Little AndrewSecond ReadingHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I move That the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time. I'm thankful for the benefit of the debate that we've just had as part of the first reading of this bill. This bill does something very important: it reinstates what was in the bill that went before the Justice Committee and was studiously considered and scrutinised by the members of that committee led by Meka Whaitiri after receiving more than 2500 submissions 78 percent of which were in favour of the law change. That law change in addition to enabling prisoners sentenced to less than three years to vote on the principle that at the time they vote in one election while they are in prison they will be out before the next election and they should have a say on who's running the country that they're going to be released free into—no member opposite has challenged that principle. Some don't hear the principle—I think that Simeon Brown doesn't understand principles; he certainly didn't understand that one—but even though that principle is very clear and that principle underpinned the 1993 legislation passed by the then National Government and voted on then by Dr Nick Smith they still don't understand that principle. But anyway that's as it is. In any event that's what the legislation last week did and Parliament having approved it and the National Party having voted in favour of it the National Party went on some weird crazy frolic like some sort of drunken horse galloping around the paddock and they then started supporting some really weird things. Having said as a matter of principle that not all crims should be allowed to vote or in fact that no prisoners should be allowed to vote they then voted for prison officers to be obliged to be required—for it to be compulsory for prison officers—to tell every prisoner including those disqualified that they had a right to be on the roll to collect their information and to give it to the Electoral Commission. Why would you do that? What would possess you to do that? Something hit the air on that side of the Chamber last week. I don't know what it was. I don't know what it was but that cannot be explained and the funny thing is that in all of the contributions on the first reading no member got up to try and explain or reconcile that pattern of voting not one of them—not one of them. Now here it is: you come here because you care about your electoral law you care about this Parliament you care about what it stands for and you care about the people of New Zealand and you come here with a good reputation and wanting to keep it but that that didn't seem to be what happened. Members opposite seemed to think that it's good sport to behave like a sort of primary school debating team: you come in and you pick an argument there and you pick an argument there and you behave like you really don't have much up top because that's what they did last week—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I don't think that's a great way of referring to the Speaker with respect—Hon ANDREW LITTLE: My apologies Madam Speaker. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): —so you might want to come on to the bill. Hon ANDREW LITTLE: My apologies Madam Speaker. The point is this: when we have a bill that deals with the serious issue of those who are sentenced to prison and where we have a serious debate about where that line falls about which rights you lose when you go to prison it is incumbent on this House to take that seriously approach it solemnly and act in a principled way and there are differences of view. Of course there are differences of view but you expect that if you are a party that adheres to a set of consistent principles—and that principle might be We don't believe any prisoner should have the right to vote." But if that's the case if that's the principle you adopt then you would also vote to ensure that the Electoral Commission for example have the right to remove disqualified voters from voting. But that didn't happen and so—Tim van de Molen: Yes it did. We opposed the third reading—we voted the bill down. Hon ANDREW LITTLE: —this bill now reinstates that. Mr van de Molen like some of his colleagues unfortunately really forgets history. It's not unusual to forget history a wee way back. It's not unusual to forget your history about the Sir Keith Holyoakes and the Sir John Marshalls. It's not unusual to forget the history about the greatness of the National Party under Jim Bolger and Dame Jenny Shipley. It is very unusual to forget the history of just six days ago but anyway that happens. But in any event having had a principle that said "We don't believe any prisoner should have the right to vote." they then voted to remove the power of the Electoral Commission to remove disqualified voters from the roll. This bill reinstates that—this bill reinstates that. So this is about putting some cohesion and common sense back to this because we don't come into this House expecting MPs to be erratic and unprincipled and lacking cohesion and inconsistent. And here's the sad thing—here's the sad thing. As somebody who grew up in a house where both parents were long-time National Party voters and supporters and one of whom was a National Party activist—I grew up in that household. I remember the Venn Youngs the Duncan MacIntyres and I remember meeting Lance Adams-Schneider—the greats of that generation. I had great respect for them. I had great respect for the National Party—and in fact I continue to—but what last week showed was that that party in its current state is not fit to govern because they think it's OK to muck around with the rules. They think it's OK to vote for one principle over here and another principle over there and no reconciliation between them. So on that basis I'm pleased that this bill is making its way through the House. This now puts back into our laws what the select committee looked at what the select committee sent back to the House and what was ready to be passed in the House until the National Party had this sort of little frolic last week and they thought it was good fun. They thought the voters wouldn't see. They thought they could keep it under cover. They thought that no one would notice that they again had wasted the time of Parliament but now Parliament has to come up and respond to their disgraceful conduct last week. On that basis I commend the bill to the House."