Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I firstly want to clarify the position of which the Minister of Justice challenged the National Party the issue of principle in Part 2 of this bill around remand prisoners. National's position is very very simple and clear and it's both principled and practical. And that is that a person should not lose their right to vote while they are a remand prisoner and not convicted by a court of law. The argument that the Minister the Hon Andrew Little has made in the chair that somehow there's some inconsistency—actually that is an absolute principled position. We are a party that believes a person is innocent until proven guilty and that it is entirely appropriate to treat a remand prisoner who a court of law has not found guilty differently to the prisoner who has been convicted by a court of law. As we heard in evidence to the Justice Committee the average number of convictions for a person sentenced to prison in New Zealand is 24 convictions.The member Greg O'Connor has talked about fantasy. I have felt that there has been some degree of fantasy from members opposite who pretend that people are going to lose their vote because they make a small mistake and end up in prison. The reality and the law in New Zealand is that you do not go to prison unless you have committed both a serious offence—and it is actually not the first sort of punishment. Our criminal justice laws make plain that the judges should view prison as a last resort and not a first resort for prisoners.The second rebuttal we've had from the Minister is Don't worry about the fact that we are passing a law that enables prisoners to stand for Parliament. We shouldn't worry about that because it's just academic." Well we should remind ourselves that a pretty serious criminal Arthur Taylor took issues of prisoner voting all the way through the system all the way to the Supreme Court. The idea that we as legislators should not be considering robust law and we shouldn't actually be passing laws that have got holes in them—and if it is legally possible for a prisoner to stand for Parliament I actually think we make a mockery of this institution and we make a mockery of our democracy and that actually the right to vote is far more than just filling out a form.A democracy is far more comprehensive than that. It's about meeting candidates. It's about watching leaders' debates. It's about imparting information on modern tools like social media and Facebook. It's about receiving pamphlets and brochures and all those things that go with election cycles. It is just impractical for members of the Government to argue that somehow people serving a sentence in prison are practically able to fully participate in democracy. Just in the same way as we limit the rights of those that are serving sentences we limit their rights to freedom. They don't get freedom of movement. They don't get freedom of association. They don't get freedom of imparting information. It is perfectly legitimate and right that the British Parliament and so many other parliaments around the world say that if you've committed a serious enough crime to end up in prison for that period that you are in prison your rights to vote are suspended. When you're done and you've finished your sentence we are as a political party of the view that you've done your time and at that point it is absolutely proper that you are re-enrolled and able to fully participate in society.The last thing I'd want to draw to the attention of the committee on this part is somehow the sort of academic ivory tower view that the Government seems to have that by prisoners having a right to vote it will support their rehabilitation. Now I have to say I wish members opposite and the Minister had listened to a number of the submissions from real people—people who had spent time in prison who had committed offending. They literally laughed as one of my colleagues just did and just said "That is ridiculous. The last thing that's on the mind of a serving prisoner is that somehow the right to vote is an important part of their rehabilitation." Lots of things are. We were disappointed the Government would not for instance make rehabilitation plans for prisoners compulsory. If we're really serious about rehabilitation we'd do something quite different. Let's not be cute. This is simply a bill being rushed through under urgency with a shortened select committee process so that Labour thinks they can bag a few more votes on 19 September and save their bacon on election day. That's wrong and that's why we oppose this part."