Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I know that that member who has just resumed is struggling to come to terms with the new spirit of the committee of the whole House stage where it is more conversational and questions are posed; that's why the limit on the number of calls has been completely removed. In any event let me assist the member if only to assist him with history because I know that member also struggles with history. He certainly struggles with facts but he definitely struggles with history. And here is the point: the law changed in 1993 under a National Government. The National Government in 1993 of which he was a part changed the law to allow prisoners serving a sentence of less than three years to vote. That member voted for it. He might have forgotten but he voted for it.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Would the member yield to explain that very point?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No I've taken my call. The member had eight minutes—that member had eight minutes to make his point. I know he's full of excuses; next to his slim grasp on facts are his excuses for what he has and hasn't done. And I know he brings considerable experience to this debate not only because he voted for this very law change himself in 1993 but because he's been through the criminal justice system because he has a conviction for contempt of court. So we know all that. So he brings that experienced insight; we know that. But here's the thing here: when he says that National has stood by this principle for many years it's actually not that many years because in 1993 they voted for this very thing. They allowed this. If he was so concerned that maybe they shouldn't be taken off the roll they should be just denied the right to vote. He by 2010 was a very very experienced MP a Minister and he did not make that change. He did not propose that. They just let it go through because it was expedient because they thought there were a few points in it dare I say a few votes in it. That's why they did it.Here's the other point. He did make an interesting point but unfortunately so devoid of evidence which is that there's a practical question for Corrections. And I say to that member: no there isn't. Because of the roughly 9700-odd prisoners at the moment 3400 have the right to vote—3400 have the right to vote. The Electoral Commission has to work with corrections to make sure those 3400 prisoners get to exercise their right to vote and this bill will affect between 1800 and 1900 extra prisoners. Nil extra effort required from the Electoral Commission nil extra effort required from the Department of Corrections. The member is simply wrong.Now he quite correctly pointed out the right of sitting MPs to have access to prisons and they do that; it's one of the checks and balances on what is happening in prisons and so they do that. But the member has never raised any issue for candidates talking to the 3400 remand prisoners before. I mean the last election was about 3100. It's gone up since then but the member's never raised that before. The reality is: remand prisoners in the last election the election before that and no doubt the one before that exercised their right to vote; they got access to information they'll continue to get access to information and that will continue under this bill. But it is not correct to say that without this bill no one in prison gets the right to vote—36 percent of the prison population now currently has the right to vote. This will make a sensible adjustment as it was made in 1993 on a principled point that those who are in prison now who will be released into the community before the next election must have a right to have a say on who is leading the country that they're being released into. That is the principle.