Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15184] 
Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave also for members to be able to make more than the usual four calls they would have if we were doing this clause by clause. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is also sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Clauses 1 to 5 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I would like to invite the member Paul Quinn to take the opportunity of what is I think his first time in the chair to answer some questions because that is really his role as the member in charge of the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill. 
The first question I have—because I could not get the answer to this question at any stage during this entire debate and I do not think my colleagues could get the answer to this question from the select committee hearings they had either—is how many people voted in the 2008 election while they were in prison. I want to know how many prisoners actually voted in the 2008 election. The reason I want to know the answer to that question is this: when one designs legislation one obviously has a mischief that one is seeking to remedy. Everyone knows that one of the basic rules of interpretation is that judges will always go back and ask what the mischief was that the legislation was designed to remedy. In looking at the mischief that this was designed to remedy we look at the provisions of the bill. The provisions state very clearly that the legislation prevents people from going on to the electoral roll—in fact they are disqualified from being on the electoral roll—if they are serving a sentence of imprisonment. They cannot register as an elector and that is the technique that has been used. It is probably obviously because a specific number of people have taken up their duty to vote in a general election while they have been in prison and I want to know how many did that. How many did that in the 2008 election? I could ask for previous years’ elections figures but I am asking the member in charge of this bill to tell us how many prisoners—how many people in prison—on the day of the last general election actually recorded a vote. That is my first question. 
Then I would like the member to address—once he has addressed the question of how many prisoners voted—some of the anomalies that have arisen as a result of how his bill will apply. I ask the Committee to remember that it is the disqualification of the person from registering as an elector that prevents them from voting on the day. It does not say that one cannot actually vote; it just says that one cannot register as an elector. Someone has to come off the electoral roll. That is quite an interesting thing to do for somebody who is in prison for say a 4-year period. It means that they will be disqualified from registering as an elector so they will have to come off the electoral roll when they go into prison. But what if they come out of prison before the general election is held? If they come out of prison before the general election is held they will have to reregister in order to be able to start voting again from that point on. Of course they will be legally allowed to vote from that point because they will be legally required to register as an elector. I think what the member in charge of this bill has not really responded to in any of the debates so far is that it is a legal requirement to be on the roll yet he is saying to somebody that because that person has committed a crime he or she is no longer legally required to be on the roll. It seems rather ironic to me. Anyway the member can perhaps deal with that. 
We will have one person released the day before the election and one person released on the Monday. They have exactly the same sentence for the same crime but one gets released the day before the general election and one gets released two days after—as general elections are always held on a Saturday—so what happens then? Why is one person treated in a way where they can get on the electoral roll that day? As they leave the prison gates they will go straight down to the post office and get on the electoral roll; I am sure they will will they not? That will be their real incentive for good behaviour to get their right back to vote! They will dash down to the local post office and they will get on to the electoral roll as quickly as they can so that they can vote the next day. But the person who is released on the Monday will sadly miss out. Why will we have such an anomalous situation? That is my second question. 
My third question goes to the difference between someone who gets a prison sentence and someone who gets home detention for exactly the same offence. There will be different criteria applied to each one. I want the member to tell the Committee whether he has thought this through for people who cannot get home detention not because of the nature of their crime but because of the nature of the home that they would be applying for home detention to. I know a couple of guys in Christchurch young men both convicted of exactly the same offence in different circumstances but essentially they got the same sentence. They both applied for home detention. One did not get home detention; the other one did. I know that members have said it was because one lived in Fendalton and one was Maori and lived in Aranui but there is more to that story than meets the eye. The parents of the Fendalton young man were very ashamed of what he had done. They were backing their son to rehabilitate himself. They wanted to keep him out of prison at any cost not only for his future career but also so he would not mix with people who perhaps would lead him on the wrong path. They admitted that he had already gone down that way but they were prepared to provide him with genuine support discipline and love. They were going to ensure that he would stay on the straight and narrow from there on in. The Aranui kid did not have that and that is why he did not get home detention. I do not think our society will do fair justice to people in his situation until we are prepared to offer him an alternative to prison—the same that the young man from Fendalton got. I do not disagree at all with the young man from Fendalton getting home detention; I think it was the right thing to do. But I think the State owed an obligation to offer something similar even though it could not offer this at home to the young Maori lad from Aranui as well. That is the third question. 
The fourth question is why the member has chosen the mechanism of prohibiting people in prison from being on the electoral roll. How will they get on the roll in time if they are released the day before an election? I question him about the concept of a civic duty to vote when we are treating voting here as if it is a privilege. We actually require people to be on the electoral roll as I said before; we do not legally require people to vote in the way that people are required to vote in Australia. But every time we get up and speak at public meetings we always say it is a duty—a civic duty—to be engaged in the political process. So how do we send that message to anyone when we are treating voting as a privilege? 
I imagine that one day someone might ask Paul Quinn what he did when he had a term in Parliament and how he left his mark in those 3 years he was here. He would say: “I stopped people from voting.” and the reply would come back: “But don’t we have a civic duty to vote?”. He would say: “Yes but they were criminals who were in jail.” The person would say: “Oh really serious criminals like that guy Graeme Burton or William Bell?” and he would say: “No no they already couldn’t vote. My bill stopped people convicted of much less serious offences from voting.” When the person asks: “Like what?” he would answer: “Like a bit of tax fraud or something minor.” When he gets told that people get home detention for those sorts of things these days he would say: “Well the people on home detention were never covered—you had to have been in prison on the day of the election.” The person speaking to the member would say: “Wow what an achievement that was! I am sure that that made a real difference.” Paul Quinn would say: “Well it was a deterrent and the reality is that we should not let people vote who commit crimes.” The question would come back: “So how many people do you think the bill stopped from offending?”. Paul Quinn would say: “Well look people would say to themselves: ‘If I commit this crime I’ll end up in jail. OK that’s a risk I’m prepared to take.’ But then they might say: ‘Hang on I might be in jail on the day of the election. I don’t know whether that’s a risk I’m prepared to take.’ ” I ask whether members think that will happen. No I do not think that will happen. 
I have a whole stack of other questions in relation to the decision that the member in charge of the bill made to send the bill to the Law and Order Committee and to have Department of Corrections officials advising on this bill rather than Ministry of Justice officials. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to offer some comments on the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill. 
Committing a citizen to a period of imprisonment is one of a number of sanctions available to the State to use with those citizens who break the law. Imprisonment is a sanction that is designed to deter the citizenry from committing a crime to protect the public from lawbreakers to rehabilitate those in prisons and of course to punish through loss of liberties the incarcerated citizen. 
Imprisonment is a significant sanction. I doubt that many prisoners would find much solace in Byron’s lines: 
Eternal Spirit of the chainless Mind! 
Brightest in dungeons Liberty! thou art 
Loss of liberty is a terrible travail to most human beings. I ask members of the Committee to think for a moment of being stuck in a well-appointed hotel room. Imagine if the door was locked one did not have any meals of one’s choice one could not turn on the television or the Internet and one could not have any visits from any mates. It would not be a lot of fun; one is not free in other words to associate with whosoever one wishes or otherwise exercise liberties that we daily take for granted. 
The philosopher Isaiah Berlin referred to the positive conception of liberty; not freedom from but freedom to. Imprisonment at Her Majesty’s pleasure involves a loss of a number of freedoms to. In prison one loses the freedom of movement of liberty and the loss of a number of freedoms to: the freedom to associate the freedom of speech the freedom to communicate freely with phone or Internet and many other freedoms to. 
I believe the freedom to vote is an integral part of an individual’s liberty and of an individual’s freedoms to. The loss of the freedom to vote upon going to prison is perfectly consistent with the loss of the other aforementioned freedoms to concomitant with a term of imprisonment. Let us explore the reality. Many criminals have a long string of convictions before they receive a prison term. A judge does not sentence a person to prison lightly in this country. It is a last resort reserved for either the more serious offenders or repeat offenders. 
This Government is committed to addressing the drivers of crime and is aiming in the long term to reduce the size of our prison muster. New Zealand and Australia currently ban prisoners’ suffrage for prisoners having a sentence of 3 years or more but among democratic countries there is no clear policy or threshold at which those convicted of crimes lose or do not lose their right to vote. 
Internationally we run the whole gamut with regard to prisoners’ suffrage. Some countries have no disqualification and even the worst serial offender is allowed to vote. Some ban voting even after prisoners are released. Others have a total ban on prisoner voting. There is a continuum; arguments can be made for any number of scenarios about where along the continuum the threshold for a ban on prisoner suffrage should be. It is logical less arbitrary simple to understand and entirely consistent with the concomitant loss of Isaiah Berlin’s freedoms to which is inherent in any sentence of imprisonment for the ban to apply to any prisoner sentenced to prison. I commend this bill to the Committee. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 That was a fairly good second reading speech but I was quite surprised that the member Cam Calder was the one speaking rather than the member in charge of the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill. I think the normal practice at the Committee stage of a bill as I think the member should be aware is that when there is a substantive Supplementary Order Paper the member in charge of the bill—normally a Minister but in this case Mr Quinn—gets up and explains the substance of that Supplementary Order Paper. In this case I think he should have taken responsibility for the situation that led to the Supplementary Order Paper which effectively reverses the guts of the bill. 
I know that all of us have our first time in the chair. Like the member I was lucky enough to be involved in a bill well before my ministerial time. 
Grant Robertson 
: A very good bill. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well I do not know if it was very good actually; it was legislation on Waikato electricity and gas. As I am indicating to the member it would have been better and it would have been polite to the Committee if he had stood up. I think it is fair to say that this will be the highlight of his 3-year parliamentary career when people go back and look at the changes that he has made. In the future when he is looking out from his home in Roseneath over to the prison on Mount Crawford he will be able to say that for a period of time as a result of his work there were people there who could not go on the electoral roll. That will be the peak of his parliamentary career: he will be able to look out from his house in Roseneath over to Mount Crawford and to say that. I do not think he can actually see the prison in the Hutt Valley from his place; I think he would have to look around the corner a bit from Roseneath. I know where Rimutaka Prison is and I know where the Hutt Valley is unlike Mr Quinn who is a fairly irregular visitor out there. 
In fact he did not make it to either of the school prize-givings last night. He is the champion of the valley! 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Was he up for a prize? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The dunce’s prize because I do not think I have seen in a bill the time that I have been in Parliament that shows such gross incompetence in the management of a simple piece of legislation. This is not complicated legislation; it is relatively simple. I can understand the problems that Maurice Williamson had with his shipping legislation in the past because it was substantive. I do not really understand Kate Wilkinson’s problems a couple of weeks ago as that was simple too. I would have thought it was impossible to have an effect that is the reverse of the intention of the member in charge of the bill. I would have thought that a member in charge of legislation who was even half competent would read it. If he could not understand it then he could get someone to read it too him. If he could not understand it then he could get someone with some legal knowledge such as Simon Bridges— 
Grant Robertson 
: No someone with legal knowledge! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: To be fair the junior lawyer from Tauranga has some legal knowledge— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: He never won a case. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Oh no he could have explained the bill to Paul Quinn. Then we would not have had Paul Quinn with Supplementary Order Paper 174. That Supplementary Order Paper can be well summarised as him saying he is sorry. Paul Quinn in Committee moved an amendment to new clause 6: “To add the following clause (after line 24 on page 2):” but really it should say: “I’m sorry”. What the member has done is almost unforgivable. He sat on a select committee on a bill he looked at it carefully he went line by line through the Supplementary Order Paper and he looked at all the changes that were done in the select committee— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: And then he woke up. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well no he did not wake up; that is the whole point. The legislation came to the House wrong because he was asleep. All I want to do is to congratulate my colleagues on the select committee who let him do it. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Somewhere in the Standing Orders I am allowed to upon resumption of the seat of the previous speaker correct a statement of fact. He claimed that I sat on the select committee— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The member can take a call and do that; I would need to look up the Standing Order. Does the member want to seek leave to correct it? What is the member doing? [ 
Interruption 
] I will take a call. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you. It was a difficult decision I know but you came up with the right answer in the end Mr Chairperson. 
When I look at the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill I wonder if the member Paul Quinn actually spoke to the National Government’s Minister of Justice—I wonder if he did. When I look at this bill I see that the only people who will be in jail for 3 years or less who will vote will be the blokes who voted for that side of the House anyway. They are the chaps from the 40-odd finance companies who I hope will end up as guests of Her Majesty in the big house for the damage they have done to the vast majority of people. 
I must say one thing: the previous National speaker Cam Calder spoke about denying the rights of Kiwis who had done great harm to society. Well I may be wrong but the way I read this bill is that it is only for people who are in jail or have committed an offence and are jailed for 3 years or less. The men who have murdered our citizens and the women who have neglected their children the ones who are in jail for a long length of time have already been denied their right to vote anyway. 
When I look at this bill I see that this is a nasty bill. What does this bill do? It does not save any lives it does not protect society and it does not deliver equity. There is no mention of rehabilitation there is no mention of redemption and there is no mention of restoration. It delivers only a further kick in the guts to people in jail who have made wrong decisions and who are there at the moment for 3 years or less. We will be denying them every single possible right that they could have. That is the wrong message to send. 
I wonder whether in fact the member who is sponsoring this bill took it to caucus to be debated. The reason I ask is that the Attorney-General himself who we know knows absolutely everything about everything wrote a report that stated that this bill contravened the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The Attorney-General said that. I am sure the Attorney-General would have been in the caucus when that member brought the bill to caucus and said that he wanted to put it in the ballot. I cannot believe that the Hon Chris Finlayson did not stand up and say “Whoa hold on a second here. This is not what our party stands for. This contravenes the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.” 
Simon Bridges 
: Whoa! 
STUART NASH 
: I know that member over there would not have stood for it; he admitted he lost 50 percent of his cases. 
Is this what we want to do? Is this the sort of slippery slope that we want to send our society down denying the rights in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act a fundamental piece of constitutional law which outlines the fundamental rights of every citizen? The Attorney-General said “No”. 
The other thing is that Simon Power stood up in the House—well he has stood up numerous times—and said this Government would be hard on criminals. Is this legislation hard on criminals? He said this Government would look after the rights of victims. Does this bill attend to the rights of victims? No it does not. It does not do anything positive at all—it does not do anything positive at all. As my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel asked will this bill stop people committing crimes? Cam Calder said it may. Of course it will not. People who commit crimes will not stop and think “Well hell if I go to jail I’m not going to be allowed to vote.” 
This bill has no positive impact whatsoever. It will not stop crime it will not address the causes of crime and it will not address social equity. It does nothing. It does nothing to help rehabilitate people who are already in jail and it is not the track that I think our society needs to go down. I am sure Mr Bridges over there would agree. I cannot believe that a lawyer who is versed in constitutional law would back any bill that would deny the rights of citizens and would go against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—I just cannot believe that. 
So I ask Mr Quinn to have a look at this bill to take a deep breath and have a look at what he is trying to achieve because I do not know what this bill is trying to achieve. The worst offenders in our society who have committed the most abhorrent crimes have been denied the right to vote already—they have been denied the right to vote already. This bill is aimed at the petty criminal who has a chance of rehabilitation. It is aimed at the petty criminal who we can provide rehabilitation for. This is not a good bill. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 The Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill is a worthy bill from a great citizen of New Zealand Paul Quinn. What a great citizen of New Zealand! He has done a lot of good things in his life. Some other members are saying that this will be his finest hour but I have a feeling he will get comfortable in that green chair over time. I have a feeling he might get to sit in it a little bit more in the future. But not only does this man champion the Hutt Valley— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Will the member include him in his Cabinet? 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: If Paul Quinn is in Parliament he will be in my Cabinet. Not only does this member champion the valley but in his spare time he is coming up with a lot of legislation and a lot of ideas and this is a very good one from that member. 
Stuart Nash says this bill is about petty criminals but I ask him whether it really is about petty criminals. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Petty tax fraud they said before. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: I am sure members opposite say that to people who have been ripped off by so-called petty tax fraud. It seems to me that one of the central debates throughout the readings of the bill and now in the Committee stage is whether sending someone to prison is serious enough to take their right to vote from them. Absolutely it is. 
The last Labour Government during its several years in office liberalised the law and I am not saying I necessarily disagree with that. It introduced a number of sentences—I think it was seven—that one could get before imprisonment. One can go through supervision intensive supervision electronic bail and electronic this that and the other thing before one gets home detention. To be sentenced to imprisonment a criminal has to have been convicted of a serious offence. Not only that person’s liberty but also their right to vote should be denied. 
I think Paul Quinn has done a very good thing here. We come back to the question of principle. Should serving prisoners have the right to vote? That is ultimately what this comes back to. 
Grant Robertson 
: But that’s how it is now. You have to argue why they shouldn’t. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: I ask the member to give me a reason why serving prisoners should have the right to vote. Give me two or three reasons why they should have the right to vote. 
Grant Robertson 
: No no that’s the status quo. You’re the one changing it; you make the reason. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: Those members do not like it do they? There is no reason why serving prisoners should have the right to vote. Those people have landed in the clink because they have done something serious. They have not stumbled their way into prison as Lianne Dalziel or Stuart Nash would have us think. Those people have systematically committed serious crimes. Under the Sentencing Act the judge has to go past a number of other sentences before getting to imprisonment. The law says that for people to be sentenced to imprisonment the judge has to be satisfied that none of those other sentences are suitable. I ask Labour members to tell me why serving prisoners should have the right to vote. The only reason I can think of is that Labour wants prisoners to vote; it thinks that prisoners should have the vote. Why should they? I ask Labour members to give me some good reasons. 
Lianne Dalziel talked about how it was a civic duty to vote. I absolutely disagree with that. I absolutely disagree that it is a civic duty to vote. That is why I am against and have been consistently against compulsory voting. I do not think people have a duty to vote. People can opt out of the system if they want to do so and decide not to vote. Members should not get me wrong; I think people should vote. As a personal choice I think people should— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Labour’s soft on crime. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: Labour members are soft on crime. They want criminals to vote. I think people should not opt out. They should take seriously their right to vote and they should look at the options but it is not a duty. Labour members do not like what I am saying and it probably is controversial but I think of council elections and the plethora of choices people have. Unless a person has gone through and thought about all of the candidates does that person have a duty to vote? I do not think so. If people do not know the candidates maybe the best thing for them is not to exercise their right to vote. 
I come back to the fact that it is a right to vote not a duty. Yes it is a precious right that this country needs to guard jealously. As I said during this bill’s first reading it is a right that people have gone to war for have fought over and have shed blood over. It is not quite right to say that ultimately all wars are fought over democracy and the vote but one could almost make that case certainly for wars in the last century. It is a right that should be used responsibly. It is a right that has to be jealously guarded. Should we give that precious right to vote that people have gone to war over to serving prisoners who have done something exceptionally serious? As a society we have decided that we need to incarcerate those people and keep them inside. Should we then give them the vote? 
Labour is on the side of the criminals on this. Labour says that we should give prisoners the vote. All I ask of those Labour members who stand in this House and speak on this bill is that they give me some substantive reasons why prisoners should vote. 
Grant Robertson 
: Who’s changing the law? You’re changing the law; you give the reason. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: I have said why we are changing the law. Prison is the sentence for a very serious offence. Voting is a precious right that comes with responsibilities. Prisoners forfeit that right. They have done something to cause us to say: “You are going inside. You must be kept away from society.” Maybe it is old-fashioned but I do not want those people inside people who have been incarcerated to have the vote. When they come out of prison and have been rehabilitated back into society let us give them the vote. 
I think we are on the side of the angels here and the Labour members are on the side of the criminals. Labour members say that criminals who have done very serious drug offending or as Stuart Nash said have committed serious fraud should be able to vote. I do not think so. Voting is a precious right that has been fought over in war. 
I commend Paul Quinn for championing the valley for bringing in this bill and for doing something good. I am sure it will not be the last good worthy solid piece of work he will do in this House. 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a short call in the Committee stage of the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill. I begin by complimenting the speaker who just sat down Simon Bridges on his loyalty to his colleague and indeed to his party. I believe that only loyalty could drive him to make a speech in support of what is deeply flawed poorly conceived and poorly targeted legislation that will not achieve any positive end. To the contrary it will have only negative outcomes. 
It is quite timely that we are debating the bill this week. In fact it was debated by a number of people last evening at the launch of a website. I was privileged to attend a Robson Hanan Trust function under the heading “Rethinking Crime and Punishment” at which a website was launched. In that room were numerous people representing a number of church-based community-based and other organisations who have positive and real solutions to the problems of prison and incarceration in this country. 
There are very real solutions out there. We know how they could be applied and how we could save an enormous amount of money and a great deal of social discontent. A great deal of human suffering could be avoided by applying some of the very practical very real and very achievable solutions proposed by people outside of the House and within some of the networks of penal reformers. 
The bill has very little to recommend it. Admittedly I have not been in this House a very long time but the report from officials on this bill has the strongest language I have ever seen endeavouring to dissuade a select committee from supporting a bill. The report talks about prisoner disqualification cases having been argued in the highest appellate courts of comparable international jurisdictions. It waves red flags to say that this bill if it is passed not only will be challenged in our own Supreme Court in New Zealand but also will inevitably be taken to international courts where it will be challenged in its turn. 
This week we have seen news from the United Kingdom that after 5 nearly 6 years of resisting the UK Government has finally bowed to a European court decision from 2005 that the blanket ban imposed by the UK Government was illegal and contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights. Under article 46 of that convention the UK is obliged to abide by this final judgment. The direct and inevitable consequence of the UK Government’s failure to abide by that ruling of the court is that to date 1340 inmates or former inmates are lining up to claim compensation from the UK Government for what was effectively an illegal removal of their right to vote while they were in prison. 
Clearly we are in a different jurisdiction and we would not be subject to those rules. But if this legislation goes through we can take it as a given that there will be appeals to international courts. It may be nothing that can require us to respond—perhaps we will not ever face compensation charges—but think what it will do for New Zealand’s reputation internationally as a country that pays attention to human rights and that acknowledges that prisoners are humans despite being in prison and are still deserving of human rights. 
The previous speaker challenged us to come up with some ideas and some examples of why people in prison should retain their right to vote and I am very happy to offer a few examples. I ask why we ought to deliberately further alienate people who are already removed albeit often for quite short periods from society from social interaction and from making some useful contribution. Taking away the right to vote from all prisoners says to them that voting is a limited right and that perhaps it is something they ought not to give any particular weight to when they re-emerge from prison. 
I ask whether it is not more intelligent and more sensible to do everything we can to keep people engaged with the wider society as a step towards their more secure and better integration when they inevitably return to that wider society. We are not talking about the high-end people who commit horrific murders who commit extreme crimes that none of us could possibly contemplate. We are talking about people who are in prison for relatively short periods of time for relatively minor property offences who will also lose the right to vote. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 It was interesting to listen to the contribution from Simon Bridges and the random interjections from Tau Henare. It is quite clear in debating this bill that there are distinct views in this Committee about the purpose of sending people to prison. The purpose of sending people to prison is indeed to take away their liberty as Mr Bridges mentioned before. I would have thought that as he is somebody quite close to the criminal justice system he would also have noted that the other purpose—particularly of sending people to prison for terms of 3 years or less—is to attempt to rehabilitate them and to attempt to set up a situation where those people can reintegrate into society. Mr Quinn shakes his head which is interesting. I think that shows the very point I am making here. 
People sentenced to crimes punishable by 3 years’ imprisonment or less will be back in our communities. They will be back in our communities I say to Mr Quinn and I ask in what way are we making our communities safer by removing those people from the electoral roll. That is what this bill does. It removes people from the electoral roll. It does not take away their right to vote as such. Simon Bridges told us that he was against compulsory voting. The question for Simon Bridges is whether he is against the idea of all New Zealanders being on the electoral roll. That is the question. I ask whether Mr Bridges is against the idea of all New Zealanders being on the electoral roll. [ 
Interruption 
] He says that is different. 
Mr Quinn and Mr Bridges have to face up to the fact that this bill does not just take away the right to vote; it removes people from the electoral roll. That is the concern the Attorney-General raised in his comments on this bill. The Attorney-General specifically raised the concern—as did a large number of submitters to the Law and Order Committee—that this bill breaches section 12 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act which affirms that every New Zealand citizen who is of or over the age of 18 years has the right to vote and to stand in general elections etc. The Attorney-General has raised that concern and Mr Bridges and Mr Quinn need to ask themselves the question of what their commitment to democracy is. We heard a lot of pious claptrap from Simon Bridges before about this precious right to vote and how people have fought for it. 
We have in this country a democracy and the greatest challenge to those of us who see ourselves as true democrats is when we come up against a situation like this. At what point are we prepared to stand up for democracy and say that the people who challenge us in society still have the right to vote? Mr Bridges said that prisoners have forfeited their rights. I ask whether they have forfeited their right to eat or their right to be not beaten up. I ask Mr Bridges where it ends. They have forfeited their rights—that is the view coming from members on the other side of the Chamber about the purpose of sending people to prison. It boils down to this question. Are we sending people to prison as a punishment or are we sending people to prison for punishment? That difference has to be decided on here. The punishment is the taking away of liberty. The exercise for prisoners who are serving terms of 3 years or less is to rehabilitate those people and to attempt to facilitate their reintegration into society and this bill will do nothing to support those goals. 
Time and time again from this National Government we have had legislation coming into this House in the criminal justice area and members on this side of the Chamber find ourselves asking whether it will make our communities safer because surely that is the aim. There is no evidence that this bill will make communities safer. In fact the Department of Corrections told the select committee that it would not. No evidence anywhere in the world points to the fact that this will reduce recidivism or that this will somehow act as a deterrent. It will not. It will not make our communities safer. It is in the same category as the “three strikes” legislation. It is populist stuff. It is the easy bit of criminal justice. The hard bit of criminal justice law is coming to this House with real solutions to stop people committing crimes to stop people committing crimes after they are released from prison and to help people reintegrate into society. This bill does nothing to improve the safety of our communities. 
Is it not interesting that once again the Government denied the select committee the right to hear from the Ministry of Justice. Once again as with the “three strikes” bill the Ministry of Justice was not allowed to come in because Government members know that the advisers to this Government on justice would not have approved of this bill. The Minister of Justice Simon Power is out of here. He is out of here quicker than Tau Henare moves from one party to another. He just said that he is not part of this. He has not even featured in this debate because the Ministry of Justice knows— 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 Having listened with interest and got a flavour of the discussion thus far I think it is an appropriate time to stand and perhaps inform the discussion a bit better because—to use the words of the previous speaker Grant Robertson—a lot of claptrap has certainly been shared around the place. Let me demonstrate that firstly by confirming to Mr Mallard that I was not a member of the Law and Order Committee which considered this bill. I was not a member of the select committee that considered the bill and perhaps if he had done a bit of work in preparing himself to speak to this bill instead of doing his usual trick of just winging things along and getting himself in all sorts of trouble he might have understood that. 
As I said in my second reading speech the Parliamentary Counsel Office was profuse in its apology for the mistake it freely admitted was its own in the redrafting of this bill. As a consequence of that yes there is Supplementary Order Paper 174 which— 
Grant Robertson 
: So you stuffed up. 
PAUL QUINN 
: No you see I did not stuff up actually. It is a matter of being able to understand English. The member should forget the law that he cannot understand; he needs to understand English. He can read my lips: the Parliamentary Counsel Office was profuse in its apology. I ask whether the member understands that. OK? But let us put that to one side. 
The second point that I will make relates to what Lianne Dalziel said. Lianne Dalziel who led the discussion from the Labour Opposition’s point of view wanted—pleaded for—the number of prisoners who might be affected by this bill. To satisfy her curiosity I can tell her that the number is about 8000 in round figures. 
Then she proceeded to go on to ask what the mischief was behind the bill. Well there is no mischief; this legislation is what the overwhelming majority of people want. I suggest to the Labour Opposition members that if they should for a moment go out and consult their constituents as I have done in the Hutt Valley they will find that the starting point for most members of the community is that they think prisoners cannot vote. That is what people out there are like. They actually think that prisoners cannot vote. That is what they believe. The point is that when they find out that some prisoners can vote they are aghast. The overwhelming majority of the community want prisoners not to be able to vote. 
The great thing about the New Zealand justice system is that it is decided by our peers and our peers are not the intellectuals. They are not the chardonnay socialists who pretend to be independent advisers they are not the academics who sit and pontificate to the world from ivory towers paid for by the Government and in fact they are not even the royal commissioners. There is not one blue-collar member there. I take my lead from the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders who represent the ordinary sort of bloke. They are the sorts of people whom the Opposition claims to represent. I say to those Opposition members to get away from their chardonnay socialist wine bars and to go out and listen to the people. 
I will now address some of the issues raised by David Clendon. He talked about this bill going against the tide of other jurisdictions. I find this fascinating. This was from a party that has spent the last 2 weeks lecturing us about sovereignty—about doing what we want and not being influenced by other people. Yet those members are sitting there now and saying that we are going against the tide of all other jurisdictions in voting for this bill. Yes the UK has had to change its law. But let me read something from one of Grant Robertson’s many mentors. This is from Anthony Painter whose writings Grant Robertson has showered his colleagues with. Anthony Painter talked about this issue and by his own admission said that an overwhelming majority of British people actually believed that prisoners should not get the vote. I have here the paper that the member sent people to go and look at. In fact Britain does not want to lose its sovereignty on this matter; it is being driven to it by the EU. I find it fascinating that now when it is convenient the Green Party is calling into play other people’s sovereignty to try to influence this issue. But I say that New Zealand wants to stand up for itself and make up its own mind. The overwhelming majority do not want prisoners to have a vote. 
This argument is about a line in the sand. Where is the line in the sand? At the moment it is at 3 years. We heard a lot from Mr Robertson about the fact that Labour says it is 3 years because we try to rehabilitate people who are given a sentence of less than 3 years. I tell Mr Robertson firstly that he should read the 1986 royal commission report. The reason we have 3 years in the current legislation—and if Grant Robertson listens carefully he will pick this up—is that the commissioners when considering this point and with no logic given said something like: “From a starting point we think prisoners should have the vote but society probably thinks that at some point in time a crime is serious enough that they should not be able to vote. Let’s see: people who live overseas continuously for 3 years cannot vote so that is a good number.” That is the basis— 
Hon Member 
: That is not actually correct. 
PAUL QUINN 
: It is correct. That member should read the royal commission’s report at paragraph 186 if the member really wants to get down to it. Those are the facts. The timing is a line in the sand. It has nothing to do with the 3-year election cycle—nothing. The timing is incidental to this issue. Even now people with 3-year sentences can miss an election. They can go into prison halfway through an election cycle and miss the election so timing is irrelevant to this whole argument. It is a red-herring argument that the Opposition has become tied up in. 
This is about a line in the sand. The real issue about the line in the sand is that the royal commission based its recommendation on the fact that in its view people were sent to prison for committing misdemeanours; the simple reality of life is that they are not. People do not get sent to prison for committing misdemeanours. People who go to prison have committed serious crimes. I can give the Committee any figures it wants. Seventy-five percent of people who go to prison for the first time have committed at least 10 crimes. They have at least 10 convictions against their name. How do members think Mrs Vercoe feels? 
Grant Robertson 
: Don’t go there. 
PAUL QUINN 
: We will go there because this is the real issue. What do members think Mrs Vercoe thought when her son Hawea was killed and the guy who killed him received a sentence of 2 years 9 months? Do members think that is fair? I do not. He was sent to prison for committing a serious crime and that is what this argument is about. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I am disappointed that the member Paul Quinn who is in charge of the Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill allowed his contribution to disintegrate and therefore for the tone of this debate I think it is best that we do not descend to the naming of individual cases. I know that members on this side of the Chamber certainly try to avoid that except when it comes to trying to disprove some of the misinformation that is flying around about what our current legislation does. 
I start by saying that I still believe that the onus for proving that this legislation is necessary sits with the promoter of the bill. I listened carefully to the contribution made by Mr Quinn whom I spend quite a bit of time with on the Justice and Electoral Committee. I will come back later to the point of whether this bill was referred to the right select committee. I think Mr Quinn would have enjoyed being on the select committee that considered the bill—the Justice and Electoral Committee would have been a better place for it. I listened carefully to his contribution so that I could better understand why we are here and why we are debating this legislation. I take our role here seriously. [ 
Interruption 
] I hear Mr Bridges making a few little snide jokes but I do take very seriously our role of scrutinising the bill and I did listen to the comments made. 
The first reason I heard from Mr Quinn was that we are looking at this bill because he takes his guidance from his peers and people believe that no prisoners currently can vote and therefore that is what the legislation should be on. Personally I expect a little more analysis than that but even if we were to take that argument are not his peers the people who came to the Law and Order Committee? Or is he denying that the people who presented at the select committee had any right to take a position? If we were listening to his peers who submitted to the select committee we would have heard that 50 of them were against this legislation—50—and two were in favour. If we were listening to Mr Quinn’s peers and the people of New Zealand who know that their ability to access and persuade members of Parliament is via the select committee process we would have heard that they were overwhelmingly against this legislation. I invite any Government member to stand and explain to me why those submitter views should not be taken into account on this legislation because as far as I am concerned they are our peers. 
Although listening to the members of the public is absolutely and incredibly important the onus is also upon us to take responsibility. It is a cop-out simply to say that everyone thinks this is the way it should be and therefore it will be so. We have the responsibility to make the hard decisions in this House and that means weighing up the evidence and weighing up our responsibilities that are incumbent upon us whether it be through the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act human rights legislation or just good conscience. It is incumbent on us to weigh up all matters not simply those that are brought before us because not everyone has access to the information that members have. We are in a privileged position as members of Parliament in that regard and we must take everything into account. I am still none the wiser as to whether the member or even the Government has done that. 
The second reason for this legislation that I heard from the member in charge of the bill Mr Quinn was that New Zealand should stand on its own—the fact that every other country does not have a piece of legislation like this almost becomes a reason to have this legislation because we would be making a point. I think probably the only point we would be proving is that we were wrong and everyone else is right and perhaps when the legal challenges come through we will prove that. 
The third reason is the technical issue of 3 years as an arbitrary cut-off for someone having the right to vote when in prison and that there was not any good basis for the 3 year cut-off—except that when someone travels overseas or is resident overseas they are eligible to vote if they set foot in New Zealand once during that time. Really the question comes down to whether we believe that anyone who is in prison should be eligible to vote at any point during their term of imprisonment. The cut-off point then becomes a point of debate. But the black and white question is whether anyone at any point during their term of imprisonment should have the right to vote. 
Secondary to that question therefore is the question of members’ views on the right to vote generally. Do members perceive it as a privilege or as a right and therefore that people have a responsibility to their community to exercise that civic responsibility? I think that what we are seeing in the Chamber today is essentially two divergent views on the role of voting in this country. I am happy to have that debate and I acknowledge that we are on a difficult side of this argument. The way in which we see the role of voting is a point that has to be discussed and acknowledged when talking to a member of the public. I think Labour is on the right side by taking up that challenge because in our view voting is much more than just a right. It is a responsibility and it is a civic duty and in that regard I really completely disagree with my colleague Simon Bridges. So why are we here? 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Take it up on  
Breakfast 
. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: We have once before. I won; he lost. Why are we here? I think it probably helps to go back and look at the reasons—[ 
Interruption 
] I could make a gesture too. 
Let us look at the reasons why we use terms of imprisonment anyway. There are three reasons three Rs which are commonly used. There is an element of retribution in the idea of imprisonment but there is also the idea of restoration and rehabilitation—restoration to the victim whether it be an individual or society as a whole. On that test I do not believe that this measure passes. In my mind restoration to society means that that individual should become a fully contributing member of society once more. There is a certain cut-off point a line in the sand that we can draw where someone is likely to be in prison for lesser crimes. Those are the individuals who we should ensure are making a full contribution to society by exercising their responsibility. 
The second reason is rehabilitation. Again there are the same points and my colleague Grant Robertson made an excellent contribution on those. So even on the three measures for which we use prison I do not believe that the removal of the right to vote for a certain level of criminal actually fulfils those three aims for imprisonment generally. 
I make a point of clarification here. Simon Bridges interjected during someone’s contribution that the real reason this bill is before the House is that it make us feel better and I think that probably fulfils the third of the three Rs—that this is just blanket retribution without much analysis behind it. I think that some of the debate we have had is slightly misleading because it implies that currently all prisoners are eligible to vote and that is not true. That is simply not true. Under the current law if you commit a certain level of offence and you are convicted of that you are unable— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No no. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: I am sorry Mr Chairperson. You certainly have not been convicted of any offence. You were serving a sentence though by sitting next to Paul Quinn during his contribution! If a person is convicted for a particular crime he or she will not be eligible to vote and that includes the most serious crimes. So it is misleading to imply that voting is a right that everyone has. In fact the best way we have managed to prove that is through the accident that we see could have happened during the select committee process whereby the complete removal of our current legislation and starting from scratch with Paul Quinn’s bill would mean that everyone who is currently in jail would be eligible to vote even if they are currently serving a life sentence. So that accident has actually proven the point that our legislation has I think the balance right. 
I make the point again that the onus is on the Government to tell us why we should change the legislation as it currently stands and I do not believe it has done that. I want to make one anecdotal point. I wonder how many members in this House have ever doorknocked people aged about 60 or 65 who have never voted in their life. I have and probably a few members in the House have but the person I came across had never voted because they had served a couple of short stints in prison. They had been denied access at various points in their life or had never been given the opportunity to take up the responsibility and at that age probably never would. It gave me pause to think about that person because I doorknocked them when they were back in their residence and it was a civic responsibility that they should have take up at some point in their life but never had. It still sits in my mind as an example of exactly the kind of person whom we should ensure exercises that responsibility when in prison. In my view it is a civic duty. 
I come back to the process we went through in considering this bill. This bill should have been referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee. It is electoral legislation and the Department of Corrections should never have debated it or given advice on it. 
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. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I want to respond to the Minister—the member in the chair Paul Quinn’s response— 
Simon Bridges 
: Not yet Lianne. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No not yet. I think we will be waiting some time for that to occur. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: He won’t be here. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Well Paul Quinn is here for only 3 years but the point is that this is his one big moment in time when he has a bill before the House. He has managed to persuade his colleagues to vote for it even though it is stupid and even though the Minister of Justice would have nothing to do with it—even though the Minister of Justice would have nothing to do with it. It is an electoral law reform bill but it was sent to the Law and Order Committee. Why was it sent to the Law and Order Committee? The bill deals only with sentences of under 3 years because sentences over 3 years are already covered by existing law. So it was political puffery right from the very start; it was nothing more than that. 
What offends me even more than all of this is that I asked a whole lot of sensible questions and he answered not one of them. The first question I asked was not about how many people are in prison at the moment. I know the answer to that question. I asked how many of them voted at the last election while they were in prison. As the member does not know the answer to that question perhaps he could just nod or shake his head. Maybe I could engage with him a little bit; a bit of eye contact would be useful. No he is not really listening is he? Never mind I did try. 
The point I am trying to make is that I have been asking this question all the way along and the point is simply that we need to know how many people vote when they are in prison—and that will be only people who have sentences of under 3 years so it is not 8000 people at all I say to Mr Quinn as that member knows; it has nothing to do with that. The answer I am looking for is how many people were eligible to vote and how many of them exercised that vote. Does he know the answer to either of those questions? It appears not. It is a shame he is not able to answer those questions. 
The second question was not about what mischief this bill did because that is perfectly plain on the face of it. It asked about what mischief it was designed to remedy. Without knowing how many people exercise their right to vote at the moment while they are in prison which is only people who are in prison for less than 3 years I ask the member to tell me what it is about the current law that needs to be remedied by this bill. It seems to me that it is not much. We do not even know how many people now vote who are in prison for less than 3 years. We have had examples of the sorts of crimes that receive those sentences and all sorts of umbrage has been taken in the House. In fact I think I heard some members on the other side of the Chamber say that on this issue we were on the side of criminals. I have never understood that taking away a person’s right to vote was somehow being on the side of criminals. But that is OK; we have had the odd criminal in here too. 
There are some people who have been on the receiving end of fraudulent behaviour when certain documentation has been signed by certain Ministers acting in their private capacity. We will not go into that one either but maybe we could. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What a shameful thing to say. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: That member should talk to the New Zealand citizen—  
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The Speaker earlier ruled out any accusations of that type towards a Minister of the Crown. That is what my point of order is. You just cannot allow— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Thank you; I hear what the member is saying. I ask members in the future to just be very mindful of previous rulings. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I was saying that there are people who have been on the receiving end of criminal fraudulent activity that has implications for their lives and it has been endorsed by people whom one would expect to see better from. Anyway that is another particular case and it will keep because individuals who have been affected by that behaviour will speak out I am sure in due course. 
The point I am making is that the other questions the member in the chair failed to answer asked what mischief this bill is designed to remedy and about the differential between a prisoner who is in prison on the day of the election but is let out the following Monday and somebody who is let out of prison the day before the election. We have had all sorts of umbrage taken in the House as I said before about the sorts of criminals we are talking about. Someone could be in jail on a charge of criminal nuisance on the day of the election and this bill would affect that prisoner. I do not understand why we are talking about serious offences when serious offences are already covered. 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 Before I begin my contribution I would like to thank National MP Mr Paul Quinn for introducing his member’s bill the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill because despite the fact that we are wasting the valuable time of the Committee on debating this silly bill by presenting it Mr Paul Quinn has clearly shown what this Government is up to. In a way the whole country has been saved a considerable amount of time because the Government’s veil of political correctness has been lifted. 
This bill is designed to look as though National is being tough on crime but the reality is that through this bill and a subsequent amendment recommended by the National and ACT members of the Law and Order Committee the bill will allow all existing prisoners including New Zealand’s worst criminals like Graeme Burton and William Bell to vote. The only winners should this bill pass into law seem to be Graeme Burton William Bell and Clayton Weatherston who are not permitted to vote under the current law. Graeme Burton and co. cannot vote. The very worst criminals are already disqualified from registering as electors under the current law. As a member of the Law and Order Committee I was amazed to see the National and ACT members who make up the majority of the select committee recommend amending the title of the bill and subsequently clauses 4 and 5. Mr Paul Quinn mentioned Supplementary Order Paper 174 in his name which has just reinforced my position. 
I take this opportunity to thank the Parliamentary Counsel Office for doing a great job because its staff are professionals and they are not responsible for any policy initiatives. It is not fair for Mr Quinn to try to blame them for any mistakes originated from the policy initiatives. 
There is a recommendation to completely repeal the current disqualification provision in section 80(1)(d) of the Electoral Act 1993 and to replace it with the new provision which I will read out. It states: “a person who is detained in a prison pursuant to a sentence of imprisonment imposed after the commencement of the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act 2010:”. It therefore repeals the legislative provision that disqualifies people who are presently serving lengthy prison sentences and instead only disqualifies people who are sentenced to prison after the bill is enacted into law. There would be nothing in law to stop anyone who is in prison at the time that the bill is enacted from applying to be registered to vote and consequently casting a vote at the 2011 general election. That includes the worst murderers rapists and violent criminals like Graeme Burton William Bell and Clayton Weatherston who are not permitted to vote under the current law. 
I do not agree with the view of the Department of Corrections that the disqualification would continue to apply to presently disqualified prisoners by virtue of the Interpretation Act 1999. Section 19(1) of that Act states: “The repeal of an enactment does not affect a liability to a penalty for an offence or for a breach of an enactment committed before the repeal.” The problem is that disqualification from voting is not itself a penalty; it is the consequence of a penalty being imposed. Under the Electoral Act 1993 all adult New Zealanders and permanent residents are eligible to be enrolled. Section 80 of that Act disqualifies some of those people by disqualifying prisoners who are serving 3 years’ imprisonment or more but the amendment to section 80 in clause 4 of the bill means that those people would become eligible to be re-enrolled. 
I agree with the Attorney-General that this bill is constitutionally flawed and is unjustifiably inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I will try to focus in on who is covered and who is not covered by the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill. I want the member in charge of the bill Paul Quinn to give me an answer with regard to a group of offences as to whether someone is covered. The first pretty simple question is whether someone who is guilty of fraud is covered by this legislation. I am interested in whether someone who has aided and abetted a fraud by being perceived to endorse a contract is covered by this legislation if convicted. I ask whether someone can be convicted of fraud for an action that involves a New Zealand company but which took place extraterritorially. I ask whether that person is covered by this legislation. Would that person lose their right to vote; would their status be changed? Would a New Zealand citizen who endorsed a fraud that was committed offshore by a New Zealand company be liable if convicted under this legislation to lose their vote? Would someone be liable if that person fraudulently introduced someone to another party and then was involved with the other party in the theft of intellectual property? Would the person who witnessed endorsed and was perceived to give even Government support to the commissioning of the fraud be caught by this legislation? 
I think we have a series of arrangements here that are in fact not complex in this particular case. We have international fraud occurring out of New Zealand. We have theft of New Zealanders’ intellectual property in China but aided and abetted by a New Zealander or New Zealanders depending on the level of knowledge of the people who were endorsing the particular commercial arrangement. I am very interested in whether any of the scenarios that have been set out in the Chamber earlier by my colleague Mr Hodgson are caught under this legislation. 
Simon Bridges is raising his eyebrows. I take from what he says that he thinks all of these scenarios are caught under the legislation: that the guilty parties who set up a fraudulent contract between a New Zealand company and a Chinese company will be caught; that the person who endorsed it and with the perception that the New Zealand Government supported it will also be caught; that the person who then stole the intellectual property and I understand $800000 would also be caught; and that the third party that was involved in the theft because they were Chinese-based and the offence occurred there may not be caught under the legislation. I think they probably would not be caught. If New Zealand was the US they would be caught but given our intellectual property arrangements they probably would not be although if I were them I would not want to visit New Zealand in case I was caught but of course if they were Chinese citizens they would not get the vote. But the two New Zealanders— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Yes if they were permanent residents. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The three New Zealanders who were involved in the arrangements and certainly the person who did the introductions and is now a major shareholder in the company that is benefiting from the theft— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: They stole the purchase? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: They stole the intellectual property and then took shares in the company that stole it after introducing the people to the people in China—and $800000 went missing as well. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Who would do such a deal? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I do not know but I cannot think of why a New Zealand Minister would sign her name to a document that endorsed that sort of behaviour. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member is now linking an honourable member of this House to a matter that is hypothetical and that is completely out of order. Up until that point it was OK but he mentioned a Minister of the House and that is unacceptable. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I do not understand how any Kiwi would sign their name to such a thing. I do not understand how any honourable New Zealander would sign their name would endorse a document would give the perception that New Zealand is behind— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I bring the member back to relevance. We are now straying into territory that is all hypothetical. The bill is very clear and I ask the member to come back to the point. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I want Paul Quinn to tell us whether the New Zealander who signed her name to such a document was convicted of fraud or aiding and abetting fraud— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I have already ruled that mentioning an honourable member of this House in a hypothetical matter is unacceptable. I ask the member to detest from that— 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: You mean “desist”? I detest! 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: “Desist”. I ask the member not to go down that track again. That is the second time and I will not accept it. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I ask Paul Quinn whether someone who was convicted of aiding and abetting a fraud would lose their ability to vote under this legislation. Are they over the line or are they behind the line? I ask whether someone who was convicted of aiding and abetting intellectual property theft is behind the line or over the line. I ask the member whether someone who steals $800000 or aids and abets someone who steals $800000 is on the right side of the line or the wrong side of the line. Are those people affected by this bill? I look forward to hearing Mr Quinn tell us how this legislation will make a difference to future behaviour. I ask whether it will stop Kiwis going to China introducing parties to each other and then stealing their intellectual property. 
Is that the intention of this legislation or is the intention of the legislation to stop people going to China and getting involved in the theft of $800000 in cash? Is that the intention of this legislation? I presume it is about trying to drive behavioural change on behalf of Kiwis. 
Paul Quinn 
: It’s a deterrent. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Paul Quinn says that it is a deterrent. Will it deter Kiwis from going to China and stealing intellectual property from other New Zealanders while they are there? Will this deter New Zealanders from going to China and setting up companies that take intellectual property from other New Zealanders? Is that the objective of this legislation or will the member accept that this legislation will not deter crooked Kiwis from doing that in the future? 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I have not previously had anything to do with the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill but I feel the need to stand and speak on it because it causes me concern in three main areas. Firstly there are issues around participation in our democratic process. Secondly there are real issues about why we have such high rates of imprisonment. This is just another bill designed to thump chests and pretend to be hard on crime when in fact this Government is doing nothing at all to address the real issue: the causes of crime which include poverty and lack of opportunity. The third reason is that the bill is another shambolic and shoddy piece of work. We will deal with another piece of legislation tonight Tau Henare’s Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill which is equally shambolic and shoddy legislation. It was poorly drafted; it actually had to have the real reasons for it and its drafting dealt with in multiple ways. Like that bill this is a shoddy and poorly drafted bill. 
This bill is supposedly about being tough on criminals and dealing with serious offenders but for those listening to this debate let me reinforce what some of my colleagues have said—that is that people now serving a sentence of imprisonment for a term of 3 years or more are already disqualified from registration as electors. People who have been convicted of and sentenced for serious crimes are already disqualified. I think the hype around this bill has fudged that point. 
There is no explanation of the harm that this bill is designed to remedy and no compelling reasons have been given for why this change is wanted or needed. It certainly will not make New Zealand safer. It will not reduce crime or recidivism. In fact that is what I really find offensive. National members love to look like they are tough on crime. The reality is that violent crime has been rising under National. Under this National Government violent crime has been rising. This bill will not do anything to stop it. It will not be a deterrent to crime. In fact no effort has been made by this Government to address the causes of crime or to look at what leads to people undertaking criminal offences. 
Poverty and unemployment are both on the rise in this country and there is a link between poverty unemployment and crime. There is lack of opportunity for too many New Zealanders—New Zealanders who already feel disengaged from the community they live in people who themselves have been victims of crime as children and people who have suffered from poor parenting. What is the Government doing about those sorts of things—the real causes of crime? It is doing nothing at all. That is the reality. The Government likes to put through legislation where it can say it has been tough on criminals. It is three strikes and they are out. It will stop those criminals voting. It says it is being tough on crime. I say to the Government that it should do something about the causes of crime. 
New Zealand’s rate of imprisonment is absolutely disgraceful. The rate of imprisonment in this country is disgraceful; we are at the top end of the OECD on rates of imprisonment. It is costing the taxpayer millions and millions of dollars that would be better spent on investing in people’s education upskilling them and working to find jobs. That is one of the reasons why I feel compelled to speak on this bill. 
I say also that this bill is likely to lead to mass disenfranchisement of many people who go to prison because they are unlikely to re-enrol on release. Anybody who works in our lower-income communities—as many of us do—will know that many many New Zealanders are not on the electoral roll now. This bill will just add to that number. That is of concern to me because I believe that all New Zealanders should have the right to vote and should vote and take part as a civic duty in the governing of their country. 
We made the decision years ago that people serving sentences of more than 3 years should lose the right to vote. We are happy with that provision; it applies to serious offenders. But this bill covers anybody who is sentenced to imprisonment. It has a whole lot of negative consequences. There was not a proven problem and submitters to this bill were overwhelmingly opposed to it. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 174 in the name of Paul Quinn to add new clause 6 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clauses 1 to 6 be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I move  
That the report be adopted. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be adopted. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Report adopted.