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:15197] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I think the excellent contribution we just heard from Jacinda Ardern gives us pause for thought about some of the facts we need to lay on the table. The first of those is around what Mr Quinn—well he has now blamed it on the Parliamentary Counsel Office— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What! He didn’t! 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: He did—he blamed it on the Parliamentary Counsel Office. We need to clarify just exactly what happened there. I think that the whole House and indeed New Zealand owes a debt of gratitude to Associate Professor Andrew Geddis from the Otago University school of law because he— 
Simon Bridges 
: That famous Tory! 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Yes he is a former flatmate as well—that is true. He was the person who drew attention to the fact that repealing the current disqualification provision in section 80(1)(d) of the Electoral Act and replacing it with a new provision: “a person who is detained in a prison pursuant to a sentence of imprisonment imposed after the commencement of this bill” meant that Clayton Weatherston Graeme Burton and William Bell would all be able to vote. That is what it meant. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: So what’s the debt of gratitude we’ve got? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: The debt of gratitude for us in the long term is that this fact has been pointed out. The problem is that Paul Quinn has come to the Chamber today and as Jacinda Ardern said has actually proved a point that is important to lay on the table and that is that most people in prison do not get to vote in New Zealand. What Mr Quinn has failed to do is come to the Chamber and explain to us why the status quo the law as it is now should be changed. As the law stands now serious criminal offenders do not have the ability to vote. Those who are serving terms of less than 3 years—and of course those people have committed crimes and deserve to be in prison—can vote. The question Mr Quinn has not answered is that every single one of those people will be back in society and at that point we have to ask ourselves what purpose is served by this bill. If we want people to be able to reintegrate into society and to be able to contribute constructively why would we take away their ability to be part of that society and to vote? 
During an earlier contribution when I was interrupted I was talking about defending democracy when it challenges us. This is a situation when it is challenging. As Jacinda Ardern said it is a difficult argument to make but the fact of the matter is that if we are not prepared to defend democracy and the rights of people who challenge us by their actions what kinds of democrats are we? That is the very point at which we as a Parliament need to stand up and think very carefully about whether we want to take away some of those fundamental rights. That is obviously why the Attorney-General brought forward the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report that he did. I mentioned before the concerns raised about section 12. 
I was interested in one of the comments in Mr Finlayson’s report. He said that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act inconsistencies are justified where “the provision serves an important and significant objective” and where there is “a rational and proportionate connection between the provision and the objective.” That is the problem with this bill. There is nothing wrong in the end with having a justifiable inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. But the select committee’s analysis of this bill and the submission-making process has shown that there is no important and significant objective that will outweigh breaching those bits of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and there is no rational and proportionate connection between the provision and the set objective. 
Mr Finlayson’s report goes on to say that the stated objective of this bill is to disenfranchise the most serious offenders—the most serious offenders. The point here is that the most serious offenders are already not able to vote. So Mr Quinn’s bill does not meet the test of whether we should compromise those hard-won rights that people have. This is not about whether people are being punished sufficiently by being in prison. Those who are in prison have lost their liberty. At that point particularly—and I admit 3 years is a fairly arbitrary number—when we know those people will return to society what is our goal? Our goal surely is to find a way to help those people reintegrate into society and rehabilitate. Unfortunately this bill does nothing to assist that.