Sepuloni Carmel: Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Sepuloni Carmel: Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:15965] 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 I stand to speak on the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill. I paused at the beginning of my speech because I was speechless for a second at the speech from the member who just resumed her seat Sandra Goudie. Given that she is the chairperson of the Law and Order Committee I thought she might have had a little more substance in what she was speaking about and might have been able to extend her speech to the full 10 minutes. If the bill really is of as much significance as that I am sure it would not be so difficult for Ms Goudie to fill up the 10 minutes of speech time. Obviously as we already knew there is very little to speak about because this is rather an insignificant bill. I follow the earlier speech of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove and I support each and every word that he said in his speech. When I say that this is an insignificant bill I say that in light of an event I attended at lunchtime which was a demonstration out the front of Parliament when we stood together in solidarity to support the women and children across the Pacific— 
Sandra Goudie 
: Oh my goodness that sounds like the unions! 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: —who are victims I say to Sandra Goudie and I hope she cares about the victims of domestic violence. 
I look at the Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill and think that it is so incredibly trivial and insignificant. The bill will bring about no change and no positive repercussions for New Zealand society. Yet at the bottom of the Order Paper is the Domestic Violence Reform Bill and it is languishing there because that Government chooses to prioritise such trivial matters as the one we are discussing tonight rather than things that should matter like the domestic violence that is committed against women and children in this country. It really shows that that side of the House has major problems with regard to prioritising what the real issues are that we should be discussing in this Parliament. 
The one question that I have to ask when I look at this bill given that it is a law and order bill which has gone through the Law and Order Committe 
e 
 is whether this bill will act as a deterrent to crime. I think the answer is actually no. I cannot envisage any person who is incarcerated or any person who is on the verge of committing a crime thinking: “Oh I had better not commit this burglary; otherwise I will go to prison and lose my right to vote!”. The reality is that for all of us in this House to vote is a right and for many other people around the world it is an absolute privilege to have the right to vote. But I assume that many of the people who are incarcerated may not actually see voting as being one of the priorities in their lives. In fact I wonder how many of those people who are incarcerated who actually exercise the right to vote have actually felt a sense of loss when they have been incarcerated and lost that right to vote. This bill seems rather insignificant and almost a complete waste of time in regard to what that member Paul Quinn was attempting to do. 
When we look at whether it could act as a deterrent to crime we see that obvious common-sense dictates that actually no it probably will not. There is no analysis in the explanatory note of what harm this bill is designed to remedy by returning to the pre-1993 situation. The Electoral Commission and the Solicitor-General had sound reasons for recommending the change. The member promoting this bill has not provided any compelling reason for why this change is needed or wanted and the select committee considering the bill did not receive any such evidence either. The reality is I say to every member of the House that this bill will not make New Zealanders any safer and it will not reduce crime or recidivism at all. So why is that member doing it? Unfortunately we can only assume because his explanation is rather weak that it is an attempt to try to make National again look hard-line on issues of law and order. 
The reality is that the bill means nothing. It looks like the Government is doing something but actually the general public of New Zealand want to know that there is substance to the legislation that we are pushing through. They want to know that while we are paid to be here in the House we are actually doing things that are worthwhile for the citizens of New Zealand. Unfortunately this bill does not achieve that at all. 
When I was going through this bill and listening to some of the arguments for and against it—I and the honourable members Steve Chadwick and Rajen Prasad were just having a discussion—I thought that this bill is probably as insignificant as the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill which is also being put out by the National Government. It really impresses on us the type of legislation the type of agenda that the National Government has. This bill aims to punish prisoners by denying them the right to vote as if it is a right or a privilege but voting can also be seen as a civic duty. The one concern I do have—because in the past the right has been taken away from those who have committed serious offences—is that many of those who are incarcerated have never ever exercised that right and in many ways never engaged in that civic duty at all. I do wonder when they commit a crime for which they get a sentence of 3 years or less whether that might actually be a good time to try to engage them with what is happening in terms of politics in terms of the way the country runs in terms of actually caring about what goes on around them and in terms of knowing about legislation and the way in which Parliament can impact on their lives. A number of them are disengaged altogether. I do wonder whether this should be part of the rehabilitation—part of the work that goes on to ensure that they can come out and be contributing citizens of our country. We do want to have hope that they will be rehabilitated and be able to contribute. Part of that rehabilitation would be actually supporting them and helping them to understand what that civic duty is and how much of a privilege it is to vote. 
As it stands this bill will mean that prisoners cannot register as electors. On this side of the House we often have problems making sure that all of our people are on the electoral roll. It is hard enough to keep people enrolled in the best of circumstances. This bill will basically result in the mass disenfranchisement of many of the people who go to prison because they are unlikely to re-enrol on release. They will be even less engaged than perhaps they were before they went in. With lesser offences and shorter periods of incarceration there are much better prospects of rehabilitation which is why the argument was put forward that perhaps we do not need to take away this right from those who are incarcerated for short terms. Reinforcing a responsible attitude and a sense of civic duty is actually undermined by removing the ability to vote. 
This bill would create anomalies—and that came up through the select committee process—and it was something that was unforeseen by the person who put the bill forward and also by the person whom one would rely on to run the select committee and see any problems down the line the chairperson of the select committee Sandra Goudie. The select committee process of this bill has been referred to as a sham and a complete waste of time. As this bill amends electoral law it would have been far more appropriate for it to have been referred to the Electoral Legislation Committee or at least the Justice and Electoral Committee in the first place. This is another instance where it does not look like the Minister of Justice wanted to have anything to do with it. As Clayton Cosgrove said just like the “three strikes” bill we wonder whether the Minister of Justice realises that this is a bill that is insignificant and something that he does not want to put his name to hence why it ended up going through the Law and Order Committee. 
We on this side of the House will not be supporting this bill. We encourage all of our parliamentary colleagues to vote against it as well. Mr Quinn will not go down in history as a top-rate famous parliamentarian for this legislation. No one will be patting him on the back for it. Thank you very much.