Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill

JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) Link to this

I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate.

Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) Link to this

I seek leave also for members to be able to make more than the usual four calls they would have if we were doing this clause by clause.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) Link to this

I would like to invite the member Paul Quinn to take the opportunity of what is, I think, his first time in the chair to answer some questions, because that is really his role as the member in charge of the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill.

The first question I have—because I could not get the answer to this question at any stage during this entire debate and I do not think my colleagues could get the answer to this question from the select committee hearings they had, either—is how many people voted in the 2008 election while they were in prison. I want to know how many prisoners actually voted in the 2008 election. The reason I want to know the answer to that question is this: when one designs legislation, one obviously has a mischief that one is seeking to remedy. Everyone knows that one of the basic rules of interpretation is that judges will always go back and ask what the mischief was that the legislation was designed to remedy. In looking at the mischief that this was designed to remedy, we look at the provisions of the bill. The provisions state very clearly that the legislation prevents people from going on to the electoral roll—in fact, they are disqualified from being on the electoral roll—if they are serving a sentence of imprisonment. They cannot register as an elector, and that is the technique that has been used. It is probably, obviously, because a specific number of people have taken up their duty to vote in a general election while they have been in prison, and I want to know how many did that. How many did that in the 2008 election? I could ask for previous years’ elections figures, but I am asking the member in charge of this bill to tell us how many prisoners—how many people in prison—on the day of the last general election actually recorded a vote. That is my first question.

Then I would like the member to address—once he has addressed the question of how many prisoners voted—some of the anomalies that have arisen as a result of how his bill will apply. I ask the Committee to remember that it is the disqualification of the person from registering as an elector that prevents them from voting on the day. It does not say that one cannot actually vote; it just says that one cannot register as an elector. Someone has to come off the electoral roll. That is quite an interesting thing to do for somebody who is in prison for, say, a 4-year period. It means that they will be disqualified from registering as an elector, so they will have to come off the electoral roll when they go into prison. But what if they come out of prison before the general election is held? If they come out of prison before the general election is held, they will have to reregister in order to be able to start voting again from that point on. Of course, they will be legally allowed to vote from that point, because they will be legally required to register as an elector. I think what the member in charge of this bill has not really responded to in any of the debates so far is that it is a legal requirement to be on the roll, yet he is saying to somebody that because that person has committed a crime, he or she is no longer legally required to be on the roll. It seems rather ironic to me. Anyway, the member can perhaps deal with that.

We will have one person released the day before the election and one person released on the Monday. They have exactly the same sentence for the same crime, but one gets released the day before the general election and one gets released two days after—as general elections are always held on a Saturday—so what happens then? Why is one person treated in a way where they can get on the electoral roll that day? As they leave the prison gates they will go straight down to the post office and get on the electoral roll; I am sure they will, will they not? That will be their real incentive for good behaviour, to get their right back to vote! They will dash down to the local post office and they will get on to the electoral roll as quickly as they can, so that they can vote the next day. But the person who is released on the Monday will, sadly, miss out. Why will we have such an anomalous situation? That is my second question.

My third question goes to the difference between someone who gets a prison sentence and someone who gets home detention for exactly the same offence. There will be different criteria applied to each one. I want the member to tell the Committee whether he has thought this through for people who cannot get home detention, not because of the nature of their crime but because of the nature of the home that they would be applying for home detention to. I know a couple of guys in Christchurch, young men, both convicted of exactly the same offence in different circumstances, but essentially they got the same sentence. They both applied for home detention. One did not get home detention; the other one did. I know that members have said it was because one lived in Fendalton and one was Māori and lived in Aranui but there is more to that story than meets the eye. The parents of the Fendalton young man were very ashamed of what he had done. They were backing their son to rehabilitate himself. They wanted to keep him out of prison at any cost, not only for his future career but also so he would not mix with people who perhaps would lead him on the wrong path. They admitted that he had already gone down that way, but they were prepared to provide him with genuine support, discipline, and love. They were going to ensure that he would stay on the straight and narrow from there on in. The Aranui kid did not have that, and that is why he did not get home detention. I do not think our society will do fair justice to people in his situation until we are prepared to offer him an alternative to prison—the same that the young man from Fendalton got. I do not disagree at all with the young man from Fendalton getting home detention; I think it was the right thing to do. But I think the State owed an obligation to offer something similar, even though it could not offer this at home, to the young Māori lad from Aranui as well. That is the third question.

The fourth question is why the member has chosen the mechanism of prohibiting people in prison from being on the electoral roll. How will they get on the roll in time, if they are released the day before an election? I question him about the concept of a civic duty to vote, when we are treating voting here as if it is a privilege. We actually require people to be on the electoral roll, as I said before; we do not legally require people to vote, in the way that people are required to vote in Australia. But every time we get up and speak at public meetings we always say it is a duty—a civic duty—to be engaged in the political process. So how do we send that message to anyone when we are treating voting as a privilege?

I imagine that one day someone might ask Paul Quinn what he did when he had a term in Parliament, and how he left his mark in those 3 years he was here. He would say: “I stopped people from voting.”, and the reply would come back: “But don’t we have a civic duty to vote?”. He would say: “Yes, but they were criminals who were in jail.” The person would say: “Oh, really serious criminals, like that guy Graeme Burton, or William Bell?”, and he would say: “No, no, they already couldn’t vote. My bill stopped people convicted of much less serious offences from voting.” When the person asks: “Like what?”, he would answer: “Like a bit of tax fraud, or something minor.” When he gets told that people get home detention for those sorts of things these days, he would say: “Well, the people on home detention were never covered—you had to have been in prison on the day of the election.” The person speaking to the member would say: “Wow, what an achievement that was! I am sure that that made a real difference.” Paul Quinn would say: “Well, it was a deterrent, and the reality is that we should not let people vote who commit crimes.” The question would come back: “So how many people do you think the bill stopped from offending?”. Paul Quinn would say: “Well, look, people would say to themselves: ‘If I commit this crime, I’ll end up in jail. OK, that’s a risk I’m prepared to take.’ But then they might say: ‘Hang on, I might be in jail on the day of the election. I don’t know whether that’s a risk I’m prepared to take.’ ” I ask whether members think that will happen. No, I do not think that will happen.

I have a whole stack of other questions in relation to the decision that the member in charge of the bill made to send the bill to the Law and Order Committee, and to have Department of Corrections officials advising on this bill, rather than Ministry of Justice officials.

Dr CAM CALDER (National) Link to this

Thank you for the opportunity to offer some comments on the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill.

Committing a citizen to a period of imprisonment is one of a number of sanctions available to the State to use with those citizens who break the law. Imprisonment is a sanction that is designed to deter the citizenry from committing a crime, to protect the public from lawbreakers, to rehabilitate those in prisons, and, of course, to punish, through loss of liberties, the incarcerated citizen.

Imprisonment is a significant sanction. I doubt that many prisoners would find much solace in Byron’s lines:

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) Link to this

That was a fairly good second reading speech, but I was quite surprised that the member Cam Calder was the one speaking, rather than the member in charge of the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill. I think the normal practice at the Committee stage of a bill, as I think the member should be aware, is that when there is a substantive Supplementary Order Paper, the member in charge of the bill—normally a Minister, but in this case Mr Quinn—gets up and explains the substance of that Supplementary Order Paper. In this case, I think he should have taken responsibility for the situation that led to the Supplementary Order Paper, which effectively reverses the guts of the bill.

I know that all of us have our first time in the chair. Like the member, I was lucky enough to be involved in a bill well before my ministerial time.

PAUL QUINN (National) Link to this

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Somewhere in the Standing Orders I am allowed to, upon resumption of the seat of the previous speaker, correct a statement of fact. He claimed that I sat on the select committee—

STUART NASH (Labour) Link to this

Thank you. It was a difficult decision, I know, but you came up with the right answer in the end, Mr Chairperson.

When I look at the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill I wonder if the member Paul Quinn actually spoke to the National Government’s Minister of Justice—I wonder if he did. When I look at this bill, I see that the only people who will be in jail for 3 years or less who will vote will be the blokes who voted for that side of the House, anyway. They are the chaps from the 40-odd finance companies who, I hope, will end up as guests of Her Majesty in the big house for the damage they have done to the vast majority of people.

I must say one thing: the previous National speaker, Cam Calder, spoke about denying the rights of Kiwis who had done great harm to society. Well, I may be wrong, but the way I read this bill is that it is only for people who are in jail, or have committed an offence and are jailed for 3 years or less. The men who have murdered our citizens and the women who have neglected their children, the ones who are in jail for a long length of time, have already been denied their right to vote, anyway.

When I look at this bill, I see that this is a nasty bill. What does this bill do? It does not save any lives, it does not protect society, and it does not deliver equity. There is no mention of rehabilitation, there is no mention of redemption, and there is no mention of restoration. It delivers only a further kick in the guts to people in jail who have made wrong decisions and who are there at the moment for 3 years or less. We will be denying them every single possible right that they could have. That is the wrong message to send.

I wonder whether, in fact, the member who is sponsoring this bill took it to caucus to be debated. The reason I ask is that the Attorney-General himself, who we know knows absolutely everything about everything, wrote a report that stated that this bill contravened the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The Attorney-General said that. I am sure the Attorney-General would have been in the caucus when that member brought the bill to caucus and said that he wanted to put it in the ballot. I cannot believe that the Hon Chris Finlayson did not stand up and say “Whoa, hold on a second here. This is not what our party stands for. This contravenes the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.”

SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) Link to this

The Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill is a worthy bill from a great citizen of New Zealand, Paul Quinn. What a great citizen of New Zealand! He has done a lot of good things in his life. Some other members are saying that this will be his finest hour, but I have a feeling he will get comfortable in that green chair over time. I have a feeling he might get to sit in it a little bit more in the future. But not only does this man champion the Hutt Valley—

DAVID CLENDON (Green) Link to this

I am pleased to take a short call in the Committee stage of the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill. I begin by complimenting the speaker who just sat down, Simon Bridges, on his loyalty to his colleague and, indeed, to his party. I believe that only loyalty could drive him to make a speech in support of what is deeply flawed, poorly conceived, and poorly targeted legislation that will not achieve any positive end. To the contrary, it will have only negative outcomes.

It is quite timely that we are debating the bill this week. In fact, it was debated by a number of people last evening at the launch of a website. I was privileged to attend a Robson Hanan Trust function under the heading “Rethinking Crime and Punishment”, at which a website was launched. In that room were numerous people representing a number of church-based, community-based, and other organisations, who have positive and real solutions to the problems of prison and incarceration in this country.

There are very real solutions out there. We know how they could be applied and how we could save an enormous amount of money and a great deal of social discontent. A great deal of human suffering could be avoided by applying some of the very practical, very real, and very achievable solutions proposed by people outside of the House and within some of the networks of penal reformers.

The bill has very little to recommend it. Admittedly, I have not been in this House a very long time, but the report from officials on this bill has the strongest language I have ever seen endeavouring to dissuade a select committee from supporting a bill. The report talks about prisoner disqualification cases having been argued in the highest appellate courts of comparable international jurisdictions. It waves red flags to say that this bill, if it is passed, not only will be challenged in our own Supreme Court in New Zealand but also will inevitably be taken to international courts where it will be challenged in its turn.

This week we have seen news from the United Kingdom that after 5, nearly 6, years of resisting, the UK Government has finally bowed to a European court decision from 2005 that the blanket ban imposed by the UK Government was illegal and contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights. Under article 46 of that convention, the UK is obliged to abide by this final judgment. The direct and inevitable consequence of the UK Government’s failure to abide by that ruling of the court is that, to date, 1,340 inmates or former inmates are lining up to claim compensation from the UK Government for what was effectively an illegal removal of their right to vote while they were in prison.

Clearly, we are in a different jurisdiction and we would not be subject to those rules. But if this legislation goes through, we can take it as a given that there will be appeals to international courts. It may be nothing that can require us to respond—perhaps we will not ever face compensation charges—but think what it will do for New Zealand’s reputation internationally as a country that pays attention to human rights and that acknowledges that prisoners are humans, despite being in prison, and are still deserving of human rights.

The previous speaker challenged us to come up with some ideas and some examples of why people in prison should retain their right to vote, and I am very happy to offer a few examples. I ask why we ought to deliberately further alienate people who are already removed, albeit often for quite short periods, from society, from social interaction, and from making some useful contribution. Taking away the right to vote from all prisoners says to them that voting is a limited right and that perhaps it is something they ought not to give any particular weight to when they re-emerge from prison.

I ask whether it is not more intelligent and more sensible to do everything we can to keep people engaged with the wider society as a step towards their more secure and better integration when they inevitably return to that wider society. We are not talking about the high-end people who commit horrific murders, who commit extreme crimes that none of us could possibly contemplate. We are talking about people who are in prison for relatively short periods of time, for relatively minor property offences, who will also lose the right to vote.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) Link to this

It was interesting to listen to the contribution from Simon Bridges and the random interjections from Tau Henare. It is quite clear, in debating this bill, that there are distinct views in this Committee about the purpose of sending people to prison. The purpose of sending people to prison is indeed to take away their liberty, as Mr Bridges mentioned before. I would have thought that, as he is somebody quite close to the criminal justice system, he would also have noted that the other purpose—particularly of sending people to prison for terms of 3 years or less—is to attempt to rehabilitate them, and to attempt to set up a situation where those people can reintegrate into society. Mr Quinn shakes his head, which is interesting. I think that shows the very point I am making here.

People sentenced to crimes punishable by 3 years’ imprisonment or less will be back in our communities. They will be back in our communities, I say to Mr Quinn, and I ask in what way are we making our communities safer by removing those people from the electoral roll. That is what this bill does. It removes people from the electoral roll. It does not take away their right to vote as such. Simon Bridges told us that he was against compulsory voting. The question for Simon Bridges is whether he is against the idea of all New Zealanders being on the electoral roll. That is the question. I ask whether Mr Bridges is against the idea of all New Zealanders being on the electoral roll. [Interruption] He says that is different.

Mr Quinn and Mr Bridges have to face up to the fact that this bill does not just take away the right to vote; it removes people from the electoral roll. That is the concern the Attorney-General raised in his comments on this bill. The Attorney-General specifically raised the concern—as did a large number of submitters to the Law and Order Committee—that this bill breaches section 12 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, which affirms that every New Zealand citizen who is of or over the age of 18 years has the right to vote and to stand in general elections, etc. The Attorney-General has raised that concern, and Mr Bridges and Mr Quinn need to ask themselves the question of what their commitment to democracy is. We heard a lot of pious claptrap from Simon Bridges before about this precious right to vote and how people have fought for it.

We have in this country a democracy, and the greatest challenge to those of us who see ourselves as true democrats is when we come up against a situation like this. At what point are we prepared to stand up for democracy and say that the people who challenge us in society still have the right to vote? Mr Bridges said that prisoners have forfeited their rights. I ask whether they have forfeited their right to eat, or their right to be not beaten up. I ask Mr Bridges where it ends. They have forfeited their rights—that is the view coming from members on the other side of the Chamber about the purpose of sending people to prison. It boils down to this question. Are we sending people to prison as a punishment, or are we sending people to prison for punishment? That difference has to be decided on here. The punishment is the taking away of liberty. The exercise for prisoners who are serving terms of 3 years or less is to rehabilitate those people and to attempt to facilitate their reintegration into society, and this bill will do nothing to support those goals.

Time and time again from this National Government we have had legislation coming into this House in the criminal justice area, and members on this side of the Chamber find ourselves asking whether it will make our communities safer, because surely that is the aim. There is no evidence that this bill will make communities safer. In fact, the Department of Corrections told the select committee that it would not. No evidence anywhere in the world points to the fact that this will reduce recidivism or that this will somehow act as a deterrent. It will not. It will not make our communities safer. It is in the same category as the “three strikes” legislation. It is populist stuff. It is the easy bit of criminal justice. The hard bit of criminal justice law is coming to this House with real solutions to stop people committing crimes, to stop people committing crimes after they are released from prison, and to help people reintegrate into society. This bill does nothing to improve the safety of our communities.

Is it not interesting that, once again, the Government denied the select committee the right to hear from the Ministry of Justice. Once again, as with the “three strikes” bill, the Ministry of Justice was not allowed to come in, because Government members know that the advisers to this Government on justice would not have approved of this bill. The Minister of Justice, Simon Power, is out of here. He is out of here quicker than Tau Henare moves from one party to another. He just said that he is not part of this. He has not even featured in this debate, because the Ministry of Justice knows—

PAUL QUINN (National) Link to this

Having listened with interest and got a flavour of the discussion thus far, I think it is an appropriate time to stand and perhaps inform the discussion a bit better, because—to use the words of the previous speaker, Grant Robertson—a lot of claptrap has certainly been shared around the place. Let me demonstrate that firstly by confirming to Mr Mallard that I was not a member of the Law and Order Committee, which considered this bill. I was not a member of the select committee that considered the bill, and perhaps if he had done a bit of work in preparing himself to speak to this bill instead of doing his usual trick of just winging things along and getting himself in all sorts of trouble, he might have understood that.

As I said in my second reading speech, the Parliamentary Counsel Office was profuse in its apology for the mistake it freely admitted was its own in the redrafting of this bill. As a consequence of that, yes, there is Supplementary Order Paper 174, which—

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) Link to this

I am disappointed that the member Paul Quinn who is in charge of the Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill allowed his contribution to disintegrate, and, therefore, for the tone of this debate, I think it is best that we do not descend to the naming of individual cases. I know that members on this side of the Chamber certainly try to avoid that, except when it comes to trying to disprove some of the misinformation that is flying around about what our current legislation does.

I start by saying that I still believe that the onus for proving that this legislation is necessary sits with the promoter of the bill. I listened carefully to the contribution made by Mr Quinn, whom I spend quite a bit of time with on the Justice and Electoral Committee. I will come back later to the point of whether this bill was referred to the right select committee. I think Mr Quinn would have enjoyed being on the select committee that considered the bill—the Justice and Electoral Committee would have been a better place for it. I listened carefully to his contribution so that I could better understand why we are here, and why we are debating this legislation. I take our role here seriously. [Interruption] I hear Mr Bridges making a few little snide jokes, but I do take very seriously our role of scrutinising the bill, and I did listen to the comments made.

The first reason I heard from Mr Quinn was that we are looking at this bill because he takes his guidance from his peers, and people believe that no prisoners currently can vote and, therefore, that is what the legislation should be on. Personally, I expect a little more analysis than that, but even if we were to take that argument, are not his peers the people who came to the Law and Order Committee? Or is he denying that the people who presented at the select committee had any right to take a position? If we were listening to his peers who submitted to the select committee, we would have heard that 50 of them were against this legislation—50—and two were in favour. If we were listening to Mr Quinn’s peers and the people of New Zealand, who know that their ability to access and persuade members of Parliament is via the select committee process, we would have heard that they were overwhelmingly against this legislation. I invite any Government member to stand and explain to me why those submitter views should not be taken into account on this legislation, because as far as I am concerned they are our peers.

Although listening to the members of the public is absolutely and incredibly important, the onus is also upon us to take responsibility. It is a cop-out simply to say that everyone thinks this is the way it should be, and therefore it will be so. We have the responsibility to make the hard decisions in this House, and that means weighing up the evidence and weighing up our responsibilities that are incumbent upon us, whether it be through the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, human rights legislation, or just good conscience. It is incumbent on us to weigh up all matters, not simply those that are brought before us, because not everyone has access to the information that members have. We are in a privileged position as members of Parliament in that regard, and we must take everything into account. I am still none the wiser as to whether the member or even the Government has done that.

The second reason for this legislation that I heard from the member in charge of the bill, Mr Quinn, was that New Zealand should stand on its own—the fact that every other country does not have a piece of legislation like this almost becomes a reason to have this legislation, because we would be making a point. I think probably the only point we would be proving is that we were wrong and everyone else is right, and perhaps when the legal challenges come through we will prove that.

The third reason is the technical issue of 3 years as an arbitrary cut-off for someone having the right to vote when in prison and that there was not any good basis for the 3 year cut-off—except that when someone travels overseas, or is resident overseas, they are eligible to vote if they set foot in New Zealand once during that time. Really, the question comes down to whether we believe that anyone who is in prison should be eligible to vote at any point during their term of imprisonment. The cut-off point then becomes a point of debate. But the black and white question is whether anyone, at any point during their term of imprisonment, should have the right to vote.

Secondary to that question, therefore, is the question of members’ views on the right to vote generally. Do members perceive it as a privilege or as a right, and therefore that people have a responsibility to their community to exercise that civic responsibility? I think that what we are seeing in the Chamber today is essentially two divergent views on the role of voting in this country. I am happy to have that debate, and I acknowledge that we are on a difficult side of this argument. The way in which we see the role of voting is a point that has to be discussed and acknowledged when talking to a member of the public. I think Labour is on the right side by taking up that challenge, because in our view voting is much more than just a right. It is a responsibility and it is a civic duty, and in that regard I really completely disagree with my colleague Simon Bridges. So why are we here?

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) Link to this

I think the excellent contribution we just heard from Jacinda Ardern gives us pause for thought about some of the facts we need to lay on the table. The first of those is around what Mr Quinn—well, he has now blamed it on the Parliamentary Counsel Office—

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) Link to this

I want to respond to the Minister—the member in the chair Paul Quinn’s response—

RAYMOND HUO (Labour) Link to this

Before I begin my contribution I would like to thank National MP Mr Paul Quinn for introducing his member’s bill, the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill, because despite the fact that we are wasting the valuable time of the Committee on debating this silly bill, by presenting it Mr Paul Quinn has clearly shown what this Government is up to. In a way the whole country has been saved a considerable amount of time, because the Government’s veil of political correctness has been lifted.

This bill is designed to look as though National is being tough on crime, but the reality is that through this bill and a subsequent amendment recommended by the National and ACT members of the Law and Order Committee, the bill will allow all existing prisoners, including New Zealand’s worst criminals like Graeme Burton and William Bell, to vote. The only winners, should this bill pass into law, seem to be Graeme Burton, William Bell, and Clayton Weatherston, who are not permitted to vote under the current law. Graeme Burton and co. cannot vote. The very worst criminals are already disqualified from registering as electors under the current law. As a member of the Law and Order Committee, I was amazed to see the National and ACT members, who make up the majority of the select committee, recommend amending the title of the bill and subsequently clauses 4 and 5. Mr Paul Quinn mentioned Supplementary Order Paper 174 in his name, which has just reinforced my position.

I take this opportunity to thank the Parliamentary Counsel Office for doing a great job, because its staff are professionals and they are not responsible for any policy initiatives. It is not fair for Mr Quinn to try to blame them for any mistakes originated from the policy initiatives.

There is a recommendation to completely repeal the current disqualification provision in section 80(1)(d) of the Electoral Act 1993, and to replace it with the new provision, which I will read out. It states: “a person who is detained in a prison pursuant to a sentence of imprisonment imposed after the commencement of the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act 2010:”. It therefore repeals the legislative provision that disqualifies people who are presently serving lengthy prison sentences, and instead only disqualifies people who are sentenced to prison after the bill is enacted into law. There would be nothing in law to stop anyone who is in prison at the time that the bill is enacted from applying to be registered to vote and consequently casting a vote at the 2011 general election. That includes the worst murderers, rapists, and violent criminals like Graeme Burton, William Bell, and Clayton Weatherston, who are not permitted to vote under the current law.

I do not agree with the view of the Department of Corrections that the disqualification would continue to apply to presently disqualified prisoners by virtue of the Interpretation Act 1999. Section 19(1) of that Act states: “The repeal of an enactment does not affect a liability to a penalty for an offence or for a breach of an enactment committed before the repeal.” The problem is that disqualification from voting is not itself a penalty; it is the consequence of a penalty being imposed. Under the Electoral Act 1993 all adult New Zealanders and permanent residents are eligible to be enrolled. Section 80 of that Act disqualifies some of those people, by disqualifying prisoners who are serving 3 years’ imprisonment or more, but the amendment to section 80 in clause 4 of the bill means that those people would become eligible to be re-enrolled.

I agree with the Attorney-General that this bill is constitutionally flawed and is unjustifiably inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) Link to this

I will try to focus in on who is covered and who is not covered by the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill. I want the member in charge of the bill, Paul Quinn, to give me an answer with regard to a group of offences as to whether someone is covered. The first, pretty simple, question is whether someone who is guilty of fraud is covered by this legislation. I am interested in whether someone who has aided and abetted a fraud by being perceived to endorse a contract is covered by this legislation if convicted. I ask whether someone can be convicted of fraud for an action that involves a New Zealand company but which took place extraterritorially. I ask whether that person is covered by this legislation. Would that person lose their right to vote; would their status be changed? Would a New Zealand citizen who endorsed a fraud that was committed offshore by a New Zealand company be liable if convicted under this legislation to lose their vote? Would someone be liable if that person fraudulently introduced someone to another party and then was involved with the other party in the theft of intellectual property? Would the person who witnessed, endorsed, and was perceived to give even Government support to the commissioning of the fraud be caught by this legislation?

I think we have a series of arrangements here that are, in fact, not complex in this particular case. We have international fraud occurring out of New Zealand. We have theft of New Zealanders’ intellectual property in China but aided and abetted by a New Zealander or New Zealanders, depending on the level of knowledge of the people who were endorsing the particular commercial arrangement. I am very interested in whether any of the scenarios that have been set out in the Chamber earlier by my colleague Mr Hodgson are caught under this legislation.

Simon Bridges is raising his eyebrows. I take from what he says that he thinks all of these scenarios are caught under the legislation: that the guilty parties who set up a fraudulent contract between a New Zealand company and a Chinese company will be caught; that the person who endorsed it, and with the perception that the New Zealand Government supported it, will also be caught; that the person who then stole the intellectual property and, I understand, $800,000 would also be caught; and that the third party that was involved in the theft because they were Chinese-based and the offence occurred there may not be caught under the legislation. I think they probably would not be caught. If New Zealand was the US, they would be caught, but given our intellectual property arrangements, they probably would not be, although if I were them, I would not want to visit New Zealand in case I was caught, but, of course, if they were Chinese citizens, they would not get the vote. But the two New Zealanders—

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) Link to this

I have not previously had anything to do with the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill, but I feel the need to stand and speak on it because it causes me concern in three main areas. Firstly, there are issues around participation in our democratic process. Secondly, there are real issues about why we have such high rates of imprisonment. This is just another bill designed to thump chests and pretend to be hard on crime when in fact this Government is doing nothing at all to address the real issue: the causes of crime, which include poverty and lack of opportunity. The third reason is that the bill is another shambolic and shoddy piece of work. We will deal with another piece of legislation tonight, Tau Henare’s Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill, which is equally shambolic and shoddy legislation. It was poorly drafted; it actually had to have the real reasons for it and its drafting dealt with in multiple ways. Like that bill, this is a shoddy and poorly drafted bill.

This bill is supposedly about being tough on criminals and dealing with serious offenders, but for those listening to this debate let me reinforce what some of my colleagues have said—that is, that people now serving a sentence of imprisonment for a term of 3 years or more are already disqualified from registration as electors. People who have been convicted of, and sentenced for, serious crimes are already disqualified. I think the hype around this bill has fudged that point.

There is no explanation of the harm that this bill is designed to remedy, and no compelling reasons have been given for why this change is wanted or needed. It certainly will not make New Zealand safer. It will not reduce crime or recidivism. In fact, that is what I really find offensive. National members love to look like they are tough on crime. The reality is that violent crime has been rising under National. Under this National Government violent crime has been rising. This bill will not do anything to stop it. It will not be a deterrent to crime. In fact, no effort has been made by this Government to address the causes of crime, or to look at what leads to people undertaking criminal offences.

Poverty and unemployment are both on the rise in this country, and there is a link between poverty, unemployment, and crime. There is lack of opportunity for too many New Zealanders—New Zealanders who already feel disengaged from the community they live in, people who themselves have been victims of crime as children, and people who have suffered from poor parenting. What is the Government doing about those sorts of things—the real causes of crime? It is doing nothing at all. That is the reality. The Government likes to put through legislation where it can say it has been tough on criminals. It is three strikes and they are out. It will stop those criminals voting. It says it is being tough on crime. I say to the Government that it should do something about the causes of crime.

New Zealand’s rate of imprisonment is absolutely disgraceful. The rate of imprisonment in this country is disgraceful; we are at the top end of the OECD on rates of imprisonment. It is costing the taxpayer millions and millions of dollars that would be better spent on investing in people’s education, upskilling them, and working to find jobs. That is one of the reasons why I feel compelled to speak on this bill.

I say also that this bill is likely to lead to mass disenfranchisement of many people who go to prison, because they are unlikely to re-enrol on release. Anybody who works in our lower-income communities—as many of us do—will know that many, many New Zealanders are not on the electoral roll now. This bill will just add to that number. That is of concern to me, because I believe that all New Zealanders should have the right to vote and should vote and take part as a civic duty in the governing of their country.

We made the decision years ago that people serving sentences of more than 3 years should lose the right to vote. We are happy with that provision; it applies to serious offenders. But this bill covers anybody who is sentenced to imprisonment. It has a whole lot of negative consequences. There was not a proven problem, and submitters to this bill were overwhelmingly opposed to it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) Link to this

I move, That the report be adopted.