Today in the House Paul Quinn’s bill to remove all those in prison at an election from the electoral roll passed its first reading. This is a poorly drafted bill that will do nothing to make our communities safer. As I listened to the speeches from National members it was clearly all part of National trying to portray itself as being tough on crime.
But talking tough on crime is the easy bit. It is popular for sure. The hard work is not talking tough though, it is actually trying to do something to reduce crime and to stop re-offending. That is the kind of work that the Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Society (PARS) have been doing for 132 years, until now as the government has cut their national contract.
Lets be plain here. We must make it a priority to support victims and uphold their rights. But if we want communities to be safer then we also need to focus on rehabilitation and reintegration. Because while it might surprise Mr Quinn for most prisoners (particularly those who have been sentenced to less than three years) the purpose of going to prison is to be rehabilitated, albeit that New Zealand has not always done that well with rehabilitation.
Now I am not talking about Graeme Burton and his ilk. But for most prisoners they will re-enter society at some point. This is where PARS does its work. Ensuring there is housing, working with released prisoners to re-integrate, ensuring they dont re-offend, supporting families to stay together. It is not the nicest work. In one provincial city I visited recently PARS have worked with a convicted paedophile who has been released into the community. They make sure that he sticks to his release conditions, go shopping with him and generally keep the community as safe as possible.
As previously noted here, the government has ended PARS national contract. Groups around New Zealand are scrambling to keep going with short term contracts and reduced services. In Wellington, the local PARS group is closing its doors at the end of this week. They have had a drop-in centre that has been a lifeline for released prisoners and their families. That is now gone.
This decision by the government will make our communities less safe. We can not wish away those who have committed crimes. People like PARS do the hard work of trying to turn them around. National has turned their back on PARS and given priority to an irrelevant, rhetorical stance. It is shameful.
I see no reason at all why prisoners should be allowed to vote.
Commit a crime, go to jail, forfeit the right to vote.
Logical really.
It may be a bad bill, and clause 4 could be slightly more elegantly phrased, but it would achieve its purpose – which is more than can be said for many member’s bills. I’m not sure what more you can expect.
Disenfranchising citizens and making them feel like they do not count and we are not interested will definitely make them more responsible and better behaved :rolleyes:
Loota – if they are in prison they hardly deserve to be called citizens!!!
Being in prision means that you lose, for a period of time, many of the privileges of being a full member of society.
Losing the privilege of voting, as a result of your own actions, is as legitimate a part of this as being subject to intimate searches, not being allowed to choose what you eat or not being allowed to cr*p in private. In fact if I had to choose one of those freedoms to retain as an inmate voting every once in a blue moon wouldn’t be the top of my list!
I can’t see any reason for making a particular point over the temporary removal of this single privilege.
By virtue of being in prision inmates have shown they have exhibited behaviour that society considers unacceptable. That must pose questions over their moral judgement. For the period of their sentence they are undergoing a process of rehabilitation to ‘normalise’ their attitudes. Why should they be allowed to have a say in how society is organised until this process is complete?
I thought the punishment was incarceration!
It’s not like they are harming society if they vote (unless it’s for NACT 
) so why take away their right to vote? No logic, it doesn’t benefit anyone. 
Nice to see ‘decent, hardworking middle-class’ New Zealanders like George displaying their bigotry by depriving prisoners the right to vote – now these are mainly low level offenders we are talking about here, not Graeme Burton and William Bell, who have already been deprived of the right to vote.
The trouble is depriving groups of the votes becomes addictive. Who next, George? Maori? Workers? People who dont own property? under 21’s? Women? Perhaps you should join the KKK.
George said: “For the period of their sentence they are undergoing a process of rehabilitation to ‘normalise’ their attitudes. Why should they be allowed to have a say in how society is organised until this process is complete?
So in your view, being subject to intimate searches, not being able to cr*p in private, etc. are all part of a “process of rehabilitation tp “normalise” their attitudes”.
Nah, on closer inspection I dont think that’s the way it was set up, somehow.
But I do see your point that priviledges are appropriately lost in prison. Just don’t mistake that for any kind of rehabilitative process.
Agree Spud. The loss of freedom is huge. To lose your humanity and be further humiliated is not going to help as Loota says.
I do worry about PDm and his mate George’s attitude. Glad I am not their neighbour as they sound vindictive.
“they hardly deserve to be called citizens” – uh? unless they are eligible to be stripped of their citizenship (which must be very rare) of course they remain citizens. We all have inalienable rights – even non-citizens actually. For example they can’t be treated inhumanely while in jail just because they have broken the law.
The effect of this law change would be minor – I can’t imagine voting is top of most prisoners’ agenda – but it would show NZ going in the opposite direction to most other OECD countries. Which is what you’d expect with a Nat govt I suppose.
has anyone done a study/analysis of the percentage of prisoners who do exercise their right to vote?
I agree with dpm and George; when people choose to break the law then they should forfeit the right to decide who makes that law.
Tracey valid question. I would imagine the percentage is very low given that only 76% of New Zealanders actually voted in 2008 with the non voting 24% likely to predominately (at a guess) come from lower socio-economic groups including those involved in criminal activities and/or incarcerated.
I haven’t been able to find any concrete statistics on either MSD (social reports) or the Electoral Commission though….
I also wonder who legislation the current ban on those prisoners sentenced to more than three years in jail?
In terms of PARS – again, taking a wild guess I would very much doubt that their ability to vote has much impact on their rehabilitation…if it does, then why is there the current 50% re-offending rate?
Hi Ianmac
More middle class bigotry from Rebecca.
This place is rank with it.
Personally I think they should just come clean and admit that they just do not want poor people and Maori to have the vote.
Millsy You are bordering on offensive. Make your comments without personal attacks. Clare
In the efforts to clear up my own ignorance, could someone answer these questions for me.
1. Can prisoners vote now? I had never actually thought about it before – perhaps thinking that while in jail you have lost all other freedoms so that would include voting – not that i have ever had cause to wonder about it until now.
2. Can someone explain why the Nats want this bill through? What does taking a vote away actually get them (as the nats?) – who is really behind this – surely there is another agenda here – seems a bit petty – on the surface – and when I think of all the big issues that need working on and some tighter legislation around (oh – you know – actual crime, ripping off the tax system, child abuse, early intervention programmes etc etc )this bill seems a little on the fluffy side – am I missing something here?
Sorry for my rather ignorant questions – but information is power and I seem to be lacking in info here.
mmm – perhaps the nats are concerned that all the prisoners (must be thousands of them) will rise up in the next election to vote against the 3 stikes legislation – and they are prempting this??? (long shot -but stranger things have happened with this Nat lot)
This 2004 report on the issue of prisoners voting is quite informative and puts the constitutional questions into context.
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/CIB/2003-04/04cib12.pdf
Why should someone who is in for a 3 month prison term for some petty offence be denied their democractic and political voice at the ballot box because their sentence happens to cross the election date. The harm to the democratic principles of our society in doing so is great. Best thing to do would be for a future Govt to trump up charges on members of opposition parties and whooops…you can’t vote, sorry mate.
Now, someone who is in prison for a serious crime, say serving a sentence of 5 years or longer…perhaps an argument could be made to disenfranchise that person of their democratic right to vote. Dunno.
National haven’t thought this thing through though, that much is pretty clear to me now.
@millsy
Stop adding 1 and 1, and getting 5. A person who finds himself incarcerated has usually violated the rights of others. He should expect to lose many of the freedoms he had outside of prison, including the right to vote.
But the worst crooks can’t vote as it stands
The other crims losing their right to vote is plain creepy and achieves nothing. 
@ Richard McGrath – and people on suspended sentences? Home detention? Parole? Periodic detention? People who are in prison for a couple of months for relatively minor crime?
How about people who have outstanding fines dating back for years?
Maybe you could explain to me why you think excluding more and more people from a fundamental activity of our democracy helps the democracy that all of us live in?