Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you Madam Chair. You chose the much better of the two to take a call. I just wanted to reflect briefly on the fake news from the Green Party where they talked about the walls of Middlemore Hospital. Well that one has been debunked well and truly and so it's fake news. But let's get back to what this bill is actually about.The Green Party here is actually saying—and I must commend them; principled principled—let's give all prisoners the right to vote. That's the essence of the Supplementary Order Paper and the argument getting put forward. I just want to acknowledge that that is a principled position to come from. It's a principle that I don't agree with but at least it's a principled position. Unlike the Minister's position which is to stand up in the House and say Well at this stage we'll allow prisoners who have been sentenced to three years or less but who knows what might happen in the future." We might get a Human Rights Tribunal decision or something might get challenged in the courts. He's passing other legislation around inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and all the rest. So we might just see what happens. Will we be having this conversation again that we might extend it to six years or nine years or 10 years? So where does the line get drawn?The Minister has said "Well three years is kind of around about where we think it's right." But I challenge the Minister: you can't have it one way or the other; you've got to be principled about this principled as to whether it's all prisoners who have been sentenced—Darroch Ball: National passed the Electoral Act in '93! Where was your principle then?SIMEON BROWN: —or whether it's no prisoners who have been sentenced. And the National Party stands on the side of principle and says—Darroch Ball: Answer the question Mr Brown!SIMEON BROWN: I'm asking questions here.Darroch Ball: Answer the question!SIMEON BROWN: This is the committee of the whole House stage Mr Ball. If you'd like to take a call feel free to ask the Minister a question. But I'm putting a question to the Minister around—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I'm happy to invite the member for a call when he stands and calls but in the meantime just carry on.SIMEON BROWN: —thank you for your support Madam Chair; it's much appreciated—what the principle is around why it is three years. Because I've heard lots of reasons and lots of "We'll see what happens." But I have not seen a principled decision from the Minister as to why people who commit offences which get sentenced to up to three years are going to be given the right to vote but those convicted to a sentence of over three years will not be.The question does come back down to victims of crime because there will be many many people—many thousands of people out there—who have had their rights taken away who have been hurt who have had criminal acts assaults a whole range of criminal offences taken against them. There are victims of crime who have had—whether it's their livelihood or whether it's other aspects of their human dignity destroyed or damaged by these criminals and this piece of legislation has nothing for those people. This is by people who are sentenced to sentences of less than three years. There are people who have had criminal acts taken against them where they've lost life they've had personal injury they've had assaults they've had financial loss—a whole range of different things taken against them—and this bill has no recognition of them in it. So the question to the Minister is: where is the principle as to why it should be three years and less and not all prisoners or none?"