Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill

I don’t intend to speak for long, just to introduce this part of the bill. So this is very much the mechanics of the changes here. It allows the gathering of information by Corrections from prisoners and the conveying of that information to the Electoral Commission.

There is one part that has changed compared to the bill that was introduced and went to the Justice Committee, and that is in relation to prisoners who are seeking to go on to the unpublished roll. The original draft of the bill suggested or implied or made it pretty clear that that would be an automated process; it was never intended to be. This has changed that so that any prisoner applying to go on to the unpublished roll stands in the same position as any other citizen applying to go on the unpublished roll, but the Department of Corrections will have a role in assisting the prisoner to fill out the application. But, in the end, the decision on whether or not a prisoner goes on to the unpublished roll once they’re released is a question entirely for the Electoral Commission, applying the test and standards that they apply to any other citizen.

Part 2 of this bill specifically provides for provisions around prisoners being able, and prison officers being required to ensure those serving sentences be able, to go on to the electoral roll. I want to respond a little bit to the history and the debate which I have had with the Minister of Justice in order to clear that history up. As is so common with Mr Little, the moment anybody challenges him, he reverts to sort of attacking the integrity of members, rather than dealing with the issues.

So let me set out very clearly the history. Up until 1975, New Zealand electoral law did not provide for prisoners being able to vote. The Labour Government of 1972 to 1975 amended the law and provided for all prisoners being able to vote in 1975. It was a law that was promised to be repealed by the incoming National Government, and that was done in 1976.

The Minister made reference to the issues that occurred in 1993, which was when the distinction was made about the issue of the three years—where prisoners were serving a sentence of less than three years, they would be entitled to vote—and I want to inform the Minister in the chair as to how that occurred. I did serve on the select committee at the time. It was the will of the National Government under Prime Minister Jim Bolger at the time of the massive MMP reform and the writing of the 1993 Electoral Act to, as much as possible, build consensus around electoral law. It is a remarkable achievement, Andrew Little, and something that you should reflect on that with both that Government and the subsequent Key-English Government, every amendment to the electoral law was advanced with cross-party support.

So while Andrew Little has prosecuted the argument and said that somehow—

💬 Michael Wood: Except when they abolished voting in Canterbury.

—I was unprincipled in 1993, it was a compromise. I know that Michael Wood, who’s chirping in—who moves closure votes, but hasn’t taken a single call—would not understand the constitutional significance of electoral law. Mr Michael Wood thinks it’s OK for the Government of the day to screw the electoral scrum to make it easier to win re-election. Now, we don’t think that’s right. So in 1993, when the complete Electoral Act was rewritten, there was a genuine compromise between Labour’s position, which is that all prisoners should vote, and National’s position. I voted for that compromise, and I’m proud of it—absolutely.

💬 Darroch Ball: So you voted for it. Where’s your principle?

New Zealand First says, yes, I voted for it, and let me tell you what the principle is: electoral law should not be being advanced on simple, narrow majorities. I said to the Minister of Justice in the chair at the beginning of this parliamentary term that my door was always open to working on a cross-party basis.

There were seven electoral amendment bills advanced during the period of the English-Key Government. Every one of those bills under Simon Power, under Judith Collins, under Amy Adams—every previous Minister sitting where Andrew Little is sitting went to huge effort to consult with Opposition parties and try and build a consensus around electoral law. This is the fifth electoral bill that the Minister in the chair has done without any discussion at all with the Opposition. In fact, he’s had the appalling approach of introducing legislation and passing it on the same day without any sort of consultation, and that shows a disrespect for New Zealand’s constitutional norms and for the need in that area.

The second area I want to pursue under Part 2 of this bill is the issues around the unpublished roll. These issues are important, and when the Minister introduced the bill to the House, supported by New Zealand First, the bill had criminals able to have access to the unpublished roll more easily than law-abiding citizens or victims of crime. That’s what the original legislation said, and I raised that issue in the first reading. The Minister said that it was untrue and that I was wrong. His officials came in at the select committee and said, indeed, that that’s exactly what the bill, unamended, says. It says that there is no legal threshold. In new section 115 in clause 8, what it says is that a criminal has an absolute right to be on the unpublished roll, but if you are a victim of crime, you have to apply and you have to meet statutory tests.

Now, what is it about the Labour, Green, and New Zealand First parties that somehow they think it’s OK that convicted criminals have more legal rights than those who are victims of crime or those who are law-abiding citizens? I’d love the New Zealand First member, who hasn’t taken a single call on this bill, to explain to me why he voted at first reading for new section 115 in this bill, which says that if you are a convicted rapist or murderer, you’d get more legal rights to be on the unpublished roll than if you were the victim of a murder or rape. Would the New Zealand First member care to explain that?

Well, the member for New Zealand First has been asked to explain why his party supported the rights of people who have criminal convictions to be on the unpublished roll to be greater than law-abiding citizens or victims. It was something extraordinary. We’ve pointed it out at first reading. The Government said that no such thing existed. The officials came to the select committee and said that we were absolutely right, and thank goodness there is a Supplementary Order Paper to fix that abhorrent provision in this bill, which members of National will support. We will never ever support laws that give rights to criminals that are greater than those of victims or law-abiding citizens. You could not send a worse signal than that provision, as introduced by this Minister and by this Government.

The final point I’d like to make is this, and maybe New Zealand First—maybe this is the explanation for their support of this bill. But what this part does is allow a person in prison to stand for Parliament. Maybe it’s the “Clayton Mitchell provision”, given where the Serious Fraud Office—maybe Jami-Lee Ross has a great interest in Part 2—

💬 Michael Wood: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I would put it to you that that was an improper reflection on the motivations of members who may be voting for this bill and also an improper reflection on a member of this House, and that is out of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Thank you. Yeah, I kind of agree, actually. The member has through his contributions through this debate been very close to there, as I’ve commented on previous contributions. The member should not do that, and I actually think the member should withdraw and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise. New section 86A in clause 7 of this bill and in this part allows a person with criminal convictions serving time in prison to stand for Parliament. Now, do we really think that that is sensible?

💬 Hamish Walker: Soft on crime.

Well, soft on crime, and I do note that there are members of Parliament facing serious criminal charges under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office and maybe they do have an interest. Maybe that is why they are so enthusiastic.

I would love the member from New Zealand First to take a call and explain why a person who is serving a sentence in prison—why it should be reasonable or practicable for them to be able to stand for Parliament. We think—

💬 Hon Poto Williams: Repetition—repetition.

Well, the member says it’s repetition. I think it’s because she doesn’t like it. I’d love the member who’s interjecting to get to her feet and explain why it is sensible law to allow a person who a judge has decided to send to prison—that that person should be able to stand for Parliament.

Here’s the bit I’d love them to explain. I’d love them to explain how does a member of Parliament fulfil their constitutional duties if they are simultaneously serving a sentence in prison. I would love to reflect on the change in the Standing Orders that it would require, and the former Speaker of the House—his mind is boggling around how we might be able to have a—

💬 Rt Hon David Carter: He or she could Zoom in on a regular occasion.

Well, they could Zoom in. They would be able to Zoom in from Pāremoremo prison as the member of Parliament for, probably, the Green Party or the Labour Party or, more likely, the New Zealand First Party—

💬 Rt Hon David Carter: I think that’s right.

—I think it’s in there; it’s the New Zealand First Party—and I say, man, we need to be a little bit practical. Is it sensible, I would ask the Minister, for us to amend the law and to allow a person who is serving a criminal sentence in prison to be able to stand for Parliament?

💬 Darroch Ball: This is ridiculous.

Well, the member says it’s ridiculous. Can the Minister in the chair confirm it’s true? Can the Minister in the chair confirm that new section 86A, which we’re currently debating, would allow a person to stand for Parliament?

Thank you, Mr Chairman. The member who has just resumed his seat, Dr Nick Smith, has made some interesting points. He did point out that his door was open, but, of course, we all know that it’s not just your door that has to be open, it’s your mind as well, and we know that his mind isn’t. I acknowledge his criticism of me as someone who made some comments that were personal about others, and he’s demonstrated how to address the Parliament in a way that doesn’t personalise issues. I make this point: I know that member lives in a weird world—in a weird, strange world that is divorced from reality. But here’s the point: if the member looked at the Electoral Act, all of it, he would see that the law as it is at the moment, as passed and approved by this Parliament under his Government, allows remand prisoners to be candidates in the general election. In that nine years they did nothing about it. They passed the law in 2010 allowing remand prisoners to be candidates—did nothing about it. He has no moral stance to take on this.

But here’s the other point: if somebody, under this bill, if it is passed, nominates to be a candidate, there’s a few hurdles they have to get through. They’ve got to get nominations, they have to pay a deposit—all difficult when you’re behind bars. But here’s the other thing: they then, in the most unlikely event that that would happen, and, secondly, that they’d get elected, have to be able to take up their seat in Parliament, and if, by a certain time they don’t, they vacate that seat. Those are the practical implications. Now, most of us—possibly all but one of us in this Chamber—live in the real world. We understand how the world works. We take a practical approach to the world. We look at rules; we see how they apply in the real world. Not Dr Nick Smith. He lives in a fantasy world—in a fantasy land—which informs his arguments, which makes it entertaining, but doesn’t help us to understand the law in front of the committee that we’re trying to debate at the moment.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to make the point from a previous speaker Dr Nick Smith, a very hard-working and logical MP from Nelson—who’s going to take the seat this year with a record-winning majority—new section 86A. And we heard from the Minister. The Minister said he lives in the real world—“You’ve got to have the door open. You’ve got to have your mind open.” But, Minister, the real world Kiwis—do you think a Kiwi wants a convicted person, a prisoner, do you think they want a person that’s committed a serious act—take, for example, the lovely lady, I won’t mention her name, but she came and saw me in my electorate office two weeks ago. She was raped. They found the person that raped her. He was sentenced; 18 months’ jail time. But she described to me the horrible, horrific act that this person did to her. Minister, if we talk about the real world, this shows how out of touch this Government is when it’s more focused on giving prisoners the right to vote as opposed to the victims.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): So I’ve given the member 1½ minutes to get to Part 2, and the member really needs to link his comments to what he’s saying and be relevant to Part 2, which he has not done yet.

So, if we just go to the enrolment process in new section 86A, that’s around remand prisoners and whether or not they have the right to vote. I was fortunate enough, when I was 18 years of age, to work two years as a police jailer—a humble temporary constable. In that role, you get to know some of the prisoners, and talking to them they want consequences for their actions. When we’re talking about new section 86A, around enrolment, what sort of consequence is it if you commit rape and you then get the right to vote? That’s not right. And I look at the other side and they’re all looking at the ground; they know it’s not right. Jan Logie knows it’s not right. You’ve been doing some wonderful work lately, Jan Logie. I acknowledge you and I look forward to seeing you taking a call on this. Darroch Ball knows it’s not up to play. He hasn’t taken a call.

If we want to live in the real world, why are we giving people like rapists the right to vote? It makes no sense at all. My colleague Simeon Brown, in his contribution before around enrolment, made a very good point that, during lockdown, 130 hours of prisoners’ probation time was cut off while we were in lockdown. But I’d like the Minister to answer: why should someone who’s committed an act like rape have the right to vote?

I’m happy to answer that question. First of all, somebody convicted of rape, described in the terms that that member described them, does not get 18 months; they get a sentence way longer than three years. So I do not believe the member when he said that. Here’s the point: this is about people sentenced to sentences of less than three years.

One of the things that judges have to do when they’re sentencing an offender is look at levels of culpability. So, as we know, there can be two people who are convicted of the same crime. Differences in culpability and differences in track record can lead to completely different outcomes. Somebody might not be sentenced to prison at all; somebody might be sentenced to prison; somebody might be sentenced to prison for less than three years; somebody might be sentenced to prison for more than three years—and all will have a different result. It will look quite arbitrary in terms of those kinds of civil rights.

But this law is the same law that the National Party supported in 1993. In my view, and this Government’s view, it strikes the right balance between ensuring that those whose offending is at the lower end of the scale—not those who commit rape or cause serious harm, because they get much longer sentences than that, much longer sentences than that. No one convicted of rape is getting 18 months; it’s just totally wrong. This strikes a balance between those whose offending is at the lower end of the scale, those whose culpability is at the lower end of the scale but sufficient to justify going to prison, but knowing that they will be out in the free world before the next election, having the right to have a say on those who’re governing the country that they’re going to be released into. That’s the principle. It is a correct principle; it is not an open slather to any prisoner allowed to vote.

There are some prisoners whose conduct is so evil, so wrong, so egregious that they are sentenced to long periods in prison, and I maintain the view that it is an arguable proposition about how much of your rights you lose when you go to prison. But for those who offend most seriously, there is a justifiable contention that they lose the right to vote. There are judges who have made determinations to that effect in the last 20 years. That is a live debate, but this bill draws the balance, I think, at the right point.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to take up, if I could, some points or the principle that my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith raised about there being under this bill greater or different rights afforded to prisoners than to victims and other law-abiding citizens—actually, the point he raised about the ability to have one’s details kept from the public electoral roll. I’d just sort of make this point that I understand there’s a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) here that will change that. But until that SOP is actually voted on, we have no idea whether or not it will in fact be accepted, but the bill before us does have those provisions that do allow that prisoner to have their name kept off the public record. Presumably the Government, the Minister would have been happy for the bill to have passed without amendment had that not been raised as a matter in the select committee.

So my question to him is: on what basis does he think it is appropriate that a prisoner might be able to more easily—in fact, with no justification, really—have their details kept from the public roll when there are actually very tight conditions applied to non-prisoners seeking to have their details not on that roll? That could still be what passes through this Parliament, and so I think he should justify that. [Interruption] I’m not finished yet, Minister.

The other thing I’ve noticed, though, on the point of different rights is my understanding—and, look, we can all be wrong in some things in our life. My understanding is that an eligible voter has a legal obligation to enrol. We’re not required to vote, but there is a legal obligation on those eligible to vote to enrol. This bill does not apply that obligation. This bill gives the prisoner the right to decide whether or not he or she wants to go on the roll, because the prison officer has to ask them if they want the prison officer to forward their details on to the Electoral Commission. The only deduction that can be made for that, because there is no other provision, even inferring something different in this bill, is that if the prisoner decides they don’t want the prison officer to pass their information on, then they won’t be on the roll. How, in fact, will that then sit with other electoral legislation? Because the overarching legislation is if you’re eligible—and this creates eligibility—then you must enrol. But this bill says you have eligibility, but you don’t have to enrol if you don’t really want to.

Look, I can see officials looking, so I’ll do the courtesy of just pointing out that we’re here in Part 2, where that is—obviously, in clause 7, inserting new section 86A(2) and then it’s repeated in new section 86B(2) as well. Yeah, that’s correct; so those two. So if the prisoner then doesn’t want their enrolment details sent to the Electoral Commission, they won’t go. So we have a situation under this bill where a prisoner has the right, despite being eligible to vote, to not actually go on the roll, and I’d like the Minister to respond and justify why that is acceptable, because while we’re not going to argue it’s a greater right than other law-abiding New Zealanders have, it is a different obligation. And I think that warrants some scrutiny and some response from the Minister. So I look forward to that.

Just turning to the first bit, I know the member Brett Hudson and his colleagues are desperate to create a picture of something that doesn’t exist. So the bill, when it came to the House, had a provision that on the face of it allowed prisoners to elect whether or not to go on to the unpublished roll without meeting the same tests and standards that every other citizen has done. That was wrong, it shouldn’t have happened, submitters made that point, and it has been changed by me—the Minister. So I know it’s good sport for the member to dredge that up because they’ve lost that argument and they want to beat the Government over the head with that big sort of stick, but it just doesn’t exist—the thing doesn’t exist. It is what they call a “straw person”.

I know it makes the member feel good because he hasn’t got much else to feel good about, but, actually, the law’s very clear now in the Supplementary Order Paper: if a prisoner wants to apply to go on the unpublished roll, the Department of Corrections can assist them to make the application, but they stand alongside any other citizen making the same application with the same standards and tests that must apply.

In relation to the obligation to enrol, the member has to read that in context. So if he has a look at clause 7, new section 86A(1)(b), having, under paragraph (a) advised the prison they’re entitled to enrol and all the rest of it, then they ask the prisoner whether they want their enrolment details sent to the Electoral Commission to facilitate their registration, and then under subsection (2), if the prisoner wants their enrolment details sent to the Electoral Commission to facilitate their registration as an elector, then a subsequent section applies. It may well be that the prisoner does not want the Department of Corrections officer to do that. A prisoner might want a family member to do that. A prisoner might want somebody else to take over that role of doing that. Just because the Department of Corrections has a duty to inform prisoners if they can be on the roll, to assist in facilitating that doesn’t mean to say that it is the Department of Corrections that has to physically provide the information to the Electoral Commission.

The bill gives the power for the Department of Corrections to do that and for the Electoral Commission to receive that information from the Department of Corrections, because, if it wasn’t in the bill, the Electoral Commission could not receive that information from the Department of Corrections. But the prisoner has another option. They can ask a family member or a friend to convey an enrolment form to the Electoral Commission on their behalf.

Thank you, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to take a call on Part 2. I just want to refute a piece that the Minister said before, where he was responding to Hamish Walker’s comment about a constituent of his who’d been raped and the offender had been convicted to a sentence of only 18 months. The Minister stood up and said “I don’t believe the member.”, well, I suggest that the Minister have a chat to the member before saying he’s going to just simply reject—reject—something which he comes into the Chamber in good faith and says here in the Chamber.

I do want to just ask some questions here around clause 7, new section 86C, and the process that prison managers are to go through to collect and send enrolment information to the Electoral Commission. The Minister’s just talked about the process and how Corrections can send the forms, or a family member, essentially, or a friend who, I guess, is visiting can collect those documents.

I do want to just ask around Supplementary Order Paper 512, clause 7, new subsection 2A, which is in regards to whether a prisoner wishes to apply for a direction under section 115, which is the unpublished roll, and the prison manager there must “assist the prisoner to prepare an application accompanied by supporting information”. I’d like to ask the Minister to explain to the committee what involvement is required on behalf of Corrections or the prison manager to assist the prisoner in making that application. And I’d like to ask him in regards to what the process is they would go through. Is that in regards to finding supporting information, preparing it, putting it together for the prisoner in question? Is it around advising them around what they should be writing? Because there is, I believe, an application process; they have to give good reasons. So what would be involved in that process? Would it be obtaining any files that the prisoner doesn’t have on hand and providing that so that it can be part of the information and part of the reasoning that goes into that?

Because, I guess, the question here—and I acknowledge that the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 512 essentially removes the sort of automatic right to go on the unpublished roll and restricts that to simply being an application which the prisoner is able to apply for. But I do want to understand what the Minister envisages by this process around how much time will be involved, how much involvement will the prison manager have in this process, and how much assistance will be given. Because, you know, I do bring this discussion back to the point that when I or any other member of the public goes to request to be put on the unpublished roll, you’d be given a form, told to go away and fill it out, and send it in. I’m not sure how much assistance is given to those.

And then I do want to make the point on top of that: what about the victims of crime? What assistance are they given if they’re wanting to have their names put on an unpublished roll to protect themselves, potentially, from someone who’s been sentenced to prison for less than three years? Are they also given some form of assistance? Because I don’t see that in this piece of legislation—to assist them in the process of preparing an application. I think that’s something which should be considered—actually giving victims of crime that assistance. If it’s going to be given to those who have offended, broken the law of the land, convicted of serious offences worthy of imprisonment, then surely there should be some sort of assistance given to people who are victims of crime, who have had harm done to them by someone who’s now in jail. I ask the Minister to explain that to the committee.

On the point about the role of the prison manager to assist the prisoner, bearing in mind that for some prisoners, or I might say for many prisoners, they are illiterate—at least, they’re not functionally literate—they struggle with filling out forms. So assistance will be expected to be provided for that. There may be some assistance in reading the requirements that a prisoner has to meet in order to get on the unpublished roll. What a prisoner has to do to acquire support and information will be up to the prisoner. But, obviously, you’d expect a prison manager or their delegates to ensure that letters requesting information are facilitated in and out of the prison.

I would ask the member and members opposite to bear in mind this. There are some prisoners who are in prison who, notwithstanding their offending, do provide assistance to the authorities, to the police, to Corrections, and put themselves at risk in doing so. One of the reasons to get on the unpublished roll is because your safety is at risk, and you don’t want to prevent them from making that application when actually some whose safety is at risk do so in order to assist the authorities. So there is that.

In terms of the member’s second point, which I didn’t note down—he’s going to quickly shout it out to me.

💬 Simeon Brown: It’s in regards to the victims of crime.

The victims of crime. So the victims are given assistance and certainly victims of serious crime whose safety is at risk. They meet, on the face of it, the criteria to go on the unpublished roll. Victim Support, sometimes victims’ court advisers, and that network of advisers support victims to make those applications, and I’ve met people who have been assisted to do so. There are people who live in fear of their lives and they need to be given assistance, and Victim Support services does that.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll take a very brief call on this and speak to the Green Party’s support for this legislation. I do, in the context of that, need to respond—this is around enrolment to vote—to the comments that were made by a previous member, bringing in a case where I was asked to stand and speak in response to the experience of rape victims. I am just noting that I’ve had a message from Louise Nicholas herself, who’s been watching this debate and is absolutely appalled at that member’s contribution and the misrepresentation of a situation of a rape case. There are sentencing guidelines in four bands, and the minimum for rape is six to eight years and goes up to 20. That was a mischaracterisation for political purposes. That is exactly what we do not need when it comes to sexual violence in this country.

This is also one of the reasons that the Greens support this piece of legislation. We are continually hearing from survivors that what they want is for people to be held to account. They want people to be supported to change. Often, in the majority of cases, these are people that are close to them. It does not serve them to vilify rapists as monsters out there who deserve the absolute worst. We have to restore their connections to our society to help them rehabilitate. Hold them to account, keep victims safe, make sure victims are heard, but provide a pathway to rehabilitation. This piece of legislation is actually—surprisingly for some people, perhaps—part of doing that.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I wasn’t planning on taking a call, but I just wanted to follow up on a question that my colleague Brett Hudson asked earlier, which I don’t think the Minister of Justice perhaps quite understood, or, at least, if he did, then his answer created more questions for me than it did answers. It comes back to Part 2, clause 7, new section 86A, in relation to the requirement of a prison manager to inform the Electoral Commission of a prisoner’s intention to enrol to vote. My concern, I suppose, comes to the Electoral Act 1993, off the top of my head, which has in there fines or punishments for people who choose not to enrol, because, of course, we do have compulsory enrolment in New Zealand. My recollection is that the fine is $100 in the first instance and then $200 for subsequent offences. My question to the Minister is: if a prisoner does not give that instruction to their prison manager, what other feasible way does a prisoner have to enrol; and, if they don’t give that instruction, would that be sufficient for them to be fined under the Electoral Act if they are subsequently not enrolled and given a fine of $100 or, as I’ve said, a fine of $200 for a subsequent offence? I don’t intend to take any more of the committee’s time. I just want an answer from the Minister on that.

I’ll try and make it as clear as I possibly can, for the benefit of Mr Falloon. The obligation is on the prison manager to advise an eligible prisoner, so a prisoner who’s 18 years or older or will achieve the age of 18 in the foreseeable period, of their right to enrol—their obligation to enrol, in fact—and, where agreeable, to take information or assist in filling out a form.

The bill gives the power of the Department of Corrections to collect that information and pass it on to the Electoral Commission, because if the Department of Corrections does not have the statutory power to do so, they cannot do so. But using the Department of Corrections and its channels and its people is not the only way that somebody in prison on a sentence of less than three years can convey information to the Electoral Commission. They might hand it to a family member on a visit or to a friend on a visit to convey that information to the Electoral Commission. So this is permissive for the Department of Corrections and their managers and their personnel, but it is not exclusive to the Department of Corrections to assist a prisoner in enrolling to vote.

Chris Penk—Chris Penk.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I apologise if I didn’t quite catch my name being said by you. Thank you, sir, for the opportunity to continue this discussion. My question was just to the Minister of Justice about the subject of remand versus other prisoners—versus sentenced prisoners—in the fact that the legislation before us, including in Part 2, talks about those who have been received into a prison to serve a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three years, and so forth. The significance of that is that a person who is merely a remand prisoner has not, in the case of remand prisoners awaiting trial, been determined to have committed any crime at all. So while I acknowledge that some of the issues that I’ve raised in practical terms relating to the difficulties of communication and the physical importation—if that’s the right word—of election material, some of those arguments or those questions, do apply to a prisoner whether he or she is remand or otherwise, in relation to the more fundamental question of whether it’s appropriate for a prisoner to be able to vote, I would submit—and be interested in the Minister’s response—that it makes all the difference in the world to whether a person is a remand prisoner awaiting trial or a prisoner who has indeed been sentenced to serve a sentence of imprisonment.

Of course, the fundamental basis for that proposition is that the New Zealand law—and, indeed, the criminal law of other jurisdictions with which we like to compare ourselves favourably and from which our own system has been derived—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry to interrupt the member, but it’s come time for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The committee will resume at 7.30 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Members, when we rose for the dinner break, we were considering Part 2. Chris Penk had the call and has three minutes, six seconds remaining should he wish to take it.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I don’t know if I surprise and/or disappoint you, but I do indeed wish to take at least some of the remaining three minutes and six seconds that have been allocated to me.

I won’t repeat all that I was saying before the dinner break, obviously, but just briefly, by way of recap, I was just drawing to the attention of the committee the distinction between a remand prisoner and a sentenced prisoner for the purpose of Part 2 and, more particularly, the discussion that we’ve ended up in as a committee about the implication of the legislation, whereby we’re saying that it might be that if a person who is in prison for less than three years is able to be on the electoral roll and thereby qualify to be a candidate for office—if I’ve understood that point correctly, and I say openly that I’m not 100 percent confident that’s the case. But I think I’ve understood correctly that that might be the case. The Minister responded somewhat reasonably—I think genuinely wishing to point out that, potentially, if that is indeed a problem, there would be a problem also with the fact that a remand prisoner could also be a candidate for election. But I think it’s worthwhile distinguishing between remand prisoners who are awaiting trial and therefore should be presumed innocent in the absence of a trial in which to establish their guilt or otherwise and, of course, remand prisoners who have been found guilty at trial but not yet sentenced.

The case of a prisoner on remand is somewhat like Schrödinger’s box. They’re, in a funny way, potentially both guilty and not guilty, except that the law, of course, determines someone to be not guilty until such time as they’ve proven otherwise. But the case of a prisoner who has been found guilty but not yet sentenced might, in another distinction, be sentenced to a period of greater than three years or a period of less than three years. So the fact that the law treats those differently from sentenced prisoners in this bill is quite correct. I think it’s appropriate, for example, that new section 86A, in clause 7 of what is currently the bill, talks about prisoners who are serving a sentence of imprisonment for less than three years as opposed to those who are detained for a period of less than three years at the relevant time by virtue of them being on remand.

So I just wanted to bring that distinction to the attention of the House. I don’t know how clearly I’ve articulated it, but no doubt the Minister understands it. I don’t have a question so much as just seeking a response and acknowledgment from him, for the sake of the record, about that distinction that I think is worth highlighting in terms of the ability to become an elector and therefore to become a candidate in an election should such a person choose.

I know the member who just resumed his seat, Chris Penk, said he didn’t have a question, but I do have a response, and that is a couple of things. He draws a distinction between remand and sentenced prisoners, but he should be reminded, of course, that remand prisoners have been assessed as being a risk to the community. So in that respect, they don’t share a lot of difference in characteristic to sentenced prisoners.

In the end, this bill is about voting, and it doesn’t actually matter whether you are a remand prisoner or a sentenced prisoner sentenced to less than three years when it comes to voting. Remand prisoners have a right to vote right now, and there are processes set up to enable that right to be facilitated. This bill will extend the right, or restore the right, to those sentenced to less than three years.

The issue about standing as candidates in election: if the members can produce to me evidence of the last time either a remand prisoner or a sentenced prisoner was nominated to be a candidate in an election, let’s hear the evidence. But, otherwise, let’s not make up fantasies as somehow being a compelling argument about the bill before the House. The rest of us live in the real world. The rest of us live in the practical world—the world that everybody else lives in and makes their judgments by. The reality is there are not many prisoners sitting there thinking, “Right, how am I going to increase my voters in the next election? I’ll talk to members of the Labour Party because they’re so good at it.”—which is why we’re in the situation that we’re in at the moment. They’re not doing that. Most of them, as we know, are probably National Party voters, because we know they’re self-interested, greedy, and they do all those sorts of things. They’re probably going to look to the National Party for advice. But the reality is they are not lining up to be candidates in elections. This is about the right to vote—restoring the right to vote to a bunch of people who had it unceremoniously taken off them by the National Party in 2010. This is the right thing to do.

I, firstly, want to clarify the position of which the Minister of Justice challenged the National Party, the issue of principle in Part 2 of this bill around remand prisoners. National’s position is very, very simple and clear, and it’s both principled and practical. And that is that a person should not lose their right to vote while they are a remand prisoner and not convicted by a court of law. The argument that the Minister the Hon Andrew Little has made in the chair that somehow there’s some inconsistency—actually, that is an absolute principled position. We are a party that believes a person is innocent until proven guilty, and that it is entirely appropriate to treat a remand prisoner who a court of law has not found guilty differently to the prisoner who has been convicted by a court of law. As we heard in evidence to the Justice Committee, the average number of convictions for a person sentenced to prison in New Zealand is 24 convictions.

The member Greg O’Connor has talked about fantasy. I have felt that there has been some degree of fantasy from members opposite who pretend that people are going to lose their vote because they make a small mistake and end up in prison. The reality and the law in New Zealand is that you do not go to prison unless you have committed both a serious offence—and it is actually not the first sort of punishment. Our criminal justice laws make plain that the judges should view prison as a last resort and not a first resort for prisoners.

The second rebuttal we’ve had from the Minister is “Don’t worry about the fact that we are passing a law that enables prisoners to stand for Parliament. We shouldn’t worry about that because it’s just academic.” Well, we should remind ourselves that a pretty serious criminal Arthur Taylor, took issues of prisoner voting all the way through the system, all the way to the Supreme Court. The idea that we as legislators should not be considering robust law, and we shouldn’t actually be passing laws that have got holes in them—and if it is legally possible for a prisoner to stand for Parliament, I actually think we make a mockery of this institution and we make a mockery of our democracy, and that, actually, the right to vote is far more than just filling out a form.

A democracy is far more comprehensive than that. It’s about meeting candidates. It’s about watching leaders’ debates. It’s about imparting information on modern tools like social media and Facebook. It’s about receiving pamphlets and brochures and all those things that go with election cycles. It is just impractical for members of the Government to argue that somehow people serving a sentence in prison are practically able to fully participate in democracy. Just in the same way as we limit the rights of those that are serving sentences, we limit their rights to freedom. They don’t get freedom of movement. They don’t get freedom of association. They don’t get freedom of imparting information. It is perfectly legitimate and right that the British Parliament and so many other parliaments around the world say that if you’ve committed a serious enough crime to end up in prison, for that period that you are in prison, your rights to vote are suspended. When you’re done and you’ve finished your sentence, we are, as a political party, of the view that you’ve done your time, and at that point it is absolutely proper that you are re-enrolled and able to fully participate in society.

The last thing I’d want to draw to the attention of the committee on this part is somehow the sort of academic ivory tower view that the Government seems to have, that by prisoners having a right to vote, it will support their rehabilitation. Now, I have to say, I wish members opposite and the Minister had listened to a number of the submissions from real people—people who had spent time in prison who had committed offending. They literally laughed, as one of my colleagues just did, and just said, “That is ridiculous. The last thing that’s on the mind of a serving prisoner is that somehow the right to vote is an important part of their rehabilitation.” Lots of things are. We were disappointed the Government would not, for instance, make rehabilitation plans for prisoners compulsory. If we’re really serious about rehabilitation, we’d do something quite different. Let’s not be cute. This is simply a bill being rushed through under urgency, with a shortened select committee process, so that Labour thinks they can bag a few more votes on 19 September and save their bacon on election day. That’s wrong, and that’s why we oppose this part.

I move, That the question be now put.