Mapp Wayne: Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:15974] 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I was not going to take a call on the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill until I heard the speech made by Mr Grant Robertson. The sophistry of that speech explains why that party is sitting over there. Those members have simply failed to understand New Zealand’s anger about crime and the lack of punishment for offences. 
I was offended when I heard Mr Robertson look around this Chamber and refer to citizens of this nation who died for the right to vote. They did not serve their country or die to enable people to vote who have lost their liberty in this nation because they have offended against this society. 
I say to Mr Robertson that there are consequences of crime. If someone is sentenced to jail then that person loses the most fundamental of rights which is the right to be free in one’s own society. It is surely logical and appropriate that for the time that someone in incarcerated—and only that period of time I hasten to add which is quite different from the United States as Mr Robertson well knows—one also does not have the right to vote. 
It seems that one of the points that Mr Robertson fails to understand is that imprisonment has a number of purposes. One of those purposes is punishment and another is deterrence. If serial offenders—offenders who regularly go to jail—understand that one of the rights they lose is the right to vote then that will add a lesson. It will be a lesson not just for those individuals but also for other people who offend that there are consequences for offending. 
I also say to Mr Grant Robertson that it does no service to tell victims that punishment is only partial and that although offenders might be incarcerated they still have the rights of any other free citizens and one of those rights is to vote. It is offensive for that member to suggest to the victims of crime that there is an equality of rights and to say that whether one is a victim or an offender in jail why not let them both vote? After all there is an equality of rights! Well I think that misunderstands one of the fundamental consequences of imprisonment one of which is the loss of the right to vote. 
Mr Quinn compared New Zealand with other societies including the United States. I say to members opposite that members on this side of the House would never go to the point of saying that people who have offended and been incarcerated should lose the right to vote for the balance of their natural life. That would be offensive to liberties. But during the period of time when those people are incarcerated the right to vote is one thing that they lose. They regain it when they are released when they regain the rights of full citizenship. One of the fundamental rights of citizenship is liberty but it is conditional. It is conditional on not offending to the point where one is incarcerated. 
I contrast the position of members on this side of the House with the position of Opposition members which seems to indicate—going by the speech made by the previous member Grant Robertson in particular—a lack of understanding of why they are there and we are here. The reason is that we understand that one of the consequences of crime can be imprisonment and one of the consequences of imprisonment is the loss of all rights— 
Grant Robertson 
: All rights? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: —some rights not all rights—that many other citizens enjoy. 
I stand to support this bill because it is an appropriate response to those who have offended most deeply against our society resulting in imprisonment.