Robertson Grant: Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Robertson Grant: Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15192] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 It was interesting to listen to the contribution from Simon Bridges and the random interjections from Tau Henare. It is quite clear in debating this bill that there are distinct views in this Committee about the purpose of sending people to prison. The purpose of sending people to prison is indeed to take away their liberty as Mr Bridges mentioned before. I would have thought that as he is somebody quite close to the criminal justice system he would also have noted that the other purpose—particularly of sending people to prison for terms of 3 years or less—is to attempt to rehabilitate them and to attempt to set up a situation where those people can reintegrate into society. Mr Quinn shakes his head which is interesting. I think that shows the very point I am making here. 
People sentenced to crimes punishable by 3 years’ imprisonment or less will be back in our communities. They will be back in our communities I say to Mr Quinn and I ask in what way are we making our communities safer by removing those people from the electoral roll. That is what this bill does. It removes people from the electoral roll. It does not take away their right to vote as such. Simon Bridges told us that he was against compulsory voting. The question for Simon Bridges is whether he is against the idea of all New Zealanders being on the electoral roll. That is the question. I ask whether Mr Bridges is against the idea of all New Zealanders being on the electoral roll. [ 
Interruption 
] He says that is different. 
Mr Quinn and Mr Bridges have to face up to the fact that this bill does not just take away the right to vote; it removes people from the electoral roll. That is the concern the Attorney-General raised in his comments on this bill. The Attorney-General specifically raised the concern—as did a large number of submitters to the Law and Order Committee—that this bill breaches section 12 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act which affirms that every New Zealand citizen who is of or over the age of 18 years has the right to vote and to stand in general elections etc. The Attorney-General has raised that concern and Mr Bridges and Mr Quinn need to ask themselves the question of what their commitment to democracy is. We heard a lot of pious claptrap from Simon Bridges before about this precious right to vote and how people have fought for it. 
We have in this country a democracy and the greatest challenge to those of us who see ourselves as true democrats is when we come up against a situation like this. At what point are we prepared to stand up for democracy and say that the people who challenge us in society still have the right to vote? Mr Bridges said that prisoners have forfeited their rights. I ask whether they have forfeited their right to eat or their right to be not beaten up. I ask Mr Bridges where it ends. They have forfeited their rights—that is the view coming from members on the other side of the Chamber about the purpose of sending people to prison. It boils down to this question. Are we sending people to prison as a punishment or are we sending people to prison for punishment? That difference has to be decided on here. The punishment is the taking away of liberty. The exercise for prisoners who are serving terms of 3 years or less is to rehabilitate those people and to attempt to facilitate their reintegration into society and this bill will do nothing to support those goals. 
Time and time again from this National Government we have had legislation coming into this House in the criminal justice area and members on this side of the Chamber find ourselves asking whether it will make our communities safer because surely that is the aim. There is no evidence that this bill will make communities safer. In fact the Department of Corrections told the select committee that it would not. No evidence anywhere in the world points to the fact that this will reduce recidivism or that this will somehow act as a deterrent. It will not. It will not make our communities safer. It is in the same category as the “three strikes” legislation. It is populist stuff. It is the easy bit of criminal justice. The hard bit of criminal justice law is coming to this House with real solutions to stop people committing crimes to stop people committing crimes after they are released from prison and to help people reintegrate into society. This bill does nothing to improve the safety of our communities. 
Is it not interesting that once again the Government denied the select committee the right to hear from the Ministry of Justice. Once again as with the “three strikes” bill the Ministry of Justice was not allowed to come in because Government members know that the advisers to this Government on justice would not have approved of this bill. The Minister of Justice Simon Power is out of here. He is out of here quicker than Tau Henare moves from one party to another. He just said that he is not part of this. He has not even featured in this debate because the Ministry of Justice knows—