9. Question No. 9—JusticeHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of JusticeQuestion No. 9—Justice9. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of Justice: Is his Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act 2020 as assented on Monday good law?Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): The Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill was good law and had been subject to extensive scrutiny by Cabinet officials the Justice Committee and the public. The substantive change in the bill as passed by this House is clear: prisoners sentenced to three or more years of imprisonment remain disqualified from voting. It remains illegal for those prisoners to cast a vote. However last week the National Party voted on three aspects of the bill. First they voted to not extend voting rights to all prisoners. Secondly—[Interruption] SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!Hon ANDREW LITTLE: First they voted to not extend voting rights to all prisoners. Secondly they voted for prison managers being required to inform all prisoners regardless of length of sentence that they are qualified to be registered as an elector of an electoral district—[Interruption]SPEAKER: All right. Order! Order! The balance of the answer to this question will be heard in silence other than from the Minister.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Second they voted for prison managers to be required to inform all prisoners that they are qualified to be registered as an elector of an electoral district regardless of their length of sentence and that those prisoners are required to apply to the Electoral Commission for registration to vote. Thirdly they voted to abolish the power of the Electoral Commission to remove from the electoral roll the names of people who are disqualified from voting. The amendments that the National Party voted for are clearly inconsistent with each other and with the policy consistency of all elements of the bill. It also puts the Electoral Commission prison managers and sentenced prisoners in unworkable situations. And today I have introduced an amendment bill that will ensure that the new law functions as Cabinet intended it to do.Hon Dr Nick Smith: What was wrong with National voting for a Green Party Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that removed eight clauses from his bill when we opposed his bill or is it now the Government's view that it is the Opposition's job to clean up the mess of warring coalition partners?Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If you were to rule that there is ministerial responsibility for the first part of that question on which the second part hangs that would certainly open up quite a wide range of questioning possibilities that the Government would welcome.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Speaking to the point of order with respect Mr Speaker we just listened to a considerable diatribe from the Minister of Justice trying to explain how he managed to get this bill into such a dreadful state in a way that was entirely designed to make it the fault of the Opposition. The reality is that he did not talk to his coalition partners and could not control his bill in the House.Hon James Shaw: Speaking to the point of order I think the question that Minister Hipkins raises is whether the Minister has responsibility for the Opposition's voting when clearly the Opposition isn't responsible for their own voting.SPEAKER: I think all of us know what the answer to this is. The Minister has no responsibility.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary?SPEAKER: No Nick Smith first.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why?SPEAKER: Because he's only had one crack you know? You generally get two attempts to get a question right.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Been here continuously longer too mate!SPEAKER: No. The member will resume his seat. [Interruption] The member will resume his seat. The member will stand withdraw and apologise.Hon Dr Nick Smith: I withdraw and apologise.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister of Justice whether he is saying that as things now stand as a result of the voting from the members of the House the other night—he knows who they are—that the person charged with the Christchurch massacre is now entitled to be approached by the prison officers and put on the electoral roll of New Zealand?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As a consequence of the voting the other night in Parliament and the support given by the National Party to some parts of a Supplementary Order Paper—Darroch Ball: The National Party voted for that did they?SPEAKER: Order! Who was that? The member will leave the Chamber.Darroch Ball withdrew from the Chamber. SPEAKER: I was very very clear about the answers being heard in silence.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As a result of the voting the other night in Parliament and the National Party's support for an obligation on prison officers to advise prisoners sentenced to any length of sentence that they are required to be on the roll it is correct that—Hon Gerry Brownlee: The Government SOP.SPEAKER: Who was that one? Who interjected then?Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh I did. Sorry. My apologies. I withdraw and apologise.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As a consequence of the voting last week in Parliament and the National Party's support of an amendment to my bill that required prison officers to tell prisoners of any length of sentence that they are required to enrol and to provide that information to the Electoral Commission it is correct that on sentencing whenever that happens the person who has admitted guilt for the Christchurch massacre will under the law as it stands be required to be advised that he is entitled to enrol on the New Zealand electoral register.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why did at third reading the Minister commend his bill to the House and vote for it under urgency when it was clear it was flawed law?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The bill sought to overturn the insidious decision of the National Party in 2010—Hon Michael Woodhouse: Parliament's decision!SPEAKER: Order! Now who was that one?Hon Michael Woodhouse: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: I'm just wondering—[Interruption] No the member will resume his seat. I'm just contemplating. I have given some leniency to his colleague the shadow Leader of the House—much more leniency than I gave to the junior member from New Zealand First. I'm just contemplating what good reason there is for the rule to continue to be unevenly applied to the detriment of one side of the House and not the other. If the member by way of point of order gives me a good reason I will contemplate it.Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Two things—firstly when you ruled silence in the answering of the question it was interpreted by many including me on this side of the House that that related to the answer to the primary question which was extended. Secondly if it is for the entire question the quid pro quo surely is that the Minister in responding cannot be as provocative as he has been in every supplementary answer he has given and expect that—SPEAKER: OK. I've heard enough. I only need to deal with the first part. The member saw me toss another member out for interjecting on a supplementary answer. [Interruption] Just because it's a member for New Zealand First doesn't mean that the rules change for everyone else.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I'm not sure I finished answering the previous question. I'm more than happy to complete the answer.Hon Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We are asking for fairness. We accepted your ruling. We are asking for fairness. We accepted it when the shadow Leader of the House was not called out because he is the shadow Leader of the House but it cannot be that New Zealand First gets penalised when every other backbencher therefore or frontbencher of the National Party can break your rules.SPEAKER: I'll sort of ignore the fact that that is a reflection on me and I will say that it has always been my practice to be slightly harder on the parties on my right than the parties on my left. I know that members do not always see it that way and I know that there has been every now and again some public criticism as to that—loudly on some occasions from my left in public and privately quite loudly in my room from people on my right. I do however tend to try and run the Parliament that I used to referee children's sport and that is I was a little bit harder on the home team than I was on the opponent. That is the way I will run it. But I will give fair warning: if there is any more interjection from my left those members will go.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Thank you for making that clear. Can I just say sir though we are a little bit perplexed that we're being asked to listen to the answer to this question in silence when the Minister of Justice is doing his very best to blame a difficult or a messy situation on the National Opposition. That has been the theme of his answers so far. What it tends to avoid though is the fact that knowing that there was a problem with the bill he still had his party vote for it.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I support the law and supported the third reading because the law responded to the overwhelming findings critical findings of the High Court the Court of Appeal the Supreme Court and the Waitangi Tribunal that the 2010 law that disqualified prisoners—Hon Clare Curran: That's right.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: —serving sentences of less than three years—SPEAKER: All right. Who was that? Who interjected then? The Hon Clare Curran will leave the House. Hon Clare Curran withdrew from the Chamber. SPEAKER: And the member has answered the question.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why did the Government block National's motion to refer the bill back to the Justice Committee after the committee stage when it was obvious to everybody in the House that the bill was flawed?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: It was very clear from the pattern of voting by the National Party on the night that its voting was the product of a crazed mind. So there was no wisdom in acceding to the request of members opposite to refer the matter to the select committee.SPEAKER: Order! Now the Minister will withdraw and apologise for that.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have made no reflection on any individual. I referred to a voting record that has to be explained somehow or another.SPEAKER: And the member will now withdraw and apologise again.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I withdraw and apologise.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with the statement by Andrew Little MP in 2015—and I quote—Electoral law is too important to be rushed under urgency."?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I agree with the proposition that electoral law should be given proper scrutiny. Ideally it should not be the subject of member's bill and I don't think New Zealanders should be easily shorn of their right to vote in the way that that member did with his Canterbury Regional Council legislation some years ago.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can the Minister confirm that this is the fifth electoral amendment bill to which he has passed under urgency and that is more than any other justice Minister in the history of New Zealand?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I can say that electoral law like most justice legislation in this Parliament has gone before a select committee that is equally divided that is usually not capable of producing a majority decision. But in any event there are problems in our electoral law sometimes identified by the Electoral Commission and other independent bodies that it is proper for this Parliament to rectify and to correct. In the face of overwhelming findings by our High Court our Court of Appeal our Supreme Court and our Waitangi Tribunal to say a law is manifestly unjust it is incumbent on myself as justice Minister to bring that to the attention of Cabinet and the Government and ultimately to Parliament which is what has happened and that's where we've got the result we have now on this legislation.Michael Wood: Does he agree with former Attorney-General the Hon Chris Finlayson who said that the law that he has amended "appears to be inconsistent with section 12 of the Bill of Rights Act and that it cannot be justified under section 5 of [the] Act." and also that the objective of that bill was "not rationally linked with [a] blanket ban on prisoner voting."?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes. I agree with those comments made by the then Attorney-General as indeed to the High Court the Court of Appeal the Supreme Court and the Waitangi Tribunal. I just say if there's any question of irrationality something was clearly on display last Wednesday night in this House."