Katene Rahui: Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Katene Rahui: Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:15969] 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I stand to speak on the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill. I come to this bill with the disproportionate over-representation of Maori in our prisons weighing heavily upon me. Maori are over-represented at every end of the criminal justice sector both as victims and as offenders in the areas of arrests prosecutions convictions imprisonment and reimprisonment. 
This over-representation must also be viewed in the context of a ballooning prison population a population that we believe is neither financially nor socially sustainable in our nation. A 2008 paper from Andrew Coyle from the International Centre for Prison Studies commented on Ministry of Justice forecasts that there would be a 15.6 percent increase in the prison population over the next 7 years with an estimated population of over 9000 people. This puts New Zealand so said Mr Coyle on a par with Libya Azerbaijan and Brazil. This information provides the context in which we come to this third reading of the bill to amend the Electoral Act 1993 by removing the right of a person serving a sentence of imprisonment of less than 3 years to register as an elector. Currently the prison population is approximately 8300 with Maori prisoners making up 50.66 percent—or 4169—of that population. If we look at the possible number of prisoners serving less than 3 years we are in the ballpark of approximately 5000 prisoners the majority of these being Maori and Pasifika. 
These numbers and the grossly disproportionate impact on whanau Maori and Pasifika communities are serious enough in their own right but it is the principle of democratic representation that we want to raise in our final contribution on this debate. I have to say it is deeply ironic that on the very next day after the constitutional review was announced and when the current political environment includes debate on issues such as the MMP referendum advance voting and electoral finance reform the House is doing something that is a direct attack on the right to vote. Mr Quinn in his speech referred to the hysterical rantings of members and presumably of submitters. I want to bring to the House once more the advice of the “hysterical” New Zealand Law Society President Jonathan Temm who described this legislation as retrograde legislation that would erode the free and democratic nature of New Zealand society and without justification. 
I want to focus on this issue of justification. What is the justification that substantiates such a harsh and punitive bill? Is the vote of an inmate worth less than the vote of someone who is an offender but who has not yet been caught? What is the judgment that is being made when we deem it appropriate to remove the right to vote from prisoners? Will we see such an abuse of power similarly applied to a person who enters the voting booth under the influence of alcohol or an illicit substance? Will we cast that same judgment upon a voter who was a known paedophile a fraudster or a recidivist sexual offender? Quite frankly the gates would be flung wide open if we continued down this track of arbitrarily targeting certain sectors of our population that we consider undesirable. 
Like Mr Clendon we looked at what the Attorney-General thought. He himself believes that the bill is “unjustifiably inconsistent with the electoral rights affirmed by section 12 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. But it was not just our domestic legal context that the Attorney-General looked at; he also considered article 25 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which New Zealand is a signatory and which relates to blanket restrictions on the right of prisoners to vote. So let us have another look at it. The Attorney-General is the chief law officer and primary legal adviser of the New Zealand Government. The Attorney-General has departmental responsibility for the Crown Law Office the Parliamentary Counsel Office and the Serious Fraud Office. It makes sense then that when the Attorney-General offers advice one would listen. Yet a list MP seemingly has more sway and more influence with the National Government which is willing to follow that MP’s lead in establishing a partisan and biased approach to the broader issue of electoral democracy. 
I listened to the speech of Mr Quinn this afternoon regarding the Maori Affairs Committee inquiry into the tobacco industry in Aotearoa. He expressed some very positive acknowledgments to our colleague Mr Harawira and the Maori Party for being in step with the key issues of the day. I was heartened by his kind words. So it defies belief that he can appreciate the value of inclusion and the importance of freedom of expression before the dinner break then still proceed to bring this bill to its third reading after the dinner break. 
As a lawyer I must admit that I take a passionate interest in the rule of law and the opportunities by which legislation can be enabling. I am committed to a legal system that is participatory and that is just and fair. But if we were to listen to the views of Frances Joychild a former law commissioner we would see that this bill fails to meet the mark. In her presentation to the rule of law conference earlier this year she told participants that this member’s bill should not be enacted. She said “It is not demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society as it is arbitrary unfair disproportionate and impairs the right to vote more than is reasonably necessary. It poses an unwarranted threat to the health strength and cohesion of our democratic system of government upon which we all rely to live in harmony peace and prosperity. It should not be enacted.” 
The Maori Party is astonished that this bill can be supported as good policy let alone as being worthy of entry into the statute book. We believe that the right to vote is exactly that—not a privilege or a luxury afforded to those citizens we deem as acceptable. We have some appreciation for the analysis raised by the Royal Commission on the Electoral System in 1986 namely that punishment for a serious crime might properly involve further forfeiture of rights such as the right to vote. But the commission rejected any suggestion that such restrictions should be applied as a blanket ban on all prisoners. We do not support this bill and we are extremely sad that at enactment deprivation of the precious right of voting will be another punishment levelled on people already bearing the costs of the punishment they were served during the court process. It is unjustifiable it is arbitrary and it is outright targeting of a sector of the population in a way that we cannot abide.