SpeechHon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'm here up the back of the Opposition benches. SPEAKER: I've been there. Hon NATHAN GUY: Yes yes. I was once here too about 15 years ago—in fact in this seat just here—and in a matter of months I'll be saying goodbye to this House for the final time. But I'm not here to give my valedictory this morning under urgency; I'm here to talk about a very important bill that we are debating in urgency. I guess the first question I would put to the House is—SPEAKER: We're not in urgency. Hon NATHAN GUY: Oh we're not in urgency? OK. Thank you for clarifying that—an extended sitting of the House I think is the correct term. For those in the public who might be used to tuning in at 2 o'clock on Tuesday Wednesday and Thursday to listen to the Parliament this is an extended sitting session because the Government feels that this bill is very important to see passed before the general election and we would argue the fact that we have some grave concerns about this bill. In fact it's been interesting listening to the debates this morning on this particular bill. On one side of the House we have the Government proposing human rights and talking about discrimination against Māori and on our side of the House we say that well actually when a criminal has been sentenced to serve in prison their freedoms should be taken away from them. We know that the State actually determines what happens in society with taxpayers' money—funding for schools hospitals roads and the like—and of course voters have the choice: if they don't like the mandate that they've given to politicians and the Government of the day every three years they can indeed vote. We know there is a general election coming up on 19 September but why on earth should a prisoner that's costing society about $100000 a year be given the right to vote? Now I remember Paul Quinn who was in this House—a real character—and I catch up with Quinny" occasionally. He had a louder voice than me. He proposed a change that went through the Parliament under the National Government and here we are yet again. It's sort of like déjà vu—and I heard Nick Smith talking about this earlier in this contribution—right back to the 1970s when there were changes and different stripes of Government coming in. So now we find ourselves debating this mere fact now. I was interested to hear from those that have sat on the Justice Committee about this process and a real debate about the three years because this bill allows a prisoner that has been sentenced to less than three years the ability to vote—that's on estimations about 1900 voters. Now why three years—or why at all—and that's been something that's been well traversed in this Parliament this morning. But I think that is a fair question. Why three years? Because when you think about a prisoner that's been sentenced for three years—and those listening might think "Well that's perhaps not a harsh sentence for someone—imprisoned for three years." but let's give some examples. Those are likely to be sentences for sexual assaults robberies family violence and other sexual-related offences. So these are criminals that have been apprehended have gone through the sentencing and who are now in prison. Taxpayers paying for them to be in prison and should they be given the right to vote? We on this side of the Parliament say no because their freedoms have been taken away from them. The next point that I wanted to make was one that was I think traversed a little bit earlier on which was about the aspect that prisoners are given the right to vote but what about victims—what about them in this debate and their consideration? It was an important point that I wished to make which is to do with clause 8 of this bill which is the unpublished roll. So prisoners under clause 8 are given the automatic right to go on the unpublished roll but those victims that they have harmed in some of these sentences don't have the automatic right to go on the unpublished roll. They have to indeed apply. Now that in my mind is a matter of fairness. That doesn't sit squarely with me that indeed that process is fair. Can I talk about one aspect in this bill that I actually do support. Those listeners will be thinking "Well that's fascinating. National's standing up here opposing this bill." but we do support one aspect of it which means that those prisoners after their term of imprisonment will be helped by corrections staff to fill out the necessary paperwork to re-enrol to get on the roll to be able to vote. Now we know that for some people in prison numeracy and literacy is an issue for them so I think it's fair and appropriate that corrections staff will be holding their hands—not literally—and helping fill out the form for these prisoners when they reintegrate back in society so they know that they will be eligible to vote. Otherwise—let's face it—that will be a challenge for some of these former prisoners to be able to re-enrol. We know that getting around the paperwork and the bureaucracy is an important part and that is one aspect of this bill that the National Party does support. Summing up my comments now we have some grave concerns about this bill. We feel that it's been a rushed process particularly through COVID-19. We've heard various contributions from our side of the Parliament this morning and this afternoon saying—SPEAKER: Order! The time has come for me to leave the Chair at the end of this extended sitting. Debate interrupted. The House adjourned at 1 p.m. (Wednesday)"