Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I think it's really important firstly to contextualise this Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill. What this bill does primarily is reverse a change that was made under the former National Government in 2010 notably by way of a member's bill in the name of Paul Quinn a former National Party MP. But this bill reverts us mostly to the status quo that New Zealand electoral law was at in 2010 that being having an arbitrary level of serving a prison sentence of under three years meaning that you have the opportunity to vote. I just will front-foot the fact that of course the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand will be supporting this. We have always supported the human rights of New Zealanders to engage in our electoral system. We also currently have a member's bill in the name of Golriz Ghahraman Green MP which would take this further to instate the rights of all prisoners to vote to have a say in the society that we will seek to ultimately reintegrate them back into. I want to address a few of the points that were raised by members of the Opposition and I really have to ask them if they genuinely believe this stuff or if they're just attempting to rationalise this position of opposition. The first one: I want to shout out across the aisle to my contemporary from the Auckland University law school Simeon Brown. Neither of us I believe actually went on to practise law but Simeon has the same level of understanding that I do with regard to criminal and advanced criminal law that being primarily academic. On that point you heard from the member Simeon Brown that apparently folks who are committing crimes are somehow going to contemplate whether they are going to have the right to vote when they're deciding to commit this crime. Interestingly enough that was a point that ended up being contradicted by another speaker of the National Party that being National MP Chris Penk who said that that equation wasn't quite a calculus that came across people's minds when they were committing crimes. The other thing that I just really need to ask the member Simeon Brown—who I'd note I've actually come to speak to in his office about something such as drug law reform and different approaches to it noting that our criminal justice system is broken and tackling with these very deep social issues. He made the really interesting statement that you know these people who commit crimes deserve to have the vote taken away from them. But even Mr Simeon Brown who I sat in law school with will understand that two people can commit exactly the same crime but not receive the same punishment. That is why Mr Speaker as you rightly called out I offered across the Chamber the point to Mr Simeon Brown that he should be reflecting on how sentencing operates that being in this country—for those who aren't aware—you go before the courts to be found guilty or not guilty of a crime. If you are found guilty of that crime you then go through a process known as sentencing. In sentencing you are to be considered within the context of aggravating and mitigating factors. Those aggravating and mitigating factors are largely things such as access to familial support. They are things such as having a home to go back to. They are things such as the ability to enrol in education or to have an employer that will stand by you. By any other name these particularly mitigating factors are in essence a semblance of support or arguably privilege that certain people have access to and others don't. This is a really core fundamental point for us to reflect on about continuing to perpetuate intergenerational injustice and trauma as our criminal justice system has continued to do and therefore failed communities on—particularly Māori—for so long. So I find it really rich to be hearing about something such as the rule of law so frequently being invoked by speakers such as Chris Penk because in fact you can have two people who have committed the same crime and one of them may go to prison and the other may serve home detention or receive some other form of sentencing. So I really just need the National Party Opposition to reflect on that. The other point that has been bandied about is around the purpose of prison and the argument so far progressed by the Opposition is that this is about some furthering of that form of punishment—that people don't deserve to participate in society in the social contracts because we're punishing them. But ultimately regardless of whether you think the purpose of prison is purely punishment or not you have to reconcile that with the reality that prisoners will ultimately get out and surely it is far better that they have a stake and an investment in the society that they are seeking to reintegrate back into. The other argument that's been raised rather flippantly—and I think is rather disingenuous and quite sad—by members of the Opposition is the point that this is somehow about this Government seeking to rush through all of these new voters to get them on the roll in time for the 2020 general election. I did a wee google and I found out—you know this is publicly available information which I'd absolutely suggest that members of the Opposition look into should they like to seek out some evidence for once—that there are currently registered an eligible 3772100 voters in Aotearoa New Zealand. This bill will enable approximately 1900 people the ability to vote. If we break that down that is 0.05 percent of the population. Even if they all were to vote for one party we would be very far away from getting that party anywhere near close to over the 5 percent threshold. I also think it's important and quite pertinent to touch on the issue of process not the least because the Opposition seem to be speaking out both sides of their mouths on this. One of them is that they actually progressed this electoral reform through in 2010 without support from the then Opposition those being the parties now of Government. But they also have neglected to mention that this bill progressed through its typical select committee process. There were over 2000 submissions and in fact 18½ hours of evidence heard by the Justice Committee—I'd mention ably chaired by the Hon Meka Whaitiri—it is also an issue that has gone before the High Court and has been considered by the Waitangi Tribunal and I think it is really actually important that I highlight and echo the sentiments raised by my colleague from New Zealand First Mark Patterson with regard to how this was the first law in Aotearoa New Zealand that I am aware of that received a declaration of inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 from the New Zealand courts. There is simply not a leg to stand on for the Opposition in opposition to this legislation except for continuing to bandy about this bizarre perverse ideology of so-called criminal justice that does not actually seek to remedy any of the problems that are deeply held in our society but continues to punish isolate alienate ostracise and traumatise folks who ultimately we will need to bring back into our communities. So the Greens are proud to support this Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill today. I just want to leave the House with one question because what we are still doing today is not going in our view anywhere near far enough. We are still placing that arbitrary three-year line on who will be able to vote and who won't be. The question that I have for the House is: what level of neglect what level of reduction in human rights is acceptable? How many human rights are we willing to take away? How many human rights do prisoners enjoy or should they enjoy as members of society as New Zealanders? So with all of that said I invite the next speaker which I assume is from the National Party to make their contribution and I hope address a few of those points.