Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Part 2 of this bill specifically provides for provisions around prisoners being able and prison officers being required to ensure those serving sentences be able to go on to the electoral roll. I want to respond a little bit to the history and the debate which I have had with the Minister of Justice in order to clear that history up. As is so common with Mr Little the moment anybody challenges him he reverts to sort of attacking the integrity of members rather than dealing with the issues. So let me set out very clearly the history. Up until 1975 New Zealand electoral law did not provide for prisoners being able to vote. The Labour Government of 1972 to 1975 amended the law and provided for all prisoners being able to vote in 1975. It was a law that was promised to be repealed by the incoming National Government and that was done in 1976. The Minister made reference to the issues that occurred in 1993 which was when the distinction was made about the issue of the three years—where prisoners were serving a sentence of less than three years they would be entitled to vote—and I want to inform the Minister in the chair as to how that occurred. I did serve on the select committee at the time. It was the will of the National Government under Prime Minister Jim Bolger at the time of the massive MMP reform and the writing of the 1993 Electoral Act to as much as possible build consensus around electoral law. It is a remarkable achievement Andrew Little and something that you should reflect on that with both that Government and the subsequent Key-English Government every amendment to the electoral law was advanced with cross-party support. So while Andrew Little has prosecuted the argument and said that somehow—Michael Wood: Except when they abolished voting in Canterbury. Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —I was unprincipled in 1993 it was a compromise. I know that Michael Wood who's chirping in—who moves closure votes but hasn't taken a single call—would not understand the constitutional significance of electoral law. Mr Michael Wood thinks it's OK for the Government of the day to screw the electoral scrum to make it easier to win re-election. Now we don't think that's right. So in 1993 when the complete Electoral Act was rewritten there was a genuine compromise between Labour's position which is that all prisoners should vote and National's position. I voted for that compromise and I'm proud of it—absolutely. Darroch Ball: So you voted for it. Where's your principle? Hon Dr NICK SMITH: New Zealand First says yes I voted for it and let me tell you what the principle is: electoral law should not be being advanced on simple narrow majorities. I said to the Minister of Justice in the chair at the beginning of this parliamentary term that my door was always open to working on a cross-party basis. There were seven electoral amendment bills advanced during the period of the English-Key Government. Every one of those bills under Simon Power under Judith Collins under Amy Adams—every previous Minister sitting where Andrew Little is sitting went to huge effort to consult with Opposition parties and try and build a consensus around electoral law. This is the fifth electoral bill that the Minister in the chair has done without any discussion at all with the Opposition. In fact he's had the appalling approach of introducing legislation and passing it on the same day without any sort of consultation and that shows a disrespect for New Zealand's constitutional norms and for the need in that area. The second area I want to pursue under Part 2 of this bill is the issues around the unpublished roll. These issues are important and when the Minister introduced the bill to the House supported by New Zealand First the bill had criminals able to have access to the unpublished roll more easily than law-abiding citizens or victims of crime. That's what the original legislation said and I raised that issue in the first reading. The Minister said that it was untrue and that I was wrong. His officials came in at the select committee and said indeed that that's exactly what the bill unamended says. It says that there is no legal threshold. In new section 115 in clause 8 what it says is that a criminal has an absolute right to be on the unpublished roll but if you are a victim of crime you have to apply and you have to meet statutory tests. Now what is it about the Labour Green and New Zealand First parties that somehow they think it's OK that convicted criminals have more legal rights than those who are victims of crime or those who are law-abiding citizens? I'd love the New Zealand First member who hasn't taken a single call on this bill to explain to me why he voted at first reading for new section 115 in this bill which says that if you are a convicted rapist or murderer you'd get more legal rights to be on the unpublished roll than if you were the victim of a murder or rape. Would the New Zealand First member care to explain that? Well the member for New Zealand First has been asked to explain why his party supported the rights of people who have criminal convictions to be on the unpublished roll to be greater than law-abiding citizens or victims. It was something extraordinary. We've pointed it out at first reading. The Government said that no such thing existed. The officials came to the select committee and said that we were absolutely right and thank goodness there is a Supplementary Order Paper to fix that abhorrent provision in this bill which members of National will support. We will never ever support laws that give rights to criminals that are greater than those of victims or law-abiding citizens. You could not send a worse signal than that provision as introduced by this Minister and by this Government. The final point I'd like to make is this and maybe New Zealand First—maybe this is the explanation for their support of this bill. But what this part does is allow a person in prison to stand for Parliament. Maybe it's the Clayton Mitchell provision" given where the Serious Fraud Office—maybe Jami-Lee Ross has a great interest in Part 2—Michael Wood: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would put it to you that that was an improper reflection on the motivations of members who may be voting for this bill and also an improper reflection on a member of this House and that is out of order. CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Thank you. Yeah I kind of agree actually. The member has through his contributions through this debate been very close to there as I've commented on previous contributions. The member should not do that and I actually think the member should withdraw and apologise. Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I withdraw and apologise. New section 86A in clause 7 of this bill and in this part allows a person with criminal convictions serving time in prison to stand for Parliament. Now do we really think that that is sensible? Hamish Walker: Soft on crime. Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well soft on crime and I do note that there are members of Parliament facing serious criminal charges under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office and maybe they do have an interest. Maybe that is why they are so enthusiastic. I would love the member from New Zealand First to take a call and explain why a person who is serving a sentence in prison—why it should be reasonable or practicable for them to be able to stand for Parliament. We think—Hon Poto Williams: Repetition—repetition. Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well the member says it's repetition. I think it's because she doesn't like it. I'd love the member who's interjecting to get to her feet and explain why it is sensible law to allow a person who a judge has decided to send to prison—that that person should be able to stand for Parliament. Here's the bit I'd love them to explain. I'd love them to explain how does a member of Parliament fulfil their constitutional duties if they are simultaneously serving a sentence in prison. I would love to reflect on the change in the Standing Orders that it would require and the former Speaker of the House—his mind is boggling around how we might be able to have a—Rt Hon David Carter: He or she could Zoom in on a regular occasion. Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well they could Zoom in. They would be able to Zoom in from Pāremoremo prison as the member of Parliament for probably the Green Party or the Labour Party or more likely the New Zealand First Party—Rt Hon David Carter: I think that's right. Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —I think it's in there; it's the New Zealand First Party—and I say man we need to be a little bit practical. Is it sensible I would ask the Minister for us to amend the law and to allow a person who is serving a criminal sentence in prison to be able to stand for Parliament? Darroch Ball: This is ridiculous. Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well the member says it's ridiculous. Can the Minister in the chair confirm it's true? Can the Minister in the chair confirm that new section 86A which we're currently debating would allow a person to stand for Parliament?"