Clendon David: Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Clendon David: Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10344] 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
David Garrett 
: It will offend them. It will offend the communists all right. 
DAVID CLENDON 
: Thank you Mr Garrett. The Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill has one single and very simple purpose. 
Grant Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There are various Speakers’ rulings about people moving to other seats to facilitate interjection. I know that in this House we have a fairly flexible regime in that regard but we have seen several examples of it from Mr Garrett both in the previous speech and even before Mr Clendon was able to get a word out. 
Todd McClay 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I do not need any assistance thank you. I have cautioned members. This is a members’ day and one would hope we have a slightly better standard of debate in that regard than a partisan-party operation. Mr Quinn has a right of reply; he might like to contain his interjections. Interjections are part of this House if they are rare and reasonable and we have gone beyond rare and reasonable. 
DAVID CLENDON 
: As I was saying this bill has a single and quite simple purpose which is to deny the vote to anyone who is currently serving a prison sentence. That is quite a significant shift to the current arrangements yet there is very little in this bill in the way of argument or justification for that proposed change. It leaves us to speculate on the underlying purpose. I must agree with some of the speakers who have already noted that it seems to be a response to the very simplistic populist call for longer sentences and tougher punishment for criminals. Allegedly that will solve our problems but of course we know they will not. 
Putting people in jail is punishment for a crime. There is nothing to be gained from punishing them further by stopping them from voting. Further marginalising prisoners from our society—and denying people the vote will contribute to that extra marginalisation—will contribute to the growing underclass that this Government pretends it is concerned about. Very well-founded and credible research from the US shows that depriving prisoners of the vote is not good for their rehabilitation and reintegration into society. It further alienates people from the norms of mainstream society. How far does this Government plan to go? We hope we do not get to a situation similar to that in the United States where ex-prisoners are denied the right to vote. Currently some 5 million Americans—something like 14 percent of or one in seven African-American males—are disenfranchised. Let us hope this Government’s somewhat irrational approach to justice issues does not take us too far down that road. 
The bill’s explanatory note acknowledges that it ignores the advice of the 1986 Royal Commission on the Electoral System which was supported by advice from the Solicitor-General in 1992. However it does not provide an argument for what this bill will achieve. The 1986 commission noted that the disqualification of prisoners was not uncommon internationally and that “Its origins lie in the view that voting is a privilege rather than a right to be extended only to people of substance and standing on the community.” The Greens reject absolutely the notion of voting as a privilege to be doled out by who knows who. We see voting as an absolute right in regards to the franchise. It is a right of every citizen with a very few exceptions to vote. The State’s right to coerce citizens—and imprisoning citizens is perhaps the most obvious and extreme example of that coercion—depends on its legitimacy as an elected body with power and authority supported by an electoral mandate. The right to vote ought only to be withdrawn in the most exceptional circumstances and a prison sentence of less than 3 years falls far short of any reasonable test. 
The Attorney-General’s assessment tabled in the House on 17 March concluded that “the blanket disenfranchisement of prisoners appears to be inconsistent with s 12 of the Bill of Rights Act and that it cannot be justified under s 5 of that Act.” It is true that the first draft of any bill can contain an error a drafting error or some reason why the Attorney-General might pick up a provision in breach of that Act. The core purpose—the core principle—of this bill is clearly in breach of the Bill of Rights. That in itself should be sufficient to stop the bill in its tracks. 
Deterrence is often rolled out as a rationale for populist and ineffective punitive measures. This indeed is intended as a justification. Very few people think rationally before committing a crime. Very few people will stop at the point where they are about to commit a crime for fear they will lose their right to vote. It is simply not a reasonable expectation. The prison system is imperfect and not always just. We know that people are incarcerated while others committing similar crimes are allowed to serve a sentence in some other way or escape conviction all together. That point has been made. 
In summary it is our belief that the proposal in this bill is not helpful. It will take us nowhere in terms of reducing offending or indeed recidivism in this country. It will not reduce our prison population. It will not make us a more peaceful secure or cohesive society. For those reasons the Greens will continue to oppose the passage of this bill.