of all, it would not be coming to this House every day to implement the sort of outdated economic policies that create inequality and impoverish our communities in such a way that creates crime in the first place. This is a bad bill. It is window dressing and it is offensive. It will not work, and that is why Labour opposes it.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

💬 David Garrett: It will offend them. It will offend the communists, all right.

Thank you, Mr Garrett. The Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill has one single and very simple purpose.

💬 Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There are various Speakers’ rulings about people moving to other seats to facilitate interjection. I know that in this House we have a fairly flexible regime in that regard, but we have seen several examples of it from Mr Garrett both in the previous speech and even before Mr Clendon was able to get a word out.

💬 Todd McClay: Speaking to the point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): I do not need any assistance, thank you. I have cautioned members. This is a members’ day and one would hope we have a slightly better standard of debate in that regard than a partisan-party operation. Mr Quinn has a right of reply; he might like to contain his interjections. Interjections are part of this House if they are rare and reasonable, and we have gone beyond rare and reasonable.

As I was saying, this bill has a single and quite simple purpose, which is to deny the vote to anyone who is currently serving a prison sentence. That is quite a significant shift to the current arrangements, yet there is very little in this bill in the way of argument or justification for that proposed change. It leaves us to speculate on the underlying purpose. I must agree with some of the speakers who have already noted that it seems to be a response to the very simplistic, populist call for longer sentences and tougher punishment for criminals. Allegedly, that will solve our problems but, of course, we know they will not.

Putting people in jail is punishment for a crime. There is nothing to be gained from punishing them further by stopping them from voting. Further marginalising prisoners from our society—and denying people the vote will contribute to that extra marginalisation—will contribute to the growing underclass that this Government pretends it is concerned about. Very well-founded and credible research from the US shows that depriving prisoners of the vote is not good for their rehabilitation and reintegration into society. It further alienates people from the norms of mainstream society. How far does this Government plan to go? We hope we do not get to a situation similar to that in the United States, where ex-prisoners are denied the right to vote. Currently some 5 million Americans—something like 14 percent of, or one in seven, African-American males—are disenfranchised. Let us hope this Government’s somewhat irrational approach to justice issues does not take us too far down that road.

The bill’s explanatory note acknowledges that it ignores the advice of the 1986 Royal Commission on the Electoral System, which was supported by advice from the Solicitor-General in 1992. However, it does not provide an argument for what this bill will achieve. The 1986 commission noted that the disqualification of prisoners was not uncommon internationally and that “Its origins lie in the view that voting is a privilege rather than a right, to be extended only to people of substance and standing on the community.” The Greens reject absolutely the notion of voting as a privilege to be doled out by who knows who. We see voting as an absolute right in regards to the franchise. It is a right of every citizen, with a very few exceptions, to vote. The State’s right to coerce citizens—and imprisoning citizens is perhaps the most obvious and extreme example of that coercion—depends on its legitimacy as an elected body with power and authority supported by an electoral mandate. The right to vote ought only to be withdrawn in the most exceptional circumstances, and a prison sentence of less than 3 years falls far short of any reasonable test.

The Attorney-General’s assessment, tabled in the House on 17 March, concluded that “the blanket disenfranchisement of prisoners appears to be inconsistent with s 12 of the Bill of Rights Act and that it cannot be justified under s 5 of that Act.” It is true that the first draft of any bill can contain an error, a drafting error, or some reason why the Attorney-General might pick up a provision in breach of that Act. The core purpose—the core principle—of this bill is clearly in breach of the Bill of Rights. That in itself should be sufficient to stop the bill in its tracks.

Deterrence is often rolled out as a rationale for populist and ineffective punitive measures. This, indeed, is intended as a justification. Very few people think rationally before committing a crime. Very few people will stop at the point where they are about to commit a crime for fear they will lose their right to vote. It is simply not a reasonable expectation. The prison system is imperfect and not always just. We know that people are incarcerated while others committing similar crimes are allowed to serve a sentence in some other way, or escape conviction all together. That point has been made.

In summary, it is our belief that the proposal in this bill is not helpful. It will take us nowhere in terms of reducing offending or, indeed, recidivism in this country. It will not reduce our prison population. It will not make us a more peaceful, secure, or cohesive society. For those reasons, the Greens will continue to oppose the passage of this bill.

I speak to the Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill. If the bill is enacted, the law would revert to what it was prior to the implementation of the current Electoral Act 1993. All this bill does is remove the right of a person to register as an elector if he or she is serving a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than 3 years. The bill is very simple law. It says that if people do a crime, they do the time and give up the electoral right that normal citizens have. The legislation gives supremacy to a person’s moral obligation not to commit a crime, rather than to the moral obligation of that person to vote. The Labour Opposition is saying that it is a moral obligation to allow these people to vote. But do these people not also have a moral obligation not to commit crime? If they want to commit a crime, they have to do the time, and they have to give up all the rights and privileges that law-abiding citizens have. If they want to do the crime, they give up those rights and privileges. Their moral obligation is not to commit crime; they have to have that responsibility in the first instance. If they want to continue to vote, then they will not commit crime. If they want to give up their rights and privileges, then so be it—they give up the right to vote. I would rather that the moral obligation not to commit crime had supremacy over the moral obligation to allow those people to vote.

Members should look at all of the thousands of New Zealanders who went to war, as David Garrett quite rightly pointed out, to protect our democracy. The biggest part of that democracy is the right to vote. Well, if people are going to commit crime, which they have a moral obligation not to do, then they can give up the rights and privileges that they can expect as New Zealanders.

What do the Greens say? They say that that is an irrational approach—to expect New Zealanders to have a moral obligation not to commit a crime is an irrational approach! That is being just totally soft on crime. What is the Greens’ other interpretation? The Greens’ other interpretation is to call the law of locking up criminals extreme coercion. I mean, you know, duh! This is about keeping New Zealanders safe, yet the Greens call the law of locking up New Zealanders extreme coercion. I guess if this were a communist country those members would be in the top seats, but it is not a communist country; it is a democracy. We expect a moral obligation of New Zealanders not to commit a crime, and if they commit a crime then we expect that the laws will deal to them in the appropriate way; this is just another way in which we can curb their rights and obligations.

We need to send a very, very strong message to people who might think about committing a crime. We need to make them think about all the rights and privileges that they would lose, and we need to make sure that they do not enjoy their time in incarceration or in fulfilling their sentences. Of course, we hear all about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and those people’s rights. Well, in my view, the moment they commit a crime they abdicate their rights.

What about the rights of the citizens of New Zealand not to have crime perpetrated against them? We are not going to be like the Labour members. They said they are not going to not condone the actions of criminals, so by definition that means they condone the actions of criminals. Labour members are clearly soft on crime, but National members are sending a very strong message that we are not soft on crime. We want to make sure that every single criminal understands that they will get dealt to. If they want to break the law, they will get dealt to. We have made very sure of that.

We have totally supported the police with the changes that we have made under the excellent leadership of Minister Judith Collins, who is Minister of Police and Minister of Corrections. We have given the police Tasers, we have given them more police on the front line, and we have given them more powers to deal with crime and methamphetamine. We have enabled them to act to recover the proceeds of crime; we have taken $7.2 million from that. Bring it on!

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker Roy. Tēnā tātou katoa e te Whare.

💬 Paul Quinn: Hey, brother.

Tēnā koe, parata. If an election were held today, some 3,200 sentenced prisoners—those with a release date between now and 5 March 2011—would be able to take up their democratic right to vote. Another 1,800 prisoners on remand would also be eligible. That makes up about 5,000 people in prison who can legally vote at a general election. Under the terms of the Electoral Act 1993, because they are serving a sentence of less than 3 years they are eligible to vote. But today we have the Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill, which seeks to deprive those 5,000 people of their legal right, and to punish them again for the crime for which they have already been prosecuted, sentenced, and incarcerated. I have to wonder about the motivation of targeting people who are already isolated from our society, who are already alienated from everyday life, and who are already serving the time to pay for their crime. I ask what on earth could be the motivation to deny them even more of their rights, except to punish them, to prove how nasty and vicious society can be, to show that we do not care about those who have fallen by the wayside, and to show what a callous and depraved society we really are.

This bill is a backward step. It takes us back to the time before 1993 when, based on a recommendation of the 1986 Royal Commission on the Electoral System, the Solicitor-General agreed to the 3-year rule. This bill will take us back to the days when, on conviction, anyone in prison was disqualified from voting. This bill will take us back to the days of prejudice and ignorance, and of a society ruled by fear rather than freedom. Kim Workman, director of Rethinking Crime and Punishment, said the provisions of the bill would affect the 90 percent of prisoners who would be out of jail in 2 years, and it would also actively disenfranchise the families and the communities that those inmates come from. Communities like Ōtara, Flaxmere, and Cannons Creek would stand to lose a significant number of their voters. It does not take very much consideration to realise that with Māori and Pasifika constituting the great majority of prison inmates, the Polynesian voice would be the voice that was silenced by this legislation.

The history of the right to vote in this country is one of confronting prejudice and challenging exclusion. Our history has been one of opening up the right to vote to women, to Māori, to people who were not British subjects, such as the Chinese, to people living on the Chatham Islands, to 20-year-olds, and ultimately to 18-year-olds, as well. This bill, along with a range of bills of a similar nature, aims to take us back to a time when exclusion defined us as a society, and to reset us on the track of slowly but surely rebuilding the walls of denial and racism. That would see this country plunge into levels of hatred and violence that would make today’s problems look like they were a bun fight. We shudder at the thought of what might come next, and we signal quite clearly that we will most certainly not be supporting this bill. Kia ora tātou.

Every so often Parliament gets to debate questions of pure principle. The issue here is whether serving prisoners should have the right to vote. My answer, at a principled level, is absolutely not. Some would say that voting is not a right, it is a privilege. I disagree. It is a right; it is a fundamental right, but it is not an absolute right. In fact, if we consider all the rights we like to think of, they never are absolute.

But with all rights, even with fundamental ones, go responsibilities. If we like, we can put it this way: there is a social contract between individuals and the State. The State makes the rules. It compulsorily takes taxes and does all manner of things. In return, we receive all sorts of things: warm shelter sometimes, hospitals, schools, and of course the power of the ballot to elect or “unelect”, and, in our privileged case in this House, to be elected. Prisoners, however, have opted out of that social contract. They have not gone just against the State’s and society’s basic rules, they have gone against the big ones, which means that incarceration has resulted.

A central debate here concerns the matter of how easily imprisonment is imposed. I say to members from experience that it is not imposed easily, at all. In this country we do not take away someone’s right to liberty and imprison them at all lightly. Indeed, the previous Labour Government increased the many sentence options that judges now have, and that they must consider, before a person is incarcerated. There is a spectrum, and a wide one at that, of offences before we get to the most serious penalties in our system of imprisonment.

Moreover, the right to vote is not just a fundamental one; it is a precious one. Millions of men and women have shed blood and lost their lives for the right to vote. I simplify to some extent, but I say that arguably any war we like to think of that New Zealand has been involved in has been fought in the name of, among other things, democracy. I am certainly not saying to this House that all wars are right. Indeed, often they are fundamentally misguided. Nevertheless, as I say, to some extent they are in the name of democracy.

My grandfather fought in a world war, but did he do that so that serving prisoners could vote? Voting is a fundamental right, but it is also a precious one. By committing serious crime, prisoners opt out of the social contract between citizens and the State, and they lose the right to vote. When they have served their time and they are out, they can re-enter society. They can regain their precious right, that hard-earned, with blood shed, right to vote. That is how it should be. This bill, in principle, is the right thing to do. I commend it to the House.

I will begin by, for the first time—and possibly for the only time—endorsing 100 percent the comments made by Hone Harawira in the speech that he just made on the Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill. There was nothing in the speech he made that I disagreed with; there was much in the speech he made that I strongly endorse and think members on all sides of the House would be well advised to listen to. I think we should take on board much of what he has to say, not just in this debate but in many other debates, when it comes to law and order and the incarceration of prisoners.

With the possible exception of the last contribution, from Simon Bridges, the common feature and common characteristic of all of the other contributions from the other side of the House is that the speeches have been filled with anger and hatred. I can understand that, to some extent, when it comes to debates about law and order. I can understand it when it comes particularly to serious criminals and their serving of time in prison. But the problem is that when it comes to debates about law and order, anger and hatred seldom advance matters very far, at all. In fact, the point that Hone Harawira made, which I totally endorse, is that so many of the people in our prisons feel nothing but anger and hatred from the society around them, and often know no different from that. Often they have never felt anything other than anger and hatred from the society around them; they have become so disenfranchised. That is a contributing factor to their offending.

This bill will disenfranchise them from society even further. Voting is a duty that all citizens should have, with the exception—and I accept this exception—of the most serious criminal offenders, who are already prevented under the law from voting. There have been many reviews of this law, including a royal commission, a review by the Solicitor-General, and comments recently on this bill by the Attorney-General—the National Government’s own Attorney-General—all of which have said that it is not justified to remove the ability to vote from somebody who is sentenced to imprisonment for a term of less than 3 years. I totally agree with that. We cannot treat people differently depending on when they are sentenced and when they serve their sentences. People who would never have the opportunity to vote anyway, because there may not be an election during the time they are in prison, could be removed from the electoral roll. Somebody may be in prison for 6 months between elections, and they would never have the opportunity to vote even if they were out in public. Yet they would be removed from the electoral roll.

We spend so much time getting people on to the electoral roll in the first place, and some of the people who are the most difficult to get on to the roll in the first place are the people who are disenfranchised from our community. We struggle to get the people who are more likely to go to prison on to the electoral roll in the first place, yet this bill removes them from the electoral roll. It is not justified. It will further marginalise them from our community.

Tough on crime rhetoric is the easy part. Dealing with the underlying social causes of criminal offending, the disenfranchisement from society, and the total feeling of anger that exists within many of the people in our prisons is something we have to think long and hard about. We do not do a good job of this, because the political rhetoric is too hard on any side of this political debate. It is very difficult to deal with this issue in a way that will look good on the news and will make people likely to vote for us. Yes, there are votes in being seen to be hard on criminals. There are very few votes, unfortunately, in dealing with the root causes of crime and criminal offending, because they are not easy and they do not fit on a bumper sticker.

We have to get past that, because New Zealand already has one of the highest incarceration rates in the developed world. We have nearly twice as many people per capita in prison as Australia does. The gene pool of its population was hand-picked by the best magistrates in the United Kingdom, yet Australia apparently has a lower level of criminal offending than New Zealand. I simply do not accept that. I believe and accept that the political rhetoric in New Zealand has gotten to the point where we can no longer have a rational debate about this issue. We have to step back from that rhetoric. The tough on crime rhetoric has to stop. We have to take this matter much more seriously, and this bill is not the way to advance these issues.

It gives me pleasure to rise and speak on the Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill, presented to the House by Paul Quinn. I will read the middle part of the title again—“disqualification of convicted prisoners”.

I congratulate Paul Quinn on having a little bit of the Green Party’s luck. I heard a member of the Green Party suggest one day that a bit of karma is involved when it comes to having a member’s bill drawn out of the ballot, and we recognise that over the last year the Green Party has had many bills drawn. Well, if anybody deserves karma in this area it is Paul Quinn, and I want to recognise that fact right here.

I support this bill very strongly for a number of reasons. The right to vote is an important right. It is a right that is exercised and enjoyed by all law-abiding citizens throughout this country, and it is considered by law-abiding citizens to be a very important right. When people break the law in this country—and in many others—there are consequences. People who break the law lose a number of the rights that law-abiding people in New Zealand enjoy. The right to freedom is lost. I think everybody in this House would agree that people who commit crimes should lose their freedom. The right to association is also lost because of incarceration.

Someone mentioned earlier that the right to stand for election to Parliament is lost. I believe that it is only proper that people lose their right to exercise their voice in society through their vote when they have been sentenced to a period of time in prison. I say to all those who hold their right to vote as precious to them that there is a simple way to retain that right, and that is to not break the law. If they do break the law, if they do commit a crime, then I hold the right of a law-abiding person to vote to be more important.

I have listened closely to the debate, and I have enjoyed some very good interventions. I note that Hone Harawira spoke with some wisdom in some of these areas, and I look forward to this bill going to a select committee, if today’s vote allows, so that we can hear more from others and from members of the public about their thoughts on the matter.

After listening to the rhetoric from Labour members, I say that Labour has shown again that it is soft on crime. Those members opposite are more concerned about the rights of the criminal than they are about the rights of the victim. If there was a way to give the criminals’ votes to their victims, then I would very seriously consider supporting it. I say to members opposite that if Labour members were an effective Opposition, in touch with the concerns of law-abiding citizens who hold the right to vote as being very important, then they would be supporting this bill. But we have heard today, of course, that they are not an effective Opposition, and they will not be supporting the bill.

I believe that the majority of people in this House are committed to tackling crime and making our communities safer for Kiwi families. I believe that the majority of people in this House believe that the rights of law-abiding citizens should come before the rights of criminals. This bill makes it clear that our democratic rights as citizens include obligations to obey the law. When people break the law and are sentenced to prison, they have not met their obligations to society and they therefore should lose the right to vote while they are in prison.

I reiterate for the benefit of anybody who was not listening earlier that I support this bill very strongly. We have heard from others about a royal commission report some years ago, and there are always different interpretations of it, but, very clearly, the commission’s analysis is notable for its omission of any consideration as to the level of serious offending most prisoners have been convicted of prior to their eventually receiving a custodial sentence. The select committee will have an opportunity, should this bill move beyond its first reading, to look at that. It will have an opportunity to decide and to converse with New Zealanders about what they think is an appropriate level.

I have read the bill and looked at it closely, and I congratulate Paul Quinn. I think he has the level right. If people want to keep their right to vote, if voting is an important right to them, they should think about victims and not go out and commit crimes. I say to Paul that he will have my vote on this issue. Thank you.

The Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill is quite a simple bill. All it sets out to do is to remove the vote from anyone who is imprisoned on the day of an election. I am quite happy for the bill to go through the select committee process to work out any procedural issues. If the Opposition is hung up on the fact that it removes people from the electoral roll, then let us just leave them on the roll and say that if they are in prison, they do not get on a bus to go and vote. [Interruption] I know that the bill does not say that, but that is what the current Act says. All I have done is extend that provision. The simple fact is that the select committee is charged with finding the most appropriate mechanism to achieve the aims of the bill.

Labour has accused members on this side of the House of practising dog-whistle politics. Talk about rhetoric! Those members have talked about anger. Most of the anger and most of the rhetoric has come from them. In fact, probably the best contribution to this debate, the most civilised and the most thoughtful, I thought, was an outstanding contribution from my colleague Simon Bridges. There is a man who has been at the coalface of crime. I think that his contribution to this debate was very worthwhile of being listened to.

It was suggested by Lianne Dalziel, and again by David Clendon, in the contribution from the Green Party, that this was against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The fact of the matter is that section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act allows, in exceptional circumstances, section 12 of that Act to be overridden. This debate is all about whether there are exceptional circumstances, and, if so, what they are. Already both the royal commission and the Solicitor-General, in his opinion of 4 or 5 years ago, confirm that at some point in time there is an exceptional circumstance. What this debate is about is where the line in the sand is around exceptional circumstances. That is all the debate is. I suggest that if Lianne Dalziel had read the royal commission report more fully, she would know that the only reason the provision for 3 years is there is that the commission thought there should be some exceptional circumstances. We have said that people who go overseas for more than 3 years lose their right to vote. The commission thought that sounded OK, so it applied the same ruling to prisoners. If she had read the report she would understand that that was the basis for the provision of 3 years.

No other reason was given in the royal commission’s report. Someone who makes the choice—his or her own choice—to go overseas for 3 years or more loses the right to vote, and therefore prisoners should be treated on that same basis. Yet we are talking about people who have transgressed against society. They have abused the rights that the community values and that the people who fought in the wars commemorated by the memorials in this Chamber fought to defend. But, no, Opposition members want to stand aside and not have that conversation. Well, I say that it is an appropriate time for this conversation to occur, because we are faced with, and challenged by, the fact that the community can go only so far in being able to defend people’s rights. I believe that the community has the right to decide when it will no longer provide the protection that it offers when it protects people’s right to vote.

That is what this conversation is about. I hope that this bill is referred to a select committee so that we can have an informed debate, rather than the rhetoric and anger that came from the Opposition. Thank you.