Quinn Paul: Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Quinn Paul: Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14679] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. When this bill was reported back to the House from the Law and Order Committee there was some publicity about it; I advise the House and Mr Assistant Speaker Barker that at the appropriate time in the Committee stage I will be introducing a Supplementary Order Paper. I acknowledge the fulsome apology that I received from the Parliamentary Counsel Office whose staff acknowledged that the oversight was in fact theirs. I think that that is honourable and I thank them for acknowledging their position. 
I also thank the Law and Order Committee for taking its time and giving this bill its due consideration. When the bill was reported back I noted that the select committee report contained a couple of minority views. I must admit that I was somewhat surprised at the inclusion of the minority views because when I made my oral submission to the select committee not one question did I get from members of the Opposition—that is from Labour members and the Greens. In fact at the end of my verbal presentation there was unanimity in support for this particular bill. So I am surprised. 
When I sat down and examined the minority views it is fair to say that I saw that they focused on three particular areas. One area is criticism of the bill in respect of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The second area is criticism in terms of United Nations edicts and issues about international law and of course there were also various submissions from the boffins who hide away in ivory towers paid for by the Government and from the Mandarin chardonnay socialists who masquerade as independent advisers. 
I do not take much notice of UN edicts and I am more concerned about New Zealand law than I am about international law. That said I note that in terms of the two countries that we consider to be the guardians of democracy—namely the United States and the United Kingdom—both of those countries in fact have laws that reflect my bill. So if those countries can have that then it really must stand in good stead that we have a similar arrangement. 
Let us turn to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. There was much ado about the Attorney-General’s report and of course section 12 of the Act guarantees that everyone is entitled to a vote. But there is a caveat in the bill in respect of section 5. Section 5 notwithstanding what is stated in a provision in the Act enables the legislation to be overridden in respect of the reasonable limitation of that right if the test stands up. That is where I disagree with the Attorney-General’s report. 
But I will go back to the report of the Royal Commission on the Electoral System because that is where the current law has its genesis. The change was brought about by the royal commission on the premise that—and this is in my view I think it is fair to say—the commission took the position that people get sent to prison for misdemeanours. This is where we differ. 
The commission then went on to say that “punishment for a serious crime against the community may properly involve a further forfeiture of some rights such as the right to vote.” and having made that statement it then pulled a figure out of the air and made a term of 3 years the bar or test. If the members of the Opposition would like to go and read the royal commission report which I have studied assiduously they will find that the basis for the 3-year term that it mirrors the period of living overseas continuously after which people lose their right to vote. I find no connection between people losing their vote having lived overseas continuously for 3 years and prisoners losing their vote having served more than 3 years in prison particularly when we think about why supposedly people overseas should lose their vote. The reason it is claimed is that such people are not informed about the politics of this country. Well I say that it is time that we dragged ourselves into the 21st century because people read web pages every day. They read newspapers and they keep themselves fully informed so they should be allowed to vote. The point I am making— 
Chris Hipkins 
: Isn’t there a scaffold you should be knitting under? 
PAUL QUINN 
: —I will get to Mr Hipkins in a minute; he should hold on—is that the 3-year term was a line in the sand and from my point of view that line in the sand should be measured from the day a person goes to prison. This side of the House will promulgate that argument. 
Let me take a step back and remind members of the House that the cornerstone of our justice system is the fact that we are judged by our peers—that is the cornerstone of our justice system. Let me tell members that I do not see boffins in ivory towers as my peers. I do not see Mandarin socialists as my peers. I see the ordinary people on the street as my peers and I tell Mr Hipkins that I have spoken to 50 people at an assembly of Grey Power and all those people supported this bill. 
I conclude by saying that the people support this bill and that is why I am proud to stand and lead the second reading debate. Thank you.