PAUL QUINN (National) Link to this
I move, That the Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. When this bill was reported back to the House from the Law and Order Committee, there was some publicity about it; I advise the House, and Mr Assistant Speaker Barker, that at the appropriate time in the Committee stage I will be introducing a Supplementary Order Paper. I acknowledge the fulsome apology that I received from the Parliamentary Counsel Office, whose staff acknowledged that the oversight was in fact theirs. I think that that is honourable, and I thank them for acknowledging their position.
I also thank the Law and Order Committee for taking its time and giving this bill its due consideration. When the bill was reported back, I noted that the select committee report contained a couple of minority views. I must admit that I was somewhat surprised at the inclusion of the minority views, because when I made my oral submission to the select committee not one question did I get from members of the Opposition—that is, from Labour members and the Greens. In fact, at the end of my verbal presentation there was unanimity in support for this particular bill. So I am surprised.
When I sat down and examined the minority views, it is fair to say that I saw that they focused on three particular areas. One area is criticism of the bill in respect of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The second area is criticism in terms of United Nations edicts and issues about international law, and of course there were also various submissions from the boffins who hide away in ivory towers, paid for by the Government, and from the Mandarin chardonnay socialists who masquerade as independent advisers.
I do not take much notice of UN edicts, and I am more concerned about New Zealand law than I am about international law. That said, I note that in terms of the two countries that we consider to be the guardians of democracy—namely, the United States and the United Kingdom—both of those countries in fact have laws that reflect my bill. So if those countries can have that, then it really must stand in good stead that we have a similar arrangement.
Let us turn to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. There was much ado about the Attorney-General’s report, and of course section 12 of the Act guarantees that everyone is entitled to a vote. But there is a caveat in the bill in respect of section 5. Section 5, notwithstanding what is stated in a provision in the Act, enables the legislation to be overridden in respect of the reasonable limitation of that right if the test stands up. That is where I disagree with the Attorney-General’s report.
But I will go back to the report of the Royal Commission on the Electoral System, because that is where the current law has its genesis. The change was brought about by the royal commission on the premise that—and this is in my view, I think it is fair to say—the commission took the position that people get sent to prison for misdemeanours. This is where we differ.
The commission then went on to say that “punishment for a serious crime against the community may properly involve a further forfeiture of some rights such as the right to vote.”, and having made that statement it then pulled a figure out of the air and made a term of 3 years the bar or test. If the members of the Opposition would like to go and read the royal commission report, which I have studied assiduously, they will find that the basis for the 3-year term that it mirrors the period of living overseas continuously after which people lose their right to vote. I find no connection between people losing their vote, having lived overseas continuously for 3 years, and prisoners losing their vote, having served more than 3 years in prison, particularly when we think about why, supposedly, people overseas should lose their vote. The reason, it is claimed, is that such people are not informed about the politics of this country. Well, I say that it is time that we dragged ourselves into the 21st century, because people read web pages every day. They read newspapers, and they keep themselves fully informed, so they should be allowed to vote. The point I am making—
—I will get to Mr Hipkins in a minute; he should hold on—is that the 3-year term was a line in the sand, and from my point of view that line in the sand should be measured from the day a person goes to prison. This side of the House will promulgate that argument.
Let me take a step back and remind members of the House that the cornerstone of our justice system is the fact that we are judged by our peers—that is the cornerstone of our justice system. Let me tell members that I do not see boffins in ivory towers as my peers. I do not see Mandarin socialists as my peers. I see the ordinary people on the street as my peers, and I tell Mr Hipkins that I have spoken to 50 people at an assembly of Grey Power, and all those people supported this bill.
I conclude by saying that the people support this bill, and that is why I am proud to stand and lead the second reading debate. Thank you.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) Link to this
I consulted the whips and suggested that we move an extension of 10 or 15 minutes for the previous speaker, Paul Quinn, because his speech was so good.
Here is the history of the Electorate (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill: it is no more than a political pamphlet. It came to the Law and Order Committee and we asked every submitter the same questions, apart from that genius, Paul Quinn, whose fingerprints and history—along with those of the incompetent Sandra Goudie and the incompetent Judith Collins—are all over this parliamentary stuff-up. Thanks to that member, who sought to restrict or expunge voting rights from every prisoner; thanks to the National Party member and chair of the select committee, Sandra Goudie; and thanks to that other belated genius, David Garrett, or whatever his latest alias is—he no longer is with us—this bill comes into the House doing exactly the opposite of what that genius over there wanted to do. It allows the worst criminals, who are currently barred from voting, to vote. I congratulate that member. He has made history as probably the most incompetent member of this House.
Here is what we asked the submitters. We asked whether this political pamphlet would deter offending. We asked academics, we asked experts, and we asked ordinary people. Even that hypocrite Garth McVicar, from the Sensible Sentencing Trust—the man who gave a reference to David Garrett to get him permanent name suppression and get him off a charge—did not bother putting in a submission in support of this legislation. That is how stupid this legislation is. Even that hypocrite did not submit on it. We asked every person who came before the Law and Order Committee whether it would deter offending, change prisoner behaviour, stop recidivism, or aid in the healing of victims. I think that you may have an idea of this matter, Mr Assistant Speaker Barker, given that you sat on the committee. Every submitter—apart from, I think, the member Paul Quinn over there and that rocket scientist of the blogosphere, David Farrar—admitted that we were right and that it did not do any of those things. There was no international evidence that it would assist victims or anything else, but we were told that we should give it a go anyway.
It gets better—it gets even better. I put on the record that Labour members walked out of the committee on the first day, and the reason we did that was that Sandra Goudie stopped the Ministry of Justice officials from advising—[Interruption] I say for the benefit of Mr Henare, who should be bouncing in a public bar in Porirua, that Ministry of Justice officials are the ones who run elections. A number of members asked the Department of Corrections officials whether they knew anything about electoral law and whether they had any expertise in electoral matters. The answer was no. Members asked those officials whether they had ever been asked to advise on electoral matters, and the answer was no. They were asked what role the Department of Corrections has had in electoral matters. The answer was that they handed the ballot box around the clink to allow those who were eligible to vote to put their ballot in the ballot box.
We questioned the expertise they had. Department of Corrections officials run prisons; they do not run elections. Ministry of Justice officials do not run prisons; they run elections. We asked the chair, and we demanded that the Ministry of Justice officials, who run elections, be lead advisers or co-advisers. The chair refused, and Mr Young, wherever he is; David Garrett; and the other National geniuses on that committee—Mr Calder was one—voted down the fact that Ministry of Justice officials should even be advisers to the committee. The expert advisers on this matter were barred from being advisers to the committee. It would be a bit like asking the Ministry of Health to be the sole and lead adviser on a tax bill. I think there would be a problem with that in terms of expertise. I think there would be a problem.
One of the reasons we have this stuff-up tonight is that the Department of Corrections advisers were not the appropriate advisers. The member should not blame the Parliamentary Counsel Office, because that is gutless. It is absolutely gutless to blame the Parliamentary Counsel Office, because it takes the instructions of committee members and ultimately takes instruction from the majority of the committee, which is headed up by Sandra Goudie, that rocket scientist! The Parliamentary Counsel Office did not get it wrong; the Department of Corrections got it wrong—but I do not blame that department. I do not blame the Department of Corrections. It advised the committee that what Mr Quinn was promoting was contained within the bill. But the problem with blaming Department of Corrections officials is that they admitted they did not have the expertise to deal with this bill. If we had had Ministry of Justice officials, this thing would not have happened.
We come, folks, to the best bit of all. At the conclusion of the deliberation on this bill, a member on our side of the committee moved that in order to avoid this sort of parliamentary embarrassment in future, we do a unique thing: we require that a select committee appoint the appropriate expert advisers on a particular bill. Guess what! Mr Young, Mr Calder, Ms Goudie, and the other National members voted against appointing the most expert department to advise on a bill. How stupid is that? I say to Mr Quinn: “Congratulations!”.
Hon Steve ChadwickHon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
Yes, he has a new career. It may be on Jeopardy!, another game show somewhere, or another comedy show. He may well feature on 7 Days this week as the genius that he is. He came out after the select committee process and did not even know whether a Supplementary Order Paper would be necessary.
That was the gestation of this bill, but let us get to the principle. The truth about this bill, which every person who came before the select committee—including David Farrar, although he supported it—agreed on, is that it will do nothing to help victims. This bill will do nothing to stop recidivism. It will do nothing to stop reoffending, and there is no evidence that it will. This bill will do nothing to change prisoner behaviour. Every submitter bar the member Paul Quinn admitted that this bill was simply a political pamphlet. He woke up one morning, took the wet towel off his head, sat up, took the pills, and thought: “Hang on, here is a good idea.” He thought it would get him on the front page of the New Zealand Herald. I say to that member that he may well be on the front page of the New Zealand Herald tomorrow, but it will not be for the reasons and the motivation that he wanted.
That member is incompetent. He has done what no member in my living memory has done. I worked here some 20 years ago, and have been a member of Parliament for the last nearly 12 years, and I do not think I have seen such an incompetent display from a member with a member’s bill. Nor have I seen such a total breach of every parliamentary protocol by a chair of a committee in order to shut down, truncate, and stifle any debate. That member, Sandra Goudie, wears this like a badge of honour. She should have acted appropriately in a parliamentary sense and allowed debate and for the appropriate advisers to come in on the debate. The reason she did not do that, of course, was that the advisers would have said, quite rightly, that this bill is piffle. She now stands in the long line of Madame Tussaud’s parliamentary wax museum: Sandra Goudie, Mr Quinn, and that other great genius Judith Collins, who was so embarrassed that she immediately moved to tell everybody—but did not bother to tell Mr Quinn—that there would be a Supplementary Order Paper and that National would correct this bill.
Where is Simon Power, “The Invisible Man”?
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
No, I do not mean in the Chamber. Where is Simon Power, “The Invisible Man”? This is Justice and Electoral Committee legislation, yet the Minister of Justice has transferred it, like “three strikes” and a few other things. Transparent? He is so transparent that we cannot see him. He is not here in terms of this legislation, and we all know why. The reason is that he is a learned lawyer, I am told, and deep down he knows that this is no more than a political pamphlet.
I challenge those members who were on the committee to tell us a couple of things. I ask why they blocked the Ministry of Justice officials from giving us advice. That might have saved Mr Quinn’s scrawny hide and possibly his reputation. Why did they do that? I ask why they voted against a resolution that said it would be a good idea if when we get legislation, we match it up with the expert Government department officials as advisers. I ask why one would vote against that. We will let Mr Calder and Mr Young answer those questions. Mr Young is like a ghost on the committee. He sits there like a statue, too meek and mild to open his mouth, but when Ms Goudie nods, he puts up his hand and votes the right way. They all go in like sheep.
They were aided and abetted, of course, by the former member, that genius David Garrett. What great credibility this legislation will have in the Hansard! Mr Garrett supported it. He was a lawyer. He thought it was brilliant. What great support it will have! I say to Mr Quinn that if he is so smart and he thinks this is wonderful legislation, then he should give us some explanations. He stands condemned for being incompetent, and his select committee members stand condemned on the same charge, as does the chair of the committee.
None of the submitters could give us any reason to support the bill. When we look at it, we see that there is no analysis. There is no analysis on the front end of this bill. There is no evidence; there is no justification. Paul Quinn woke up one morning and thought he would get on the front of the New Zealand Herald. Well, by God, he has done that. That will happen tomorrow. That member will be in the “Wally of the Week” column for a long time. He has wasted the time of this Parliament, wasted taxpayers’ money—
Louise UpstonHon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
Oh, there is a squeeze box going on over there. Why does the member not tell us why she wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money before a select committee promoting this bill? The member is incompetent.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to gain some advice. As I understand it, it is traditional that, at the very least, the members of the select committee that considered the bill actually speak on it in the second reading.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) Link to this
No, that is not a point of order; the member well knows that. Any member is entitled to get up and speak, regardless of the position. The member knows that that is not the case.
This bill makes it clear that our democratic rights as citizens include obligations to obey the law. People who break the law and are sentenced to prison have not met those obligations, and while they are in prison they should lose their right to vote. That is my contribution to the debate on this bill.
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) Link to this
The people of Timaru who are very interested in the position that the previous speaker, Jo Goodhew, has taken on certain events that have occurred there will find that speech very interesting. I was very interested in the reaction of Government members during the contribution of my colleague the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. I saw all the heads go down, as they realised that they have been made fools of by this legislation. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Government has decided to back this silly bill. This is so political. Here we have a bill called the Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill. Which select committee would we refer it to? Would we refer it to the Justice and Electoral Committee, or would we refer it to the Law and Order Committee?
Hon Ruth DysonHon LIANNE DALZIEL Link to this
I think I would go for the Justice and Electoral Committee. I ask the member who is interjecting in reply to my questions, which would otherwise be rhetorical, why the choice would be the Justice and Electoral Committee over the Law and Order Committee. Why would we choose the Justice and Electoral Committee over the Law and Order Committee? Could it have something to do with the terms of reference of the different committees and who chairs them?
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL Link to this
Oh yes; and who the Minister is. Who is the Minister responsible for the Justice and Electoral Committee? Could that be Simon Power, the Minister of Justice? Who is responsible for electoral law reform? I think that might be Simon Power, the Minister of Justice. OK, well let us look at the Law and Order Committee. Which Minister is responsible essentially for the work that goes through the Law and Order Committee? I think it might be Judith Collins, the Minister of Police and the Minister of Corrections. OK; that is good.
Then we have the issue of the terms of reference of the particular committees. What are the terms of reference of the Justice and Electoral Committee? Who are the advisers to the committee on justice and electoral matters? They might be the Ministry of Justice officials. OK, so we have got that sorted out. Who are the advisers to the Law and Order Committee? That might depend on the bill. If it is a police bill, then it might be the police, and if it is a corrections bill, then it would be the Department of Corrections. OK. So we have different Ministers and different advisers.
Who are the chairs of the relevant committees? Whom is the Justice and Electoral Committee chaired by? It is chaired by Chester Borrows. Chester is actually quite a good chair, do members not think? I think Chester Borrows is quite well regarded. He has spoken openly and has some good views. He has the advantage of having been a police officer, and he is also a lawyer. He has the benefit of both sides of those debates. He is an excellent member of Parliament, and I find him very, very good to work with. Now, who is the chair of the Law and Order Committee?
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL Link to this
The genius, we hear. It is Sandra Goudie. If we wanted to have a piece of political puffery, would we want it presided over by Simon Power, Ministry of Justice officials, and Chester Borrows, or would we like a piece of political puffery presided over by Judith Collins, Department of Corrections officials, and Sandra Goudie? Which ones would members choose to preside over a piece of political puffery? This is where the politics of this whole process began.
The choice of select committee—the bill went to the Law and Order Committee—was absolutely deliberate, and it was obvious. The Department of Corrections told the select committee that it had no expertise in providing advice in this area. No one can blame the department, because it was upfront about that. The second point is that it is unacceptable to blame parliamentary counsel. We cannot blame parliamentary counsel, because they can operate only off the drafting instructions they receive from the select committee, and that advice comes from the Department of Corrections, which told parliamentary counsel that it was not in a position to advise in this area. If the Ministry of Justice had been allowed to give advice, it would have picked up on this problem—the ministry has the expertise in this area—and we would not have the nonsense we have today.
This bill extends voting rights to the most serious offenders in this country who are currently locked up behind bars. If this bill were to pass in its current form, then the worst criminals who are in jail at election time next year will be allowed to vote. [Interruption] That member can blame whomever he likes. He should look in the mirror, he should talk to Sandra Goudie, and he should lay the blame where it belongs. That choice of select committee was the reason why we have the problems we have today.
For a bill to be referred to the Law and Order Committee, there has to be a reason that is related to law and order. The bill would have to have a deterrent effect, and it would have to change prisoner behaviour—one or the other, but preferably both. That would be the reason for sending a bill to that committee. In respect of this bill, not one element of evidence produced anywhere in any of this debate or at the select committee showed any deterrent effect. If we say: “I am sorry, but if someone goes to jail for this serious offending or for this minor offending, that person will not be able to vote.”, will that seriously put people off offending? I do not think so. Will it change behaviour if we say: “We will not let you vote at the next election.”?
The member who resumed his seat earlier did not tell us how many prisoners currently vote. Do we know how many people this bill will affect? Does the member know how many people who are in prison currently vote?
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL Link to this
The member sat down before his time was up. I want to know whether that member knows the answer to that question. I suspect that he does not know the answer to the question. How many people does he expect will be affected by this bill, should it pass through the House? How many people who are in prison currently vote? I am absolutely prepared to stop speaking and hear the answer to my question. I would like to hear the answer to the question. How many prisoners currently vote?
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL Link to this
The member does not know the answer to my question. There is not one word in the report back from the select committee, not one word, on how many prisoners currently vote. We have no idea how many prisoners will be affected by this bill.
One of the issues that we raised in the report back related to a person who serves a 2½ year sentence. We want to ask a question. Somebody who has served a 2½ year sentence and who is in prison on the day that the election is held will not be able to vote, but somebody who is let out the day before the election will be allowed to vote. What is the sense in this? What is the point of this? What message are we trying to send?
I heard Jo Goodhew say that the Government is sending a message that people will not be allowed to vote if they offend. Actually, no; that is not what the Government is saying. It is saying that as long as the offender is not in prison on the day that the election occurs, then the offender can vote. What about the person who gets home detention and the person who does not get home detention, for committing exactly the same offence? I know of a case in Christchurch of two kids who were up in court in a relatively short space of time. One went to prison, and the other got home detention. Yet this bill is giving different rules. One offender will be able to vote, and the other offender will not be able to vote. Until the Government puts some numbers on the table, this is meaningless political puffery; it is nothing else.
I think that this Government has some serious explaining to do. It is not good enough just to blame the officials when the Government deliberately set up those officials to fail by choosing the wrong committee, choosing the wrong Minister, choosing the wrong advisers, choosing the wrong situation, and choosing an environment that produces no deterrents—not one ounce of deterrence—and no change to prisoner behaviour, except for the very small number who, I presume, will vote on election day and will not be able to do so in the future. I think this bill is a complete waste of Parliament’s time, and I regret that we have to even debate it.
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Repeatedly through my colleague Lianne Dalziel’s speech Mr Quinn indicated that he wished to have an extension of his speaking time. I indicate to him that if he wished to seek leave to obtain that, the Opposition would not object to him having an additional speaking slot—
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) Link to this
I say to the member that that is not a point of order. I tell the member that he cannot seek leave on behalf of another member. The member cannot use the point of order process for trying to indicate; there are other means of doing it. The member can send him a note. [ Interruption] I say to members that when I was speaking there were interjections. If the Speaker is speaking there will be silence.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not wish to trifle with your ruling, but I think the point of order that Mr Hipkins was making—and you yourself have said that you like to see things flow and have flexibility—was of the best intentions. The member had indicated, and Mr Hipkins was quite happy to facilitate.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) Link to this
The member is trifling with my ruling. The member knows that when a matter has been dealt with it is closed. We are not going to have things relitigated here. Once a decision has been made, the decision has been made. It is not subject to a second opinion; that is it, the matter is closed. When the member says that he is not trifling with the Speaker’s ruling, he is doing exactly that. His statement that he was not doing that does not fool the Speaker into believing something different. The member was seeking to trifle with my ruling. The matter is closed.
DAVID CLENDON (Green) Link to this
Last evening I made the comment in the Chamber that some bills that come before this House are important; they are profoundly meaningful and significant. Others verge on the ridiculous. I think there would be no prizes for guessing where the Greens locate this Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill on that spectrum.
The effect of passing this bill would mean that any person imprisoned in New Zealand would be taken off the register of electors and therefore deprived of their right to vote. The rationale appears to be that all convicted prisoners should suffer further punishment on top of the punishment of being imprisoned. The bill, the discussion, and even the debate, such as it was, offers remarkably little in the way of justification, of any evidence, or of arguments, why these steps should be taken—why this would be a good or a desirable change to make. There has been no evidence provided that this bill would reduce crime, that it would facilitate reintegration, or that it would provide any service or succour to victims of crime.
There are, on the other hand, very compelling reasons why we should leave the status quo, or why any change that was effected ought to expand, to broaden rather than reduce, the opportunities for prisoners to retain the franchise. Clearly, the Greens will continue to oppose this bill in its entirety. The bill will do nothing to make our society safer. If anything, it will make it more dangerous by further marginalising prisoners, and by making more difficult their reintegration back into society and their acceptance as part of that society after they have served their sentences.
The balance of submissions was overwhelmingly opposed to this bill. The point has been made that the mover of the bill supported it, as did one other—shall we say, well-known—character; the majority of submitters were clearly offended by it.
This bill constitutes an unjustified violation of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, as was confirmed by the Attorney-General. It is contrary to article 25 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, of which New Zealand is a signatory, and which we have ratified. The bill is completely out of line with international law relating to blanket restrictions on the rights of prisoners. This bill, if enacted, would put us offside. It would violate our obligations under international law. It would lead to criticism by the United Nations and other international forums.
The mover of the bill, in his opening remarks, referred to people in ivory towers critiquing the bill. Perhaps the Human Rights Commission dwells in an ivory tower, though I think not. Its submission spelt out very clearly the major flaws in this bill, and the constitutional violations.
I am sure they are. The right to vote, the commission said, is considered fundamental to representative democracies. In Western democracies, it said, it is well recognised that the right to vote applies to all citizens, subject only to the narrowest exceptions. The commission went on to say that the bill is inconsistent with international standards, and made the very valid point that if passed, it would impact disproportionately on Māori, both men and women, and would therefore contribute directly and indirectly to discrimination that could not be defended as reasonable. The bill is inconsistent, according to the commission, when we consider that the aim of the penal system is to rehabilitate offenders, because the bill will do nothing to rehabilitate offenders. It is at odds with the concept of democracy. The commission’s final statement was that the bill undermines the tolerant, inclusive society that New Zealand prides itself on being.
The New Zealand Law Society, perhaps also trapped in the same ivory tower, was similarly scathing of the bill. It called it an unnecessary and retrograde step. The society insisted that the current law maintains the correct balance between the maintenance of a free and democratic society, the right to vote for all New Zealanders, and the removal of certain rights from prisoners. We have achieved that balance. Despite the mover’s assertions to the contrary, it was not an arbitrary decision to settle on 3 years as being the minimum imprisonment time after which prisoners lose that vote. The decision was thoughtful; it is a measure that has been accepted and practised for a very long time, and we ought not to meddle with it.
This bill reflects a punitive, irrational approach to the rights of prisoners. If enacted, the bill would be counter-productive. It would alienate prisoners and recently released inmates further from society, despite the major objectives of the Department of Corrections and the corrections sector, which are to prepare and facilitate the reintegration back into society of those who have offended.
A number of community law centres also made a submission—and I think that no one, even stretching the longest bow, could suggest that people working in community law centres lived in ivory towers. They have day-to-day contact with real people, the real world, and real problems. Their submission was based on their experience in working with offenders and with victims. It was highly critical of this bill and it demanded the bill’s rejection.
We can think of the practical issues involved. The Electoral Enrolment Centre put in a submission, but quite appropriately took some care to take no political position and to make no political statements. It noted that even the current system of deregistering prisoners is labour-intensive, and time-consuming, and often fails to the extent that the necessary documentation is not completed. The report back from the Government majority on the select committee noted the issue. It said that the committee had considered some changes to the process of deregistration, and had decided, essentially, that that was too hard a project. They put it in the too-hard basket, and that decision was made under the current situation where only a relatively small number of prisoners are deregistered or reregistered.
There is a pious hope expressed by Government members that the Electoral Enrolment Centre will work with the Department of Corrections to develop a procedure to encourage prisoners to re-enrol upon release from prison, and members expect the introduction of a re-enrolment procedure in due course. But that is undoubtedly a kick for touch—it is too hard, and the department has chosen not to go there for obvious reasons. About 9,000 people are released from New Zealand prisons every year. We can imagine the logistics of processing that number of prisoners every year, in order to remove them from the roll and to put them back on the roll. Many of those people go into prison with drug and alcohol dependency, and with literacy problems. Significant numbers of them find it difficult to get accommodation when they come out of prison. The reality of getting those 9,000 people a year back on to the electoral roll would, frankly, not happen. We would build up an ever-increasing pool of people who were permanently disenfranchised, permanently removed from the business of voting, and one step further away from integration into a fair and a safe society.
This House needs to have real debates about real issues in relation to the Department of Corrections, imprisonment, and a fair society. The department’s budget, as noted by our own Minister of Finance recently, is fast becoming the largest single department in terms of expenditure. The current year’s budget sits at $1.16 billion, of which about $750 million—some 65 percent—of that vote of over a billion dollars is spent on prison-based custodial services. We spend a massive amount of money to lock people away.
By comparison, we spend less than 12 percent of that budget on reintegration and rehabilitation services. Some $138 million is all we can find to reintegrate prisoners and rehabilitate people who have offended. It seems we would prefer to spend huge amounts of money on concrete, steel, and prison guards, than relatively small amounts of money on endeavouring to ensure that we do not have that inexorably growing rate of recidivism, and the appalling blot on our social profile from that high and ongoing rate of imprisonment and society.
We can do better than that and we need to do better than that. This House needs to turn its mind to the real issues about the corrections system, crime and punishment, and meeting the needs of society. This bill does nothing towards that end. It is a waste of this House’s time, and the Greens would like to see it sent away and given the send-off it deserves. Kia ora.
Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT) Link to this
I rise to support the Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill on behalf of the ACT Party. The ACT Party commends the sponsor of this bill, Paul Quinn, for bringing it to the House’s attention and for his intelligent contribution, which was far different from the contributions of members opposite—apart from the previous speaker, David Clendon, from the Green Party. That member gave the bill proper consideration. The ACT Party will very proudly support this bill.
HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) Link to this
Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Huri rauna kia ora tātou katoa e te Whare. This bill, the Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill, to remove the right of anyone in jail to vote is a direct attack on the democratic freedoms of people we should be trying to help. It is an assault on the intelligence of ordinary New Zealanders. It is another in a raft of misbegotten, panicked pieces of legislation that are driving this country over the precipice into the mindless depths of right-wing insanity.
Even the Law Society did not like the bill, for heaven’s sake! It opposes the bill on the basis that it contravenes the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Law Society called it retrograde legislation that would erode the free and democratic nature of New Zealand society, without justification. The Law Society called the bill irrational and arbitrary. It said that the bill was unreasonably impairing the right to vote, that it was out of due proportion to the objective of punishment, and that it was out of line with international law.
The Human Rights Commission said the bill would “impact disproportionately on Māori … and therefore may amount to indirect discrimination which could not be defended as reasonable.” The commission also said the bill was inconsistent with the aim of the penal system to rehabilitate offenders.
Those basic human rights come from a long history, which goes back to the New Zealand Constitution Act of 1852, which actually disenfranchised prisoners back then for “any treason, felony, or infamous offence within any part of Her Majesty’s dominions”. That history also includes a declaration from the 1975 Electoral Act Committee, which said “there was no justification for taking away an elector’s political rights if detained in a penal institution.” Three years later in 1978 New Zealand ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. That was followed by a statement made by the Centre for Human Rights, which said “excessive limitations on the voting rights of convicted criminals are not permissible.” In 1992 the Solicitor-General said that the removal of voting rights for more prisoners was a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and that imposing limits on that right was unjustified.
Now in 2010 we find that our current Attorney-General, the Hon Chris Finlayson, has attached a note to this bill to alert Parliament to his view that this bill will strip individuals of a fundamental right in a way that cannot be justified in a free and democratic society. He is a colleague of Mr Paul Quinn.
Everyone knows that Māori make up 50 percent of an already overstretched prison population; a gross overrepresentation in sentencing, incarceration, and recidivism rates that are a damning indictment on our society, and on our justice system in particular. This bill will make that even worse by further isolating and segregating prisoners from society and adding another punishment to the one already handed down by the judge.
One of the submissions received by the Law and Order Committee was from a woman who reported on a recent ruling in the United States Court of Appeals. It stated that the removal of a prisoner’s right to vote was a breach of the Voting Rights Act and that it discriminated disproportionately against ethnic minorities that are overrepresented in the prison population. She also said that this proposed bill would contravene the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in respect of both the right to vote and freedom from discrimination. I pick up on a comment made by Labour members, because I think I might have the same example. That woman provided a local example where two young men were convicted of the same offence. One was from Fendalton—or, depending on where he lived, “Fendolton”—and the other one was from Aranui. To no one’s great surprise, the one from Fendalton got home detention and the one from Aranui, who was convicted on the same offence, was sent to jail.
By way of context this bill says that people who get home detention can vote but those who get jail cannot vote. Fendalton, of course, is one of the wealthiest suburbs in Christchurch, with a Polynesian population of just 3 percent. Aranui is one of Christchurch’s not-so-wealthy suburbs, with a Polynesian population of 40 percent. So there you go! When they get convicted of the same offence poor brown people go to jail and rich white folks do not. Now, thanks to this bill, poor brown criminals will lose their right to vote whereas rich white criminals will not.
Finally, I draw on a review from the Ministry of Justice last year that confirmed bias against ethnic minority and indigenous peoples at every stage of the criminal justice system from stop and search, to arrest, charging, prosecution, mode of trial, conviction, pre-sentence reports, sentencing, incarceration, and parole. That review found that over 40 years of international research had failed to provide a successful blueprint for addressing ethnic disparities. It also found that a comprehensive policy approach was needed to address the direct and underlying causes of ethnic minority and indigenous offending. This bill will achieve absolutely none of that.
Every intelligent commentator, every human rights ruling, every valid piece of research, and every anecdotal piece of information we have to hand, both local and international, tell me that this bill is not only bad legislation, it is dumb legislation. It will disenfranchise Māori voters, it will do nothing whatsoever to protect the citizenry of this nation, and the Māori Party will be opposing it at every single stage. Kia ora tātou.
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) Link to this
The social contract that undergirds every stable society must balance human rights with human responsibilities, or said essentially, in order to participate in the process of selecting our lawmakers who shape our society, one ought not to be a serious lawbreaker. That was said simply for the Hon Clayton Cosgrove.
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) Link to this
It is absolutely remarkable to be here in this House tonight to hear the appalling contributions from National members on this bill. When I stood in this House to give my very first speech I looked across at the Government benches and said that despite our political differences I know that the members over there are here to do the best they can. They are here because they have things they believe in and they have come to Parliament to put them in place. Well, tonight a member who entered Parliament at the same time as me has put forward as his political epitaph, because he will not be here after the next election, a bill that is a disgraceful attack on democracy; it is petty, and it is meaningless. It is unbelievable tonight to feel that National members will not get up and even give proper speeches as to why they are supporting this bill.
This bill went to a select committee and was made worse. This was an appalling bill and it was made worse at the select committee. The committee managed not only to attempt to take away the vote from people sentenced to less than 3 years in prison, it actually succeeded in opening it up. We often hear from members on the other side of the House about how members on this side of the House seem to be sympathetic to the William Bells of this world and those sorts of criminals. Now the Government has produced a bill that will open up the vote to those people. It might be a mistake. Government members might blame the officials, but they cannot blame the officials when they did not even bring in the Ministry of Justice officials, the people who are the actual experts on this, to advise them. But that simply typifies the approach of the National Government on these issues.
This kind of legislation is the simple stuff, the meaningless stuff. The hard work of the criminal justice area in trying to make sure that we rehabilitate people and reintegrate them into society is not what we hear from National. We heard Judith Collins celebrate the fact that we are building another prison. She said that it was great for the economy. This Government is short-sighted on law and order, and this is a short-sighted bill.
If members on the other side of the House, who often lecture Labour members about democracy, are truly committed to democracy, then upholding democracy for the people in society whom we might not always think of in a positive light is the true test of whether we are committed to democracy. The true test of being committed to democracy is to say that even if people have committed some of these crimes, we still fundamentally believe that they have a human right to vote. If we want people to rehabilitate and reintegrate into society, we need to give them a chance to be involved in society. Virtually every person who is covered by the extension of this law, the 2,000 or 3,000 people who are sentenced each year to less than 3 years in prison, will end up back in society. We are not talking here—though with the mistake that National has made, it almost is—about people sentenced to life imprisonment. That is already in the law. Every single one of the people to whom this extension applies will be back in society. What we should be doing is working out how we reintegrate those people into society and how we contribute to rehabilitation. Instead, we have petty, spiteful legislation that does nothing to make our communities safer. There is nothing in this bill to make our communities safer. Should that not be the aim of criminal justice policy in this country? Should not the aim of any law covering this sector that is brought forward to this Parliament be about making communities safer? Instead, we have a petty bill that will do nothing in that respect.
The bill does not address serious criminals; that issue is already dealt with in the law. This is a petty, spiteful attempt to try to curry favour with a populist issue. It will do nothing for our communities. The bill is wrong in principle. It is wrong in terms of all human rights law globally and in terms of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. We saw why, in the Attorney-General’s opinion, this bill is unacceptable in New Zealand. We can look internationally and see that in virtually every jurisdiction where this issue has come up, decisions have been made to go in the opposite direction to New Zealand. There is even a statement in the Department of Corrections report that this will look bad for New Zealand internationally, and that it will damage New Zealand’s international reputation. Paul Quinn does not mind about that; he does not care about trampling on New Zealand’s reputation.
He is damaged, I say to Mr Cosgrove. He does not care about New Zealand’s reputation. He does not care about international law and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. What is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, beside Paul Quinn? Which will we choose between—Paul Quinn or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Tonight National is choosing to ignore international human rights law and New Zealand human rights law. Practical differences, actually making communities safer, have all been ignored tonight, to allow Paul Quinn to put up petty, spiteful, meaningless legislation in this House.
Not only is this bill wrong in principle, it is wrong in practice. My colleagues have already talked about the fact that it creates massive inconsistencies among people who are sentenced to home detention, people who are in prison on the particular day on which an election is held, and people who are held in prison on remand—all of those inconsistencies are created by this legislation. Yet Mr Quinn seems to think that the bill can just sail through the House. No evidence whatsoever has been provided to the committee or to the House that this bill will have any kind of positive impact on recidivism, which is one of the arguments that are put up. No evidence whatsoever was supplied to the committee on that. Internationally, the evidence is in the other direction. If we want to address recidivism and to stop people committing crimes, we need to work with those people to rehabilitate them and include them in society. But this bill does not just take away people’s rights to vote, it takes people off the electoral roll. How farcical is it, when it is so difficult in this country to get people enrolled, that we would put through a bill that takes people off the electoral roll.
This bill is a practical mess. If it passes its second reading tonight it will need massive changes at the Committee stage. Mr Quinn himself or National members need to respond to those who have highlighted that this bill will allow the vote to offenders who are currently serving prison sentences of more than 3 years. That shambles has to be sorted out. We have all of the inconsistencies, but overall we have an in principle problem with this bill.
If members of this House are committed to democracy, standing up for democracy means standing up when democracy challenges us. It does not mean taking simplistic, petty approaches and saying we will cut off the vote for these people and take away their democratic rights. If people are truly committed to democracy, then this is the moment to stand up and say that this bill will not support democracy. The bill has nothing going for it: it does not make our communities safer, it will make New Zealand an international laughing stock, it goes against our own domestic New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and it is impractical. There is nothing going for it whatsoever. But much, much more than that, this is actually an attack on our democracy and an attack on our communities.
In this House we should be debating criminal justice law that is about reducing crime and about attacking the causes of crime. In this House we should be debating how to rehabilitate people, how to reintegrate people into society, and how to stop recidivism. They are hard conversations; it is difficult law to make. But what we have seen consistently from National members is simplistic approaches, support for the “three strikes” law, and, now, support for this law. The Government supports the building of more prisons, rather than stopping people from getting into prison in the first place.
We need proper criminal justice law in this country, and it is not coming from that side of the House. This law is one of the worst examples of that. Members on that side of the House know that, and they should not be voting for this law tonight. We need proper conversation in this country about criminal justice. This bill has absolutely no part in that whatsoever, and it should be voted down tonight.
Dr CAM CALDER (National) Link to this
The philosopher Isaiah Berlin referred to the positive conception of liberty: not “freedom from”, but “freedom to”. Imprisoned, one loses the freedom of movement, the freedom to associate, the right to freedom of speech, and many other “freedoms to”. I believe that the freedom to vote is an integral part of an individual’s liberty and an individual’s “freedom to”. The loss of freedom to vote upon going to prison is perfectly consistent with the loss of the aforementioned freedoms concomitant with a sentence to a term of imprisonment. Thank you.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) Link to this
I find this debate slightly hard to believe. I am not surprised that the mover of the Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill failed to read the amendments made by the Law and Order Committee, and has the bill doing exactly the opposite of what he claims it does. I have worked closely with Mr Quinn and no level of incompetence on his part would surprise me.
But what I do not understand is why Simon Bridges, who everyone knows is a lawyer of some repute—
Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
He is. He was Crown prosecutor in Tauranga and he used to have potential. How can that member sit there with his gob shut and let this go on? Why does Simon Bridges not get up on to his hind legs, show a bit of integrity, and tell Paul Quinn that the Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill is not on?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
Well, no, there are a number of reasons for that. I challenge that member to get up in this House. In fact, I would let him take part of my call if he was prepared to stand up and say he supports the dog’s breakfast that is this bill. Not only was it wrong to do what Paul Quinn tried to do, but Paul Quinn could not even do what he tried to do.
We had a discussion recently about the All Blacks and people who were nearly All Blacks, and a team has just been named. I agree with the New Zealand Rugby Union councillor who said that if Paul Quinn had been 2 inches taller, he would have been an All Black. He was missing just the top 2 inches. We see in this bill evidence that the member is missing the top 2 inches. Not only did he bring in a bill that was against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, against international conventions, and designed to embarrass New Zealand around the world with its lack of integrity and its stupidity, but at the Law and Order Committee he moved an amendment that went from not allowing people to vote to allowing the worst criminals to vote. He is the joker who says it does not matter how many prison officers one kills, one can still vote. That is what Paul Quinn’s legislation does. He has tipped it totally on its head. He has made it absolutely the opposite of what he claimed it would be, yet he has come to the House proud of his work. It is a good day’s work for Paul Quinn to get something absolutely wrong.
I will focus on another member, and that is Jonathan Young.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
I am one of the people who were privileged to be in the House with Jonathan Young’s father. He was a man of enormous integrity who valued Parliament as an institution. He was what might be described as an old liberal. He did what was right and what was fair. He worked through things case by case, and he was a good debater. He respected this institution. I saw him get up and give a 60-minute speech on a first reading—a 60-minute speech on a first reading. He would never get up and give the sort of rubbishy 1-minute speech that his son, I can tell, is embarrassed to give.
Hon John CarterHon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
Sorry, is the member right? It was 1990? I apologise—he was here till 1990. He made a hell of an impression.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
Ha, what a dag! Paul Quinn has never got anything right in this House—never got anything right. He introduced a bill, tried to fix it up, and made it worse—he made it worse.
I might as well explain something to the House, as I have explained to a number of my colleagues. I now invite Paul Quinn to every meeting I can in Hutt South. For every single meeting that is on in Hutt South, I try to get an invitation for Paul Quinn. It is really important that we get the National Party represented there, so people can see the sort of talent that it has! I do it regularly. I think it is fair to say I am becoming a bit transparent. People are telling me not to suggest to anyone else that Paul Quinn be invited to the meetings.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
It is not the National Party whips, but it is the National Party Hutt South executive—what little exists of it. This bill is absolutely typical of Paul Quinn.
I will go back to Simon Bridges. I ask him whether he supports this bill in its current form. He does support the bill. He is supporting the bill in its current form, which would give William Bell the vote, which would give cop killers the vote, and which would give the vote to people who kill prison officers. I ask Mr Bridges whether he supports the bill in its current form.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
There he goes. He is a bit like the man who chases around after the night cart. He is a bit like the man who chases around after Paul Quinn, tidying up what comes out of the horse’s arse. I have never seen legislation put together in a way that more resembles what comes out of the back end of a horse than the legislation that this member, Paul Quinn, has brought to the House today. But is that something that surprises us? Is anyone in the House shocked? Is anyone here surprised? There is not a whisper—not a whisper. There is not a whimper from the Government. None of the Government members say they are surprised that Paul Quinn has made a cock-up of this size. There is not a member on the Government benches who thinks that Paul Quinn is capable of putting together a decent bit of legislation that, at least, says what he means. What he means is bad enough but what he does is even worse. Do members know the sad thing? He is actually one of the Government’s better members. Sandra Goudie chaired the select committee and Paul Quinn makes her look good.
Another area of constitutional outrage is the fact that those members could not get decent advisers at the select committee. They would not get the justice people. Paul Quinn drove the select committee not to hear from people who knew about justice. Paul Quinn stopped the justice people who knew about this bill from giving advice. Why? Because he is embarrassed. He is a sad man. He is a sad man and he is very, very embarrassed by this. He does not care about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. He does not care about justice issues.
There is a sort of debate going on about the National Party list. I know National has a couple of good new Māori candidates and is trying to get one of them down to work in the Wellington area. Paul Quinn is resisting that like nothing on earth, and I am not surprised. Tau Henare might well laugh. Tau might well laugh. He might be involved in trying to get that decent candidate on to the list for the National Party in Wellington. But I welcome my opponent. It is great to have Paul Quinn running against me. Every now and again I get scared that a competent Tory might decide to run in Hutt South, but I say this bill alone will be enough for me to run every single meeting in the next campaign. This is the guy who tried to do something stupid, and ended up with something worse. He tried to do something stupid. No one had any idea at all that worse could be done, but Paul Quinn managed to do that.
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) Link to this
I start my speech by thanking the honourable member Trevor Mallard for his very kind words about me. He is right: I was a great criminal lawyer. It is good to hear it from someone of his stature, a senior member on the other side of the House. I appreciate those kind words.
The member has challenged me, effectively, to come to the party and defend this bill, and I say to him, in all due modesty, that I gave a superb first reading speech in this House that set out very clearly the rationale for this bill. If I may say so, I encourage the member to read it. He will see some very good reasons why this bill, with the Supplementary Order Paper that is coming, will make a great deal of difference morally in this country.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That the amendments recommended by the Law and Order Committee by majority be agreed to.
Ayes 63
Noes 55
Question agreed to.
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) Link to this
I regret that I inadvertently cast an incorrect vote for United Future. It should have been one vote opposed. My apologies to the House. I seek leave for it to be changed.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) Link to this
The member is seeking leave for the vote to be amended. Is there any objection?
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
It is a question of whether there are instructions on this particular vote, because it is quite a technical vote on the amendments being agreed to by the select committee. My understanding is that Mr Dunne actually would prefer to vote against the amendments.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) Link to this
I will just deal with this matter very quickly. The member knows the answer to his question before he asks it. When the proxy is given to a whip to cast a proxy vote, the House and the Speaker accept the word of the whip. There can be no other way for that to be done. If the member wishes to say that that is how the vote is to be cast, the member’s word must be, and has to be, always accepted. That is the way it has always been, and it will not change. Leave has been sought for the vote to be amended as agreed. Is there any objection? There being no objection, the vote will be amended.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That the Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.
Ayes 63
Noes 55
Bill read a second time