Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill

Thank you, Madam Chair. I apologise to my colleague. There’s been a bit of a misunderstanding between myself and the whip. But I am pleased to take a call.

I sat on the select committee throughout the entire process of hearing the submissions on this particular bill. Subsequent to that, I have left the Justice Committee because I’ve had a change in my portfolio responsibilities within the National Party, and so I regret that I haven’t had a chance to do further work on it.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: What brought that about?

What brought that about? Well, I’m sure you’re well aware of that, Mr Hipkins. Given that it resulted in a small promotion for me, I’m very happy about it. But, anyway, thank you very much for his interest in the furtherance of my career. I’d like to get back to the bill, because I’m sure that’s what the Chair would like me to do.

I do want to draw attention to the fact that there were some very significant compelling submissions, both in favour and against the bill, and so I acknowledge those. I regret that I was unable to speak about those submissions last week in the second reading of the bill, and the reason for that was that the House was sitting under extended hours while my new select committee was sitting, and I was required to be in an Estimates hearing. So I didn’t get a chance to speak about those submissions, but I do want to acknowledge those who submitted both for and against the bill, because I think that they brought many compelling thoughts to bear. It was particularly interesting to hear from a number of those who have formerly been through our penal system. We don’t often hear from prisoners or former prisoners on bills and their implications, and I listened to them with particular interest and was glad that they took the time to submit. The interesting thing was they weren’t all unanimous in their views on this bill either.

But I do want to say how outraged I was—and I made a big noise about it during the time—that our select committee was required to do that work while the country was in lockdown, having been given an assurance by the Leader of the House, who is in the House, at the time, that there was no public interest in non-urgent matters being dealt with while the whole country was in lockdown and the House was adjourned. I for one would probably not have supported the motion to adjourn when we did had I known that the Government would renege on that very significant commitment that they made. So I did raise my objections, all the way up to the level of the Clerk of the House, and I wasn’t particularly satisfied with the way the whole matter was resolved. But I just put on record that I do not think that the average member of the public supported the fact that the select committee was dealing with that bill at that time.

In fact, we asked many people who were submitting whether they were aware of this opportunity long before they were given the chance to present via a Zoom meeting, and they said, no, they weren’t. Clearly, many of them had been contacted by members of the Labour or Green parties and urged to put in their submissions very quickly because they were getting caned in the early stages of the select committee’s hearings. The fact of the matter is, overwhelmingly, people I have spoken to said, surely, at a time when the country was focused on COVID matters—a very serious issue—Parliament was suspended, and the country was unable to operate as would normally occur, that was not the time to be dealing with any non-urgent matter. In particular, getting to the point where now, under urgency, we are rushing through a bill to give prisoners the vote suggests very warped priorities on the part of the Government.

It’s not so much, therefore, the principle of the bill that I object to but the practicalities of the way it has been managed. I feel that the Government misled the Parliament and misled the nation in moving the adjournment and suggesting that no non-urgent bills would be covered and then they did. I feel that members of the public are right to feel outraged about the fact that they didn’t know that it was happening, as a result of which many of them who would have submitted on this bill didn’t, because they were ignorant of it. Now, that’s outrageous in a democracy when you have people who really would have a strong interest in a bill not having the ability to know about it. We asked them whether it had received much media attention in their areas, and the vast majority of people asked that question said, “Absolutely not. We’ve heard nothing about it whatsoever.”

So I put on record my strong criticism of the Government for the way in which they are putting this bill through the House. I understand the reasons for it, and I certainly understand the reasons against it. In particular, I hope that the Government listen to the strong concerns of victims of crime who felt yet again that this was an insulting slap in the face for their concerns, particularly during the lockdown, because we heard many distressing stories from victims who felt deeply aggrieved and insulted by this bill’s consideration.

Just before I call the next member, could I just remind the committee of the whole House of the resolution of the House to remove the four five-minute call limit on committee stage contributions. The idea behind that was to encourage an interaction with the Minister. So we would have shorter calls—not necessarily shorter, but there could be far more shorter calls and a conversation with the Minister. So, in order to encourage a conversation, you will really need to try and have a question in the contribution from the members.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate the opportunity to take a call on the committee stage of the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill. I just want to thank the Hon Tim Macindoe for the contribution that he made and the points that he outlined around the sham of the process that this bill has gone through. Yet again, here we are, under urgency debating this legislation. If you were to look back over the history of this legislation, it is chequered with a sham of a process on a significant piece of legislation going through Parliament.

I want to focus a couple of questions around clause 5, which amends section 80 of the Electoral Act, which includes the definitions of those who will be qualified to register under this piece of legislation. It says “a person who is detained under—(i) a sentence of imprisonment for life; or (ii) a sentence of preventive detention; or (iii) a sentence of imprisonment for a term of 3 years or more:”. I want to focus on the definition there: a sentence of imprisonment for a term of three years or more. Those people remain disqualified for registration, but those who are sentenced to imprisonment for a term of less than three years will now be qualified. And I ask the question to the Minister as to how many people this will apply to, how many prisoners will be qualified under this legislation and what it intends to do? Then I ask the Minister also if he can outline a number, or give some examples potentially, of some of the offences that some of those people have committed in order to get those sentences. I’d like the Minister to potentially even answer this question, which is to tell the committee how many, on average, convictions are required by an offender to essentially end up in jail? What’s the average number of convictions? I guess this is the question: what is the average number of convictions that a sentenced prisoner has in our prisons in New Zealand? Because—

💬 Darroch Ball: What’s that got to do with it?

Well, what does that have to do with it? Because, Mr Ball, and I know you’re supporting this, New Zealand First is not on the side of victims here, because this is a conversation around the victims of crime. Those people in prison, they go to prison and they lose some of their rights whilst they’re in prison, and that includes their right to be able to vote. That is one of the rights that they lose when they go to prison, and they break the social contract, and they have some of their rights taken away from them.

💬 Darroch Ball: Why was it a member’s bill?

If Mr Ball wants to stand on the side of prisoners rather than victims, that’s his choice. But we won’t on this side, and I look forward to the Minister’s answers.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In the spirit of the conversational exchange—which I think the current rules now promote—let me respond. I might just respond to Mr Macindoe’s points. I understand the passion and enthusiasm that he brings to the submissions that he makes, except to say that, while Parliament itself and the House did not operate during lockdown, select committees continued to meet and to do their business; it wasn’t a holiday for MPs. Every MP, as far as I know, the stories I’ve heard, continued to work, supported and engaged with their constituents, and supported and engaged on important topical issues, including this one. I do point out that the select committee received 2,578 written submissions on this bill, 78 percent of which supported the bill, and I think we should bear that in mind.

To Mr Brown’s points, and I know he repeated the issues about process and urgency and what have you, but to turn to clause 5 and the new section 80(1)(d), he asks how many would it apply to. Well, according to officials, between 1,800 and 1,900 prisoners currently. And I think, to put that into context, there are roughly 9,600 people in prison; 36 percent of them have the right to vote, because they’re remand prisoners—they’ve always had the right to vote, they’ll continue to have the right to vote, and under National, they did—and this will add between 1,800 and 1,900. And just to allay the fears that members of the National Party might have: if they are so concerned about 1,900 other people getting the vote, they are in worse shape in the polls than we have hitherto thought they were. So I wouldn’t get too concerned about that.

In terms of the other two questions that Mr Brown raised, the first of which was the examples of the offences it would apply to and how many, on average, convictions does it take to end up in prison, it is simply not possible to give a single answer to those questions. Because, in the end, sentencing is the job of judges, and they look at the offence, they look at the track record, they look at the circumstances of the offending, they look at how the particular offender has responded—have they pleaded guilty early, have they taken responsibility for their actions, has there been some sort of response in terms of the victim? All of those factors get taken into account. There are some offences that are eligible for a prison sentence but do not incur a prison sentence on the first conviction—there might be multiple convictions before it does; so that doesn’t help.

In the end, what this comes down to, as the National Party agreed in 1993, when they reinstated the right of prisoners with a sentence of less than three years the right to vote—they considered that somebody sentenced to less than three years is generally at the lower end of offending, they are going to come out, and the National Party then supported the principle, as this Government does now, that even if you are in prison at the time of one election but sentenced to less than three years, you are going to be released back into the community and the democratic principles suggest that you should have the right to have a say on who’s leading the country that you’re going to be released free into. This is not an open slather, every prisoner gets to vote; it is knowing that some prisoners would be out before the next election and they must have a right to have a say on who’s going to lead their country.

To the argument about victims, that this is anti-victim, well then, the members opposite will have to argue that, actually, once sentenced to prison, you should permanently lose your right to vote, even if you’re released on parole or you’ve finished your sentence. That’s the logical extension of that argument, and that is why the High Court, the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court, and the Waitangi Tribunal have all rejected the National Party argument, and I might add this too: if they are so convinced that taking away the right of prisoners sentenced to a sentence of less than three years is somehow going to have some massive rehabilitative and ameliorative effect, why is it, since 2010, that the prison population went—under their Government—from 7,500 to nearly 11,000? This didn’t make a difference.

Before I call the Hon Mark Mitchell, can I apologise to both previous speakers; I pushed the button at one minute, forgetting I wasn’t to do that in committee stage. My apologies to members, and thank you for ignoring it.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Firstly, can I address one of the comments that the Minister of Justice, the Hon Andrew Little, made in his response, when he said that the National Party must be concerned about the election result this year as we were trying to prevent 1,900 prisoners from voting. So I would assume by that statement that the Minister feels that those 1,900 prisoners are going to vote for Labour. But I think that’s very unfair—I think that’s extremely unfair, because Darroch Ball, he deserves his share; New Zealand First, they deserve a share of that 1,900 vote. So, Minister, I would say to you that if you’re making the assumption—and it would be fair to say that that’s the assumption—that the 1,900 prisoners that are going to get the vote at the general election this year are going to vote for Labour or for New Zealand First, I put it to you that it’s probably highly likely—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Could you put it to the Minister, please.

—that the victims are going to vote for—well—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Could you put it to the Minister, not to me.

Sorry, Madam Chair. I’d put it to you, Minister, that it’s highly likely that the victims—and, by the way, there are far more victims—are likely to be voting for the National Party this year, because we unashamedly stand up and always will speak on the right of the victims and we always put victims at the heart of any of our criminal justice policies. Thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing me to address that point, because it wasn’t strictly part of the bill.

The question that I’ve got for the Minister is this: if you truly stand by your values, if you truly stand by the—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Could you please address the Minister rather than the Chair. Break a habit of a lifetime.

If the Minister truly stands by those values, why are they not passing a bill that gives every prisoner the right to vote? Why are they restricting it to prisoners with a term less than three years?

And, by the way, could the prisoner take—sorry, not the prisoner; could the Minister—ha, ha!—please stand and explain to me one thing: how are they going to apply this rule when you have a prisoner that may come in with a less than three years prison sentence, offends while in prison—which happens often—and he has a new sentence which extends him beyond that three-year period? What happens if a prisoner has got a five-year sentence and actually has it reduced because he completes his rehabilitation, training, and courses, and so he’s actually going to come out before the end of his sentence? How is the Minister going to deal with that? How is the system going to respond to that? Those situations are going to arise, and to me it appears that you’re going to immediately have inequity within a process and a system that you’re passing through this bill. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to my good friend the Hon Mark Mitchell. Look, in relation to who prisoners might be voting for, I agree with him that they could be voting for anybody. I think, as my colleague the Hon Chris Hipkins pointed out, many of them are entrepreneurs; they just happen to operate in the black market not in the legal market. They’re often self-directed and certainly self-interested, so many of them will be natural National Party supporters.

I just want to make this point, too, about who stands for victims. The party that stands for victims, or the Government that stands for victims, is the one that’s beefed up the police force and given the police the personnel, the numbers, and the tools to actually do the job of getting on top of gangs, getting on top of illegal firearms, and actually keeping the community safe. That’s what prevents more victims, not this sort of nonsense.

Anyway, to answer the question about why not extend it to every prisoner: for the very reasons I pointed out, this is about accepting the principle that there are some prisoners who we know between elections will be released—and it might be a month after the election, it might be six months after the election; they’re back in the community for 2½ years. They ought to have a say on who the Government is that is running the country that they’re going to be released into.

The member asked: what if the sentence is changed? That is catered for. If there is an appeal—if, for example, the Crown appeals a sentence on the grounds it’s too short and it is extended beyond three years—that prisoner comes back off the roll, has to come off the roll. If the sentence is originally longer than three years but the defendant appeals and their sentence is reduced, Corrections has to go to that prisoner and work on the process of getting them back on the roll. That’s the way it operates. So the system is able to accommodate changes in sentence even after initial sentencing.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s good to have the opportunity to participate in this discussion in the committee stage in relation to the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill. I have a number of questions for the Minister that are clustered around the idea of inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I can do that probably in reasonably short order, but please bear with me. I’ll get all those out, sort of, in one hit, so to speak, before perhaps going on to other topics.

We heard from a number of submitters who made good, compelling submissions in favour of the bill but with a reservation around the fact that there appears to be inconsistency internally whereby prisoners being denied the right to vote are said to have had their rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act curtailed. The argument was that there was somewhat of an arbitrary line between prisoners who had been sentenced for less than three years and three years or more. I acknowledge that the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, has outlined an argument in respect of prisoners being able to vote, effectively, on—one step removed, but let’s say voting on the laws of the land that will apply to them after they’re released, the argument being that they’re voting for those who will in turn make the laws of the land.

But I think that it’s worth addressing, and I’d like to have on record the Minister’s thoughts about a situation where a prisoner is imprisoned for more than three years but doesn’t have the opportunity within their last three years prior to being released. I think that might be part of the intent underlying the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in the name of the Green Party member who’s put one forward, and I look forward to hearing from her on that subject as well. I’m curious to know, in the first instance: is it the case that one of the bases for amending the law that the Minister has brought to the House is inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and, second, whether he intends therefore to support the SOP in the name of Ms Ghahraman, and, finally, on a related point, what he would anticipate his response would be when, inevitably, this matter is brought before the senior courts again, they again declare the law to be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act? Would he anticipate changing the law or seeking that Parliament change the law at that time? Thank you.

💬 Golriz Ghahraman: Madam Chair.

💬 Hon Andrew Little: Madam Chair.

The Hon Andrew Little.

I just thought we were trying to keep this conversation—because I have seen it working quite well, even in contentious legislation. So my apologies to my colleague Golriz Ghahraman.

To Mr Penk, he is right: one of the reasons this bill is here is because there is a slather of judicial findings that the legislation as it is currently is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I’d just point out that for someone sentenced to more than three years, the bill does still set up a requirement on the Department of Corrections to assist that prisoner at the point of release to enrol if they wish to do so—to proactively provide that assistance.

Now, the member asked will we be supporting the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Golriz Ghahraman. No, we won’t be. We made the decision on the principle I’ve pointed out, but also the fact that the law that had been in place since 1993—and, in fact, actually, it had been in place earlier, for a longer period of time—we thought struck the right balance in terms of our electoral law. We know that for those who commit offences and offend against society and social mores to the point where they are incarcerated and lose their freedom of movement and freedom of association and all those sorts of freedoms but where that is a short-term sentence and they’re going to be out before the next election, they ought to retain the right to vote.

We know it is an arguable point—and it is in communities around the world—as to how many citizens’ rights and civilian rights, or civil rights, you take off somebody sentenced to prison. You automatically lose your right to freedom of movement and your right to freedom of association and you have a huge curtailment of the right of freedom of speech. Should you lose other rights as well, and, look, that’s a fertile debate. But, actually, for New Zealand it was reasonably well settled until what I think was a pretty gratuitous political act in 2010. Under a member’s bill, no less, the law changed, and this Government does not think that that was a savoury thing to do. We think there is a principle underpinning this.

It may well be that in a subsequent hearing, the law as changed by this law change may also be found to be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and I know there were submitters who said that. There is judicial reasoning from previous cases that actually upheld the 1993 law as being consistent with the 1990 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. So that remains an arguable point. I think the balance is struck well here, and it’s the right thing to do.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I relish the opportunity to enter this conversation at this point, I think, given that two members who have spoken previously have referenced my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 518 to amend this bill further to extend the right to vote to all prisoners. The reason for that is that New Zealand is a proud nation that upholds and protects basic human rights even when the absolute worst has happened. I think the criminal justice system is the absolute testing point of our willingness to adhere to basic human rights and, in particular, as lawmakers, to uphold those rights without prejudice.

We’ve been told—and other members have referenced this—by all the courts of the land, right up to the Supreme Court of New Zealand and the Waitangi Tribunal, that the ban on people in prisons from voting is a breach of those fundamental rights. That’s really important to notice, because human rights are universal. That is the core and essence of our basic rights. We don’t have human rights because we’re good but because we are human. It’s important to notice that, because it’s a slippery slope. If we are to take away human rights based on arbitrary moral judgments, what’s next? Do we take away the right to healthcare from our prisons? Do we take away the right to be free from torture?

And on that, in terms of balancing people’s human rights as against the restrictions that we can put upon them in a lawful society, I do a little bit have to disagree with the Minister respectfully, because I don’t think it is a live debate in terms of the right to vote, not in any legal sense. We heard from the Human Rights Commission in select committee, where they outlined it really clearly. We can take away people’s rights in the criminal justice system where there is a valid criminal justice purpose. So, in the Sentencing Act, for example, the purpose of sentencing someone to prison comes back to things like keeping the community safe, rehabilitation, successful reintegration back into the community, and none of those things are impacted by taking away that one vote that the prisoner has. The community is not kept more safe; victims are not restored. In fact, everybody noted—who had the expertise or experience to note—that the purposes of rehabilitation and successful reintegration back to the community are actually damaged by disconnecting prisoners from that community.

Now, to come back to who we’re actually talking about in terms of those impacted by this ban, by this breach of fundamental rights, we are a Government who has looked at the research and we acknowledge that our criminal justice system is racist. It disproportionately targets Māori, other communities of colour, and lower socio-economic communities. So who are we taking away from our democracy? Who are we banning? Who are we disenfranchising further and further when we ban prisoners from the vote? Because we already know that Māori, for committing the same act, are far, far more likely to be convicted and sentenced to imprisonment than anybody else. The Waitangi Tribunal told us that that’s not OK.

Coming back to victims and the rights of victims—how are they impacted? Well, I fear that in this Chamber we often talk in terms of being tough on crime, with rhetoric that does nothing for victims. Instead, we could support victims and uphold fundamental human rights in our justice system. We could provide for mental healthcare. We can provide for a better healthcare system, for housing, for things that actually keep our communities connected and secure. While that side of the Chamber speaks about the rights and wellbeing of victims, victims of violent crime who went to hospital for the last nine years were lying in hospitals where the walls were rotting. That’s not what we are about. Let’s actually take care of victims and let’s uphold the integrity of our justice system by upholding fundamental rights. New Zealand should be a place where, proudly, universal suffrage happened. It should be a place where arbitrary moral lines aren’t drawn by a Government to disenfranchise communities—in particular, not Māori and our most vulnerable communities. So please vote for my SOP.

Thank you, Madam Chair. You chose the much better of the two to take a call. I just wanted to reflect briefly on the fake news from the Green Party, where they talked about the walls of Middlemore Hospital. Well, that one has been debunked well and truly, and so it’s fake news. But let’s get back to what this bill is actually about.

The Green Party here is actually saying—and I must commend them; principled, principled—let’s give all prisoners the right to vote. That’s the essence of the Supplementary Order Paper and the argument getting put forward. I just want to acknowledge that that is a principled position to come from. It’s a principle that I don’t agree with, but at least it’s a principled position. Unlike the Minister’s position, which is to stand up in the House and say, “Well, at this stage, we’ll allow prisoners who have been sentenced to three years or less, but who knows what might happen in the future.” We might get a Human Rights Tribunal decision or something might get challenged in the courts. He’s passing other legislation around inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and all the rest. So we might just see what happens. Will we be having this conversation again, that we might extend it to six years or nine years or 10 years? So where does the line get drawn?

The Minister has said, “Well, three years is kind of around about where we think it’s right.” But I challenge the Minister: you can’t have it one way or the other; you’ve got to be principled about this, principled as to whether it’s all prisoners who have been sentenced—

💬 Darroch Ball: National passed the Electoral Act in ’93! Where was your principle then?

—or whether it’s no prisoners who have been sentenced. And the National Party stands on the side of principle and says—

💬 Darroch Ball: Answer the question, Mr Brown!

I’m asking questions here.

💬 Darroch Ball: Answer the question!

This is the committee of the whole House stage, Mr Ball. If you’d like to take a call, feel free to ask the Minister a question. But I’m putting a question to the Minister around—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I’m happy to invite the member for a call when he stands and calls, but in the meantime, just carry on.

—thank you for your support, Madam Chair; it’s much appreciated—what the principle is around why it is three years. Because I’ve heard lots of reasons and lots of “We’ll see what happens.” But I have not seen a principled decision from the Minister as to why people who commit offences which get sentenced to up to three years are going to be given the right to vote but those convicted to a sentence of over three years will not be.

The question does come back down to victims of crime, because there will be many, many people—many thousands of people out there—who have had their rights taken away, who have been hurt, who have had criminal acts, assaults, a whole range of criminal offences taken against them. There are victims of crime who have had—whether it’s their livelihood or whether it’s other aspects of their human dignity destroyed or damaged by these criminals, and this piece of legislation has nothing for those people. This is by people who are sentenced to sentences of less than three years. There are people who have had criminal acts taken against them, where they’ve lost life, they’ve had personal injury, they’ve had assaults, they’ve had financial loss—a whole range of different things taken against them—and this bill has no recognition of them in it. So the question to the Minister is: where is the principle as to why it should be three years and less, and not all prisoners, or none?

I’m just trying to tease out the contradiction in that member’s argument, and I’ll just put it there. So he wants the right for all prisoners to vote regardless of the length of sentence, but he thinks it’s an affront to the victims, and actually no one should have the right to vote if they’ve gone to prison. So if the member comes to the House with a story, it should be a straight story. Let’s be consistent.

Let me respond to some of the points he made. So he’s a bit worried, as I understand it, as I infer from his contribution, that if there is a future court ruling perhaps on this law that says it’s still inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, therefore, what are we going to do. I’d just make this point: the laws of this land are in the hands of this House. The laws of this land are in the hands of this House. This House will decide. And even under the declaration of an inconsistency with legislation that we’ve got going through the House at the moment, it is very clear. Courts may well declare laws to be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and it will come back to this House and this House will decide. And one of the decisions the House might make is it’s going to carry on, for the very good reason that at a political level we decide that inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is one that is tolerable. So there is no further risk there.

The member asked: why three years? I’ve laid that out. It is about the right of those sentenced to a short sentence who know that by the time of the next election they will be out and therefore they’re going to have a period of freedom and their right to have a say on who’s going to govern the country that they’re going to be released into.

I might just say this about victims of crime, because I know the National Party trots that out as if they’re somehow the champions of the victims of crime. They’re not. They ran down the police force. We saw a rise in crime, a massive increase in the prison population under their time, a lot of victims as a result. They did nothing about trying to improve the outcomes for prisoners to reduce their offending. They just carried on putting more and more back into prison. But I make this point too: actually, the majority of those in prison are also victims of crime. They’ve been victims of child abuse, child sexual abuse. They’ve been beaten and treated and also badly assaulted and harmed. Most of those people in prison are victims of crime. So when the members opposite are trying to trot this out as though they’re mutually exclusive; they’re not. And if we have a system that’s doing its job, it’s actually recognising that and working on stopping the criminal habits and the criminal attitudes to change those behaviours.

In any event, I go back to the point I made before: members who were in the previous Government voted for this. It might’ve been a member’s bill, but the National Party unanimously supported it when they were in Government, as a member’s bill, and in 2010, when the prison population was only 7,500, the law change at that time that they supported did nothing to stop the prison population rising to nearly 11,000. So taking away that this right to vote for this small proportion of prisoners does not make it better for victims, does not reduce the number of victims. So let’s not kid ourselves that that somehow is a magic answer to the problem of victims of crime.

There are other things that need to happen. What victims of crime most want is a strong voice in the system. They don’t want to be ignored any more, because they’ve been papered over for so long. So that’s where we’re looking. That’s the support that we’re providing. We’ve started in the last couple of Budgets and we will continue, if we’re given permission to do so, after 19 September.

If the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, had actually listened to the voice of victims, he would’ve taken a very different perspective, because, at the select committee stage of this bill, we heard from numerous organisations representing victims saying, actually, part of our criminal justice system is about freedom. When you are locked up in a prison, you lose the freedom of association; you lose the freedom of movement; you lose the freedom to be able to have imparted information; and, equally so, you lose the right to vote. In the eyes of victims, actually, this Government is far more preoccupied with the rights of criminal offenders than it is with those that are the victims of crime.

Now, the Minister also made reference to the legislative principles around this bill. His problem is that this bill does not resolve the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issues, that, actually—and the Labour Party, in submissions at the Justice Committee, argued that every offender, every person in prison, should be able to vote. In fact, a number of branches of the Labour Party appeared before the committee. You could take it to the logical extreme where the appalling offender who has subsequently pleaded guilty to the killing of 51 people in the grotesque act that occurred at the Christchurch mosques—and the puritans in the Labour Party argue that that man should be entitled to vote in our elections. We say no, that’s incorrect, that people who are in jail are in jail for a reason.

I also want to move away from the Minister’s sort of idealistic position that those in prison are somehow—they’ve committed one offence, you know, they made a bit of an error and we shouldn’t hold it against them. For goodness’ sake! We heard at the select committee that the average—

💬 Brett Hudson: They’re not there for stealing a Moro bar.

That’s right. I say to my colleague, our spokesperson for police—soon to be Minister of Police—that, actually, 24 offences, that’s the average number. It’s not like these people haven’t been given a second chance. In fact, the law, which this party agrees with, is that prison should be the last resort, not the first resort, for judges when they’re dealing with criminal offenders. The honest truth is those that are in jail are people that have committed multiple offences against the law of the land, and we heard evidence at the select committee that, in fact, 24 criminal offences is the average number for—

💬 Rt Hon David Carter: The average?

That’s the average. We had one guy before the committee where it was over 120 offences—

💬 Rt Hon David Carter: And they want to give them the vote—they want to give them the vote?

—and they say that those people should be entitled to vote. I say to my good friend and colleague David Carter: they are desperate for votes. They have, for 2½ years, been chasing the votes of criminals. They don’t care about the rights of victims. They don’t care about the basic standards that we expect in our community. It is simply a crude grab for power, by which they think they can score a few thousand more votes. The political strategy is flawed.

I particularly want to refer to the New Zealand First Party. The New Zealand First Party—just go on Facebook; they are horrified. If they look in the mirror on 20 September and they want to know why they have been ejected from this place, they need look no further than their support for this bill. This is anathema to the hard law and order approach, and I invite those New Zealand First MPs opposite to talk to their party members about what they think about giving votes to prisoners. What it shows is not just with this part but an overall approach by this Government that is soft on crime.

The last bit I want to address in this part is the practical issues for our prisons in providing for the right to vote. I was privileged for a period to be the Minister of Corrections, and at that time it was actually really difficult, practically, to provide for prisoners to vote. For instance, only MPs are allowed within the premises of prisons. So is it fair in a democratic system that members of Parliament, the incumbents, can go into prisons and campaign for votes but not candidates who are seeking the support in those particular electorates? I think that’s a pretty fundamental right, that all candidates have a fair crack. I also believe that a really important part of the political process is being able to ask questions, to receive information, to have free access to the internet and read all the different ranges of political opinions, because what will flow from this bill is, next minute, you will have criminals appealing: “Well, I’ve got the right to vote; well, I should be able to on Facebook. I should be able to express views on laws. I should be able to impart freely information.” Well, look, I know—and you only need look at the mess that occurred when the man who’s pled guilty to the Christchurch mosques was able to freely write letters. It speaks volumes of the attitude of the current Government: all about the rights of criminals and not about the rights of victims and the important part that, actually, punishment plays in our criminal justice system.

I do raise a real question about the practicality of serving prisoners being able to vote given the degree to which we, logically and properly, extensively restrict the freedoms of those people. Now, there are jurisdictions around the world—the bulk of them in the United States—where, if you are convicted of a felony, you never get to vote again in your life. Now, National is absolutely of a view that that is wrong. We are of that old-fashioned perspective that says if you do the crime, you do the time; when you’ve done your time, you regain all your rights as a citizen. That is the proper, balanced position that this National Party has taken for many, many years on this issue.

💬 Darroch Ball: How many years—how many years?

I reflect—well, I reflect on the vast bulk of New Zealand’s history, to New Zealand First. The bulk of New Zealand’s history—

💬 Darroch Ball: In fact, that member was here in 1993 when the Electoral Act was voted for this legislation.

Well, I’d love New Zealand First to take a call. I’ll make a bet with my mate David Carter: New Zealand First will not take a call on this bill, because this bill is a suicide note from the New Zealand First Party. I cannot find a New Zealand First supporter anywhere from Invercargill to Bluff who has said, “I like prisoners being able to vote. I want to be soft on crime. New Zealand First’s mandate is to be soft on crime and to vote for a bill that will give prisoners the vote.” I say to that New Zealand First member of Parliament: prepare for and enjoy your last few weeks in Parliament, because your support for this bill is one of the reasons that your party is so low in the polls and is going to be rejected by the people of New Zealand on 19 September.

You see, we do support prisoners, having done their time, being able to get easily back on the roll. I actually indicated at the select committee that there is a sort of an academic argument as to whether the practical mechanism is that you allow prisoners to stay on the roll but not be able to exercise that voting right while they are in prison, rather than this business of actually tossing them off the roll and then going through the bureaucratic process of putting them back on. I actually think the practical provisions of our electoral law would actually have them remaining on the roll but, while they are serving time in prison, for those practical and principal reasons that I’ve set out, not being able to cast a vote. That’s the law in the mother of all parliaments, in the UK; that is the case in many jurisdictions around the world; and we actually think it is the practical, balanced perspective, that if you offend the laws of the land and you can’t respect them, you surrender your right, for your term of prison, to actually be able to practically participate in the enormous privilege we have to be part of this democracy in New Zealand. That is why National opposes Part 1 of this bill.

I know that that member who has just resumed is struggling to come to terms with the new spirit of the committee of the whole House stage, where it is more conversational and questions are posed; that’s why the limit on the number of calls has been completely removed. In any event, let me assist the member, if only to assist him with history, because I know that member also struggles with history. He certainly struggles with facts, but he definitely struggles with history. And here is the point: the law changed in 1993, under a National Government. The National Government in 1993, of which he was a part, changed the law to allow prisoners serving a sentence of less than three years to vote. That member voted for it. He might have forgotten, but he voted for it.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Would the member yield to explain that very point?

No, I’ve taken my call. The member had eight minutes—that member had eight minutes to make his point. I know he’s full of excuses; next to his slim grasp on facts are his excuses for what he has and hasn’t done. And I know he brings considerable experience to this debate, not only because he voted for this very law change himself in 1993 but because he’s been through the criminal justice system, because he has a conviction for contempt of court. So we know all that. So he brings that experienced insight; we know that. But here’s the thing here: when he says that National has stood by this principle for many years, it’s actually not that many years, because in 1993 they voted for this very thing. They allowed this. If he was so concerned that maybe they shouldn’t be taken off the roll, they should be just denied the right to vote. He, by 2010, was a very, very experienced MP, a Minister, and he did not make that change. He did not propose that. They just let it go through because it was expedient, because they thought there were a few points in it, dare I say a few votes in it. That’s why they did it.

Here’s the other point. He did make an interesting point, but, unfortunately, so devoid of evidence, which is that there’s a practical question for Corrections. And I say to that member: no, there isn’t. Because, of the roughly 9,700-odd prisoners at the moment, 3,400 have the right to vote—3,400 have the right to vote. The Electoral Commission has to work with corrections to make sure those 3,400 prisoners get to exercise their right to vote, and this bill will affect between 1,800 and 1,900 extra prisoners. Nil extra effort required from the Electoral Commission, nil extra effort required from the Department of Corrections. The member is simply wrong.

Now, he quite correctly pointed out the right of sitting MPs to have access to prisons, and they do that; it’s one of the checks and balances on what is happening in prisons, and so they do that. But the member has never raised any issue for candidates talking to the 3,400 remand prisoners before. I mean, the last election was about 3,100. It’s gone up since then, but the member’s never raised that before. The reality is: remand prisoners in the last election, the election before that, and no doubt the one before that exercised their right to vote; they got access to information, they’ll continue to get access to information, and that will continue under this bill. But it is not correct to say that, without this bill, no one in prison gets the right to vote—36 percent of the prison population now currently has the right to vote. This will make a sensible adjustment, as it was made in 1993, on a principled point that those who are in prison now who will be released into the community before the next election must have a right to have a say on who is leading the country that they’re being released into. That is the principle.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wanted to resume on that subject of the practical aspects of the bill, more particularly the administration that is involved not only in the campaigning side of things, which has been the subject of a little bit of discussion so far, but also the mechanics of voting and the practical challenges that are faced for those who are detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure and soon to be given, in the case of those who are there for up to three years, the ability to vote. The implication, I would hope, for all members of this House, and indeed all candidates across the land, is that there is a deep and obvious connection between the right, which we could also phrase as the “responsibility”, to vote and the right—and, again, responsibility—to be informed such that a vote can be meaningful.

So I have a couple of specific questions in that regard, but also I’m just interested in assurances that the Minister of Justice can give about the way that he would envisage the law being given effect to. I do want to acknowledge that I’m not asking the Minister to say anything that would be inappropriate from the point of view of directing the Electoral Commission. We’ve got an important constitutional point that legislators don’t direct the specific operations of that body. It’s quite right that they be able to conduct their important role in a way that’s free from interference. But, having said that, of course it’s the responsibility of this House, and of course the Minister in whose name this bill appears before us, to consider whether it will be possible for them to carry out the role that they already have, which I would like to acknowledge as being done by them in an exceptional manner, as compared with, of course, the provisions of the bill.

So one of the issues that I’ve become aware of is exercising my right—and, again, responsibility—as a member of Parliament to visit prisons. I have Auckland prison within my electorate, commonly known as “Pare” colloquially in the area—the maximum security prison. I was aware, visiting that establishment, that there are very serious demands for security, which relate not only to the desire—the understandable desire—of many prisoners to escape their confines but also in relation to issues such as the potential for self-harm; so that the material that comes through the wire, so to speak, is severely restricted, even to the point where flakes of paint need to be restricted.

So I wonder how the Minister would envisage campaigning by candidates, MPs or otherwise, in a context where the literature that they might produce, pamphlets or collateral, however you might describe it—whether that would be made available to prisoners; noting the difficulties of them receiving, basically, anything physical at all. Of course, as others have pointed out, and I think the Hon Dr Nick Smith asked the question about the ability to communicate the other way, so to speak—prisoners to communicate with candidates—and, of course, how that interacts with the restrictions that are quite rightly placed on prisoners in terms of interacting with the outside world.

So that’s sort of a broad set of questions. But I did want to specifically—please, Madam Chair, if you could invite the Minister to answer that particular point about the physical material that’s associated with campaigning. I also would be interested to know, and I ask this probably foolishly, but I ask this question because I don’t know the answer; and I know that might sound a bit silly to be making it a novel point, but my question to the Minister is quite simply: is it the case that, under our electoral law, that qualification for being a candidate for election includes the basis that one is on the electoral roll, and, therefore, is it the case that by virtue of this legislation, a prisoner who is incarcerated for less than three years will be able to be a candidate at the election as a result of this legislation? Now, I appreciate the answer might be no, or it also might be yes, but in any case, I would genuinely be interested to know that point from the Minister. Thank you.

I’ll try and deal with the latter point first. It is correct that, in order to be a candidate, you have to be enrolled and to meet the citizenship and residency requirements. Whether that means you could be a candidate—if that is the case, it is the case now. A remand prisoner—if the law is correct that you are enrolled and you have a right to vote and it is correct that you can also be a candidate, remand prisoners can be candidates now. So this wouldn’t change that if that is correct.

💬 Brett Hudson: They didn’t put that on the tin, though.

That’s a saving grace for Mr Hudson, obviously. He’s obviously planning his future that he can do it from prison.

On the first question—and I know Mr Penk drew from his experience of Pāremoremo—I’m not sure how many inmates in Pāremoremo have been sentenced to sentences of less than three years. My hunch would be not many, because it’s a maximum security prison. But, in any event, the substantial question is: can election material go into the prisons? I guess I would talk to candidates of the last few elections and see what steps they took to get their advertising material into prisons, trying to secure the prisoner vote.

I move, That the question be now put.