Quinn Paul: Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Quinn Paul: Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15193] 
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.