Robertson Grant: Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Robertson Grant: Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14690] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 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 2000 or 3000 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. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: He’s damaged. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: 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.