Little AndrewELECTORAL (REGISTRATION OF SENTENCED PRISONERS) AMENDMENT BILL (NO 2)First ReadingHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I move That the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. This bill does a small number of things consequent upon the passage and the Royal assent being given to the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill last week. What this bill does: whereas the previous bill restored the right of prisoners sentenced to sentences of less than three years to vote what that bill did not do following the voting last week was allow prison officers or prison managers to inform only those who are qualified to go on the roll to be informed of their right to go on the roll. In fact what happened was Parliament supported the proposition that even though it had voted for some prisoners previously disqualified from voting now to vote all prisoners were obliged to be advised of their right to be on the roll even if they're disqualified. So this bill rectifies that and allows prison officers to gather information and provide that to the Electoral Commission.And then the other thing this bill does is restores the power of the Electoral Commission to remove from the electoral roll those who are disqualified from voting. The voting in Parliament last week took that power that was in the current legislation and removed it and so we were left after last week's voting and in the legislation as it then was at the end of the third reading with a situation where prisoners serving more than three years were disqualified from voting but those prisoners were obliged to be advised that they could enrol and prison officers were obliged to do that and to collect their information and to provide it to the Electoral Commission. And then also as a consequence of last week's voting the Electoral Commission lost its power to remove from the roll those disqualified from voting.I think it's salutary to learn how it is that we got here. The Electoral Act was changed in 2010. Let's remember too just how important the Electoral Act is. It governs the rules of our elections. It goes to the heart of our democracy. So when this Parliament is dealing with matters of electoral law it should not act trivially; it should act solemnly and seriously. So the law was changed in 2010—as a consequence I might add of a member's bill in the name of a National Party member. No consensus was achieved but the majority prevailed and the law was changed. That law was the subject of scrutiny on a number of occasions by no lesser institutions than the High Court of New Zealand the Court of Appeal of New Zealand the Supreme Court of New Zealand and the Waitangi Tribunal—all of whom found that law to breach our international obligations the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the Treaty of Waitangi. It was found to be manifestly unfair and unreasonable. There is a basic principle underpinning the law as it was up to 2010 and that is that if you are a prisoner at the time of an election but you are sentenced to less than three years you are going to be free before the next election and you should have the right to have a say on those who are leading the country that you're going to be released into. That's the fundamental principle. It wasn't what Parliament decided in 2010 but it had decided this year. So this legislation went through. In fact what is interesting is the fact that the idea of prisoners having the right to vote restored to them was the subject of submissions in the select committee's inquiry into the 2017 general election as well as previous electoral legislation that went to the Justice Committee. What is also interesting is that when this legislation came into the House and went to the select committee—when I say this legislation: the bill passed last week—it was the subject of more than 2500 submissions 78 percent of which supported the legislation wanted that change wanted the manifest unfairness approved in 2010 to be removed and the principle restored that those serving sentences of less than three years be allowed to vote.Now one of the things we expect in this House—particularly amongst the two major parties—is that we act and we vote and we conduct ourselves rationally and consistently in accordance with principle. I know members opposite have said—they said last week and in fact have certainly said since last Wednesday night—that they voted in a way that they have voted before. That is actually not correct because there is nothing on record to show for example that the National Party supports the idea that disqualified prisoners should be required to enrol. The National Party has never voted for that. There is no record in any Parliament in the history of this country of the National Party—at least since 1936—supporting the idea that disqualified voters or disqualified prisoners should be allowed to enrol. And yet they approved a law that said prison officers are obliged to tell prisoners of whatever length of sentence they must enrol to collect that information and to pass it to the Electoral Commission. There is no record from any Parliament since 1936 of the National Party supporting the idea of the Electoral Commission not having the power to remove disqualified voters. But last week the National Party voted for it.You see the thing is this: when we come to this Parliament as responsible MPs we do not come here to conduct ourselves as if we are in the junior common room of high school. We come here because we have a responsibility to voters. When we are considering issues of our electoral legislation that goes to the heart of our democracy is it too much to ask that all members conduct themselves responsibly and properly and in a principled way—because with all due respect that did not happen last week?Who could predict that the grand old party that sits opposite a party with a great reputation the party of John Key and Bill English the party of Dame Jenny Shipley and Jim Bolger the party of Sir Robert Muldoon and the party of Doug Graham—great justice Minister—the party of Sir Keith Holyoake and Sir John Marshall—who would have thought that the party of those towering figures of New Zealand politics would conduct themselves in the way they did last week? Kieran McAnulty: Me.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Well I tell you Mr McAnulty I think some members opposite embarrassed that great party last week. We might be political opposites but the great thing about the parties in this House—I can say of the Labour Party and the National Party and New Zealand First and the Greens—is that we come here with respect for the institution of Parliament and we come here to conduct ourselves responsibly and professionally and with a sense of principle. Sadly that did not happen. Now I expect members opposite—or one at least—will leap up and defend themselves and say chaos" and "shambles" and all the rest of it because they are covering up their own absolute craziness. Anybody looking at that pattern of voting last week will look at that and say no one could possibly explain how you could justify those positions. You would have to be completely and utterly mad to think you could vote that way.DEPUTY SPEAKER: And I'm not—and I'm not. So don't bring me into the debate.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Madam Speaker I apologise for casting any adverse reflection on yourself. I'm still getting to grips with the rules around the use of the word "you". But can I just say this: anybody looking at the voting pattern last week—last Wednesday night—of the National Party would say on an objective basis that that voting pattern reflects something that looks like a level of craziness or stupidity that we don't often see in this House. In fact I struggle to think of an occasion when any party has voted so haphazardly in such a crazy sort of way like some sort of you know mad mosaic gone completely crazy. I have never seen anything like it. But that's what happened last week and this House ought to look with considerable embarrassment at what happened. I say to members opposite: over the next 10 weeks you are going to troll around the country and say "Look at us. We can do a better job." But actually what they proved last week is that the state they're in right now they are unfit to govern. They cannot make up their mind what they believe in. They have no principle and they think that it's OK to muck around and faff around with this Parliament its procedures its laws and our electoral law. That reflects poorly on each and every one of them because none of them stood up and said "This is a little bit crazy. Can we just sort of get back to common-sense world?" because they're not in common-sense world; they're in a different world. They're in a world that none of us has ever seen in this House before because they voted in a way that was just completely—well I would say deranged. So now we have to clean that up. A responsible Government comes in and says "We've let the children have their say. Now we come in and we clean it up." I commend this bill to the House.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just want to say to the member that I'm not sure that the word "faff" is quite a parliamentary term.Hon Andrew Little: I have used it before but I take the point.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Have you? Not when I'm in the Chair I'm sure."