Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill

I’ll stand to take a call on this bill. Again, I think that we find ourselves in extraordinary times. I’m actually embarrassed that I’m even standing in the House speaking to this bill, a bill about giving prisoners the right to have the vote back, or, more accurately, prisoners that are sentenced to less than three years who will be coming out in that electoral cycle. In all honestly, if the Government really believed in this, if you actually really believed in the fact that you feel like there’s a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act or if you really believed in the report that came out from the Waitangi Tribunal, then why aren’t you giving prisoners the vote back, full stop? Why don’t you just give them the vote? If the Minister of Justice stood up in the House and he said, “We’re going to address the issue around the breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. We’re going to address the issue that was raised by the Waitangi Tribunal.”; you’re not addressing those issues. If you’re going to do it, why don’t you just give prisoners the vote back? Sadly, I think it is political and that they realised that that was going be deeply unpopular with the public of New Zealand. I think that it goes against everyone’s sense of justice.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: What does New Zealand First think?

Darroch Ball will not believe in this legislation, make no mistake about that. It’s inherently against everything that he’s—look, I have to acknowledge him because I’ve worked with him on some very good, strong law and order legislation over the last two parliaments. This is inherently something that he does not believe in, and it’s against—

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: Is he voting for it?

He’s voting for it.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: Well, how does that work?

They’ve done a deal. For whatever reason, New Zealand First is supporting this bill. He made a speech yesterday that suddenly changed, and I said, “Oh, this is going straight to the pool room.” To be honest with you, he didn’t really address the issue. So we’ll look forward to—I see we’ve got Mark Patterson in the House.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: Well, what does he think?

Well, I’d say that he’s probably in exactly the same position. He inherently does not believe in or support this bill—like most Kiwis don’t, because most Kiwis accept the fact that when someone has offended so badly against our community; when someone has broken the laws that we put in place that they will adhere to, that they will respect; when someone’s offending has been so serious that there are victims and there is often serious violence involved and recidivist offending, they end up in a New Zealand jail.

It’s hard to go to prison in New Zealand. That’s a good thing. I actually think that the threshold should be quite high in terms of going to prison and going to jail. But the reality of it is if they offend that badly and they’re in jail—they find themselves in prison—inherently, they should lose some rights. Kiwis feel that “Yes, the vote is a right.” We have lots of rights. We have the right to freedom of movement—that’s taken away from a prisoner when they go to jail.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: It’s not a general debate.

They lose some rights like—well, Mr Hipkins said that it’s not a general debate, but if you choose, Mr Hipkins, to put a bill like this into this Parliament, at a time when we’re trying to deal with something like coronavirus—

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is a debate on a referral motion; it is not a debate on the bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Thank you. I appreciate your guidance and support. As was mentioned many times in the debate yesterday, your contribution must be about the instruction to the committee, not about the bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): My pleasure.

You’re absolutely right, and the Leader of the House raised a very valid point. I’d ask him or someone to stand up—in fact, I’d ask the Leader of the House to stand up, take a call, and tell us why you are going to force on this Parliament a shortened select committee process. What is the need for that? Why, at a time in our country when we’re facing some major issues, can’t you bring a bill—I would accept the fact if you put a bill to this House to deliver Penlink, a critically important piece of infrastructure in my electorate, and you said, “You know what, we need to do a shortened select committee process because we need to deliver this critical piece of infrastructure, keep people working, and actually try to catch up.” when we’ve got a huge deficit now because you’re being far too slow to act on infrastructure in this country. I’d welcome that. I’d accept that. But why are we debating in this House a shortened select committee process on a bill that gives prisoners the right to vote?

I’d welcome the Leader of the House to stand up and take a call and explain to us why we are subverting and shortening a process. There is no logical reason. There is no logical reason why the Minister of Justice and the Leader of the House would ask this Parliament to engage in a shortened select committee process.

I remember when they were in Opposition. I remember when we passed the Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill in response to an external threat. I remember them standing up and challenging that hard, saying, “Why would we go for a shortened process? Why would we go for a reduced select committee process?” Well, the answer to that was pretty clear. It was national security. We had a major national security threat. We had to respond to it, and we did respond to it. And actually, I want to acknowledge the Labour Party because at that stage they had guys like David Shearer, who worked with me on that bill. He was outstanding. But I’m sorry, Mr Hipkins, you cannot come to this House with a straight face and look us in the eye and look the country in the eye and give us any explanation or any reason why we would be engaging as a Parliament in a shortened select committee process to give prisoners the vote back. What is the strategy? What is the reason? We haven’t heard one. I doubt very much Mr Ball will take a call on this bill and want to stand up. In fact, I’d be surprised if anyone from the Government does want to stand up and explain to us why you wanted to shorten the select committee process, but I’d welcome it if you did.

We think it’s perverse, and we think that it’s especially perverse at this time in our history, when we’re facing the types of challenges that we are facing. We should be coming together as a Parliament. We should be working together. We’re committed to do that, but bring some serious legislation into this House that will actually make a tangible difference to Kiwis’ lives when they need it most: right now, in terms of what we’re facing and what we’re dealing with. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to participate in this very important debate in opposition to the motion, and, if the motion is to pass, then I am in favour of Dr Jian Yang’s amendment that would at least give the public another month to make a submission on this bill.

It’s important to recite and remember how this Parliament works and why it works for the benefit of New Zealand when we come to a debate such as this. We are a country where people believe in and follow the rule of law. People follow the law in New Zealand because if they didn’t we would have chaos, we would have no security of our property, and, in particular, we would have no security of our person. One of the reasons people follow the law is that they believe in the due process of this Parliament in making it. They follow it voluntarily, which is another great benefit.

By and large, we don’t rely on the police or punishment for people to follow the law in New Zealand. If we had to do that, we would be a police State and we’d be a very inefficient society. In New Zealand, we rely on people following the laws made by this Parliament, because even when we as citizens disagree with the law, we know that it’s been made well.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but you’ve had two minutes and it’s more than overdue for you to refer to the instruction to the committee, please. It’s a very narrow debate.

Madam Speaker, I am referring to the instruction to the committee to reduce the amount of time that people in this country have to submit on the making of this law. In particular, the reduction in the submission time that the public has undermines New Zealanders’ faith in the law. As I was saying, people voluntarily follow the law even when they disagree with it, because they know that in this country it is made by representatives who are servants of them and who listen to them during a public submission process.

Now, I have sat on select committees—at least four different select committees in the last 5½ years, including being a permanent member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee for that entire period—and I know that it is nigh on impossible to hear from New Zealanders in order to properly process their submissions and opinions in three months. The reason for that is that a series of things have to happen.

First of all, we have to give notice to the public that submissions are required. The public have to take time, and most people have lives, jobs, kids, and homes to run. They can’t drop everything immediately because this Parliament has made a request for submissions. So after they receive a submission, New Zealanders have to make time to consider their views and prepare a submission and get it ready to be sent to the select committee.

Once they’ve done that, they might hope to be heard by the select committee. That often involves, for many New Zealanders who don’t live in Wellington, travelling to the capital to appear in person if they want to be heard. If New Zealanders need to do that, well, not everybody has unlimited access to free flights from Air New Zealand, like members of Parliament. People often make quite a sacrifice to present to select committees.

I remember people who came to speak to the select committee—the Education and Science Committee, as it was at the time—about the partnership schools kura hourua legislation.000000

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Can I just give the member a second opportunity to speak to the instruction to the committee. Give it your best shot, Mr Seymour.

I am outlining why it is so important that we do not shorten the time for submissions by the public. Now, if that is not in line with this motion to shorten the time the public has to submit on a bill, then I’m not sure what it is that we can debate about on a motion such as this. I’m illustrating that with examples of the sacrifices New Zealanders make to come and submit that they may not be able to if this motion passes. I’m not sure how else it is that I can address the motion.

So let me tell you what these people had to do. They were asked, “When is your flight to Wellington to make a submission?” And the person who asked them—it wasn’t me; it was another former member, I might add—was rather embarrassed because they said, “You know, we don’t have flights. We’ve caught the bus from the Far North.” That’s what they did to come and speak to this Parliament about a matter affecting them.

That’s the practical reality in a democracy for people who want to participate in the process of parliamentary democracy. If we reduce the submission period for feedback from the public on this bill, people in positions like that will be disenfranchised from democracy. That’s what’s at stake.

Then, if people have been able to make submissions, the next thing that has to happen on a select committee—and I’ve been on a few; not as many as you, Madam Speaker, but a few—is that as members of Parliament, if we’re doing our job, we have to think about what the public have said. None of this is radical; it’s just what should happen. That takes time because as you know, members of Parliament also have a lot to do and they need to put aside time to read the submissions, to cogitate on them, sometimes to get other advice, and then to deliberate as a committee and make sure that the public’s opinions of the law being made have been given due respect, because it’s only when we give due respect to the public that they in turn respect this Parliament and follow the law voluntarily. As I’ve argued in this speech, it’s critically important to the wellbeing of our society.

But for everything I’ve just said about why it is wrong to shorten a select committee process, it can sometimes be justified to ignore it, and the circumstances are not difficult to imagine. One day, when I was early in my time in Parliament, it was discovered by accident that it was illegal to issue speeding fines in a large part of New Zealand. We had to move quickly. We couldn’t have a six-month deliberation on whether we should ban speeding on the Kāpiti coast because it would have been the Indy 500 up and down State Highway 1 if we hadn’t acted quickly. In that instance, Parliament did act quickly.

So there are times when it’s OK for Parliament to act quickly, but that’s when there is a specific reason why, and without going into the bill itself, I see no reason in this bill for us to reduce the amount of time it takes. The Government has had almost three years to move on this issue and it hasn’t. They clearly don’t believe it’s urgent, but for some reason they want to legalise prisoner voting right before an election.

Now, I’ve used the first nine minutes without getting to my main topic, which is this: we live in extraordinary circumstances. People up and down this country are in a great deal of uncertainty. I just went to Thorndon New World at lunchtime, and you can’t move in there. People are not focused on making laws right now. People are focused on survival, on business continuity, on certainty, and on making sure they’ve got enough food in their pantry because they don’t know what’s going to happen next. If there was ever a time for a Parliament to start rushing through legislation, this has got to be the most inappropriate time that we have ever seen.

I think this Government has a leadership role in New Zealand at the time of the coronavirus crisis, and it could start showing that leadership by stopping rushing through legislation in an undemocratic fashion. So I challenge the Government to withdraw this motion; make this law properly, like any other; and if not, then at least support Dr Jian Yang’s amendment to give people at least five months for a normal select committee process.

I move, That the question be now put.

The question is that the question be now put.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Dr Webb has already moved that in this debate. I think the rules of the House mean that one person can move it only once in any debate.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): That’s correct. I call the Hon Gerry Brownlee, and I apologise for my error.

That’s all right, Madam Speaker. Look, I want to pick up from where David Seymour just left off—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry, but it might be better if you pick up with the instruction to the committee, if I could just recommend that.

The instruction to the committee has become a total irrelevance in the last couple of days. We’ve just passed provisions in this House to enable a select committee to do its business remotely, and we’ve said that it’s only going to happen when there is urgent business for the House to conduct when there are difficult circumstances for it to come together. Well, anyone would have to be completely blind or deaf or unseeing, in all sorts of sensory ways, to not know that that’s where it’s all heading.

So one of the statements made to the House by the Leader of the House was that when we get to that point, non-essential legislation will be put on the back-burner. So this is one of the first pieces of legislation that would go on the back-burner. What we haven’t heard in the argument for this particular motion is why it’s so important.

I’d like to know whether it is more important than the Public Finance (Wellbeing) Amendment Bill. Apparently, it is. It’s more important than the Public Finance (Wellbeing) Amendment Bill. The Government predicates its whole dealings with the public of New Zealand on the basis of wellbeing, but the prisoners getting to vote first in the next election is more important than that bill.

Then, there is the Arms Legislation Bill—the Arms Legislation Bill. A huge amount of posturing from the Government about a lot of very honest New Zealanders having to turn in their hunting weapons, etc., and being made to feel bad for even keeping the weapons that are legal, and a huge amount of select committee process up and down the country and lots of public meetings, but, apparently, the Arms Legislation Bill is not as important as the bill to let prisoners have a vote at the next election.

Then, there’s the Equal Pay Amendment Bill. How many times have we had members in this House from the Government stand up and talk about pay equity and equal pay, and the desire to balance that up across the workforce in New Zealand? But that’s not as important as getting the parliamentary time cut down so that prisoners can get a vote at the next election.

Most New Zealanders understand that when someone breaks the law and someone is sentenced to a prison term and the prison term runs across an election cycle, one of the liberties that’s lost is the right to vote. But, apparently, that right to vote, for lawbreakers, or for prisoners who are serving their time—and, let’s be clear, people who are in prison these days have committed criminal acts, have destroyed the lives of many people by those criminal acts, and have put fear into the lives of many people by those criminal acts. This motion is to ensure that those people regain that liberty—that right to vote—while they’re still in prison. It’s very hard to understand, and we haven’t had one argument from the Government today or from the debates that were in yesterday to explain to us why it’s so important that this House report back by 2 June on this particular bill.

We know that if the circumstances that are prevailing in the country at the moment are exacerbated, then a look at the Order Paper will see this is one of the first bills that gets sacrificed. So there is no need to hurry. The idea is that the victims of the people who are currently in prison and are likely to get the vote out of this—families of the people who might have been brutally murdered, families of people who have had their whole lives disrupted by a criminal act of one person who’s now in prison, people who have to endure their own kind of prison because of the acts of those people—may want to come to a select committee and make their point. It would be hard for them to do it, but they may want to do it. But the Government is saying, “Oh no. Let’s whip it through.” Even though we know that there is going to be difficulty with legislation in the weeks ahead, they still want to have it back by 2 June, because it is such an important bill for the Government.

I think the waste of time we’ve got this afternoon is a disgrace. I might be wasting some of that time by standing here speaking, but I’m not responsible for the motion being on the floor of the House. I don’t set the Order Paper; the Government does. So on a day when we’ve had the exponential curve on the COVID-19 virus going absolutely north, we are in the House talking about the right for prisoners to vote. I don’t understand the Government’s motivation—I really don’t. I look forward to at least one Government speaker—one Government speaker—standing up and justifying what this is all about.

💬 Hon Member: Angie.

Ah, we’ve just had Angie Warren-Clark, who’s just said that she will stand up and defend the Government’s position. Well, I’ll make a prediction. That speech will be “I move the question be now put.”, or some variation of it. [Interruption] She’s just told me I’m psychic. They don’t want to justify it, because there can be no justification for shortening the time where New Zealanders can exercise their right to come to a select committee and speak about this.

What’s also slightly ironic is that if it had been four months and two days, we wouldn’t be here now talking about it. But they also know there wouldn’t be time to get it passed before the election. Well, then that raises the question: what’s it all about? Well, it’s not going to make that big a difference. If everyone in jail in New Zealand voted for Labour, it wouldn’t make that big a difference, and where are the prisons located? Helensville—is that going to turf the member out? I don’t think so. Selwyn—is that going to turf the member out? I don’t think so.

So it has to be about returning the right of liberty that comes with any law-abiding citizen or for any law-abiding citizen to criminals who are being punished for their despicable acts that are perpetrated not only on the individuals most affected but on the wider community as well. That is what’s so hard to understand here.

So for fear that I might stray from the motion and suffer the wrath of the Speaker, I’ll leave it at that, and look forward to Angie Warren-Clark giving us the justification for the Government deciding that this bill should be considered in this very short time frame, ahead of the Public Finance (Wellbeing) Amendment Bill, the Arms Legislation Bill, the Equal Pay Amendment Bill, and, frankly, an enormous amount of others on this Order Paper as well. What is the explanation?

I move, That the question be now put.