Little AndrewELECTORAL (REGISTRATION OF SENTENCED PRISONERS) AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I move That the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. This bill amends the Electoral Act 1993. The purpose of the bill is to enfranchise and better facilitate participation in the electoral system for people in or recently from prison—those sentenced to sentences of less than three years. I want to thank the Justice Committee for their consideration of the bill—in particular the chair the Hon Meka Whaitiri and in fact all members who sat on the committee to consider this bill. I know some were a little concerned that they sat throughout part of the lockdown period and took submissions but I think the number of members of the public who responded to the bill is very telling. So the committee received 2578 written submissions from interested groups and individuals and heard oral evidence from 86 submitters through video and teleconference and I think what is clear also is the number of those submitters who supported the bill was at 78 percent. That's pretty unusual actually because in a reasonably controversial bill—or at least a bill around this place that is regarded as controversial especially by members opposite—78 percent of submitters supported the bill which means that 22 percent were opposed and the members opposite no doubt were representing that particular view. Of the 78 percent who wrote to express strong support for the bill of those in support over 500 submitters commented on the bill upholding human rights. The reality about this bill is that it is a grounded and a very fundamental principle and that is that you must have a right to have a say or to elect those who are going to run the country that you are freely exercising your rights in. If you are in prison at the time of an election and sentenced to less than three years you are going to leave prison before the next election and re-enter society as a free person and the principle is that you must have a right to have a say on those people who are governing the country that you're going to be a free citizen in. That's the underlying principle—it's about upholding democracy. Now there are those who argued—submitters and others who argued—that the bill doesn't go far enough. They wanted that right to be extended to all prisoners and that's not the principle we adopted. We adopted the principle that those who are in prison at the time of a general election and who are sentenced to less than three years and who will be released ought to have a say on those who are running the country that they are going to be released into. There was a very good set of submissions from Andrew Geddis and Graeme Edgeler who commented on the arbitrary nature of the voting disqualification and their argument was that that's why the disqualification should be removed at all. To the extent there is a disqualification—and it was before 2010—that re-entered our statutes in 1993 when the then National Government with the then Minister of Justice the Hon Doug Graham now Sir Doug Graham argued that the old disqualification was not justified on any grounds and that there ought to be an acceptance that those prisoners sentenced to a sentence of less than three years ought to have a right to have a say on those running the country that they're going to go back into. That's what this bill does. The change made 10 years ago was never properly justified and that was confirmed by the Hon Chester Borrows in his submission—a former senior National MP who without giving too much away clearly intimated that there was a problem when the governing party of the day 10 years ago championed that law. He was uncomfortable with it and he's come clean and said that and I'm pretty sure there'll be members opposite even today who will be uncomfortable with it but they won't be allowed to say so. But there is a good reason to change it and that is that we need to value our democratic principles and democratic rights as citizens. Of those who submitted against the bill there were some important arguments raised. There were some who were just opposed to prisoners voting and that's not what this bill is about. They said Well you've broken the rules of society. You should have those rights and privileges withdrawn from you." Although the reason you get sentenced to prison is that you forfeit the right of freedom of movement the right of freedom of association and some rights of freedom of speech—you have a lot of rights taken off you—you don't actually stop being a citizen. No matter how bad you've been or how ugly you are in terms of your behaviour you don't stop being a citizen and in a sense what this bill does is restore that cherishing of that right as citizens. Some argued that giving prisoners the right would be hurtful to victims. There'll be plenty of victims who will say "That person caused me harm egregiously and has gone to prison. Why should they have the same right as I do—the right to vote?" and I think the important thing there is to say that the purpose of a prison system doing its job is the corrective actions: taking somebody who has caused harm calling them to account and assisting them with their behaviour change so they turn out to be a good citizen. So that's what this bill is seeking to do. What I might add as I'm crediting the select committee for the work they've done is to note that the committee heard 18½ hours of evidence. They did a tremendous job and as I say I know some of them were concerned—including the Hon Nick Smith who seemed to want to have his level 4 lockdown period and have to do nothing. But actually as other select committees did they used the technology. They were able to do their job as public representatives and engage with the public on this particular sort of issue and so here we are. Over 400 submitters submitted that allowing prisoners to vote would have a rehabilitative effect—there's a judgment call there—and participating in the electoral process will be a way of building engagement and investment in society. The reality is that of people who get sent to prison most of them come out and we want them to come out with a positive attitude as a citizen towards the community that they've previously caused harm against. So this if it helps and maybe it does—but in any event it goes back to the important cherished right to vote. Ensuring that our electoral system engages all communities is vital for a healthy democracy and equally so is ensuring that our laws uphold all New Zealanders' fundamental rights. That's why this Government is committed to ensuring that people who will be re-entering their communities within the length of a parliamentary term will be able to have a say on who governs them. I should also note the ruling of the Waitangi Tribunal. They investigated this very thoroughly and like the Attorney-General in 2010 who at the time said that this was inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act the Waitangi Tribunal said not only was it inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act but it breached rights under the Treaty of Waitangi. We either value these important constitutional documents or we don't. We can't sort of mouth off constitutionalism—like the Hon Dr Nick Smith does every now and again—but actually in reality not respect constitutional rights and constitutional norms. So this will have a rehabilitative effect on those important constitutional documents: the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the Treaty of Waitangi. This bill will go some way to addressing a law that is presently unjustifiable and that causes a significantly disproportionate effect on Māori because it doesn't just take away the right to vote; it takes away the right to be on the roll. It deregisters voters because the reality is they seldom ever come back on to the roll and that's what the Waitangi Tribunal pointed out—that if you are a Māori and sentenced to prison under this law you are 11 times more likely than a Pākehā to be permanently removed from the roll and therefore denied the right to vote. That's how insidious this law was—never justified never proper—and now it's being rectified. I just want to talk about the one issue that did come up in the deliberations by the select committee related to whether or not prisoners going back on the roll should go on the unpublished roll. We have an unpublished roll. It is there for very good reasons as it is about the safety of some voters. The bill as previously drafted I accept actually gave a virtually automatic right for prisoners if they elected to go on the unpublished roll to go on. That wasn't the original intention. Officials have given advice to the committee that it is possible to correct it. It was unfortunate that the committee could not reach agreement on that correction but I will be introducing a Supplementary Order Paper that will correct that so that there is no automatic right for a prisoner going back on the roll to go on the unpublished roll. They have to meet the same test as anybody else and it has to relate to their personal safety and security. So that will happen. There is also an obligation on prison managers to communicate very clearly to prisoners about enrolling so that that is clearly understood. On that basis I commend the bill to the House."