My good friend Andrew Geddis has delivered a devastating critique of the thoroughly misguided private members bill in the name of Paul Quinn to deny all prisoners a vote (as opposed to the current situation where those sentenced to three years or less can still vote). I have blogged about this before, and the bill was bad enough before it went to the Law and Order Select Committee. Now, amazingly the Bill has emerged from the Committee even worse than when it went in. I should note at the outset that Labour and the Greens are opposing the Bill, and have a minority report to that end.
Andrew is a level headed guy (and in the interests of fairness I should note he has expressed strong opposition to the earthquake legislation) who is not prone to hyperbole. So this paragraph should grab the attention
This proposal is downright wrong in its intent, outright stupid in its design and (if finally enacted) would be such an indelible stain on the parliamentary lawmaking process as to call into question that institution’s legitimacy to act as supreme lawmaker for our society.
As Andrew notes the Bill is against the advice of the Attorney General, and goes against decisions of the UN Human Rights Committee and courts in Canada, South Africa and Australia. It is a silly, hopeless piece of law that will do nothing to make New Zealand safer, and has the potential to make reintegration and rehabilitation more difficult.
But, amazingly, the National and ACT members of the Select Committee have combined to make the law worse. Andrew points out in his article that they are proposing to repeal the current legislative provisions regarding disqualification from voting and replace it with the following wording
“a person who is detained in a prison pursuant to a sentence of imprisonment imposed after the commencement of the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced 15 Prisoners) Amendment Act 2010:”
The effect of the repeal and a new clause only dealing with those imprisoned after the new law comes into force would seem to be that someone who is currently serving a term in prison of longer than three years (say Graeme Burton) could register to vote. I am sure National will now change this, but it really does typify what is a ridiculous bill.
There must be some in the National caucus who oppose this nonsense. Perhaps they should allow themselves a conscience vote and join Labour and the Greens in voting down this silliness?
Maybe you should hone in on the Attorney-General, who likes to portray himself as a straight bat (don’t laugh) on legal issues – this is pretty indefensible, although it sounds like a cock-up, too.
The Earthquake legislation is pretty bad too but at least they did agree to inserting some restraints like the Parliamentary scrutiny for everything done under the Act. But hopefully not by the Select Committee that did the prisoner bill…
Seems to be the season for ridiculous legislation, glad Labour read the one victimising prisoners – only wish you’d read the one victimising democracy…
Bills like this are a strong argument for emasculating MPs and imposing a sovereign BORA on them.
I’ve long been in the view that Parliament needs some more robust checks and balances to it – in the form of supreme law, restoration of the upper chamber and if we ever become a republic, an elected head of state who has the power of veto. An entrenched Bill of Rights modelled on something like the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms would be a good start.
Sadly, politicians rarely run on a platform of reducing their own power.
Ironic.
You said it Gipper.
Prisoners committed a crime, and if that means a jail sentence then that does mean a loss of freedom. That should include the right to vote. I have no problem with Paul Quinn’s Bill and I would support it.
Do the crime – pay with time.
Monty
Do you believe that David Garrett should not have been allowed to vote, when he was chosen by ACT to be an MP?
Do you think that a party which chose somebody who shouldn’t have the vote (according to you) should be in government, making laws for the rest of us?
I think crooks should vote, furthermore I think that all the crims’ votes should be tallied into its own electorate: Crimville
Wouldn’t it be great to get updates on how the crook vote is adding up? 
Of course would anyone be brave enough to put themselves forward for the Crimville seat? 
Monty,
You agree that every criminal who has been disenfranchised prior to the enactment of his bill has the right to vote? Yet you don’t believe anyone has the right to vote once they’ve been convicted? Strange.
Quinn’s bill misses the point and revokes civiliter mortuus prior to commencement. What I think you mean is you support prisoner disenfranchisement.
Revocation of civil liberty is ancient and archaic, if the National government believed in it, they’d have abolished sentencing guidelines, removed subordinate penatly and withdraw the option of home detention.
There IS a point where the right to vote should reasonably be withheld, that should not exist though for sentences of under three years. Unless you want to rewrite the Bill of Rights as well and withdraw from New Zealand’s international commitments to human rights and democracy?
Mind you, might be easier now Jezza Brownlee was handed the keys to the executive wash-room.
Sammy, I don’t recollect that David Garrett was in jail. So how was he not to be allowed to vote then? Your premise is flawed, and false.
Morning Rich
@Richard.
Correct. He was not in jail, because of a judge’s discretion. Which ACT oppose.
Do you support judges being able to use their discretion?
As I understand it, the provision in this Act currently under discussion is to prevent criminals in jail from voting. Therefore the fact of whichever way David Garrett was treated has absolutly no relevance. And yes, I do support Judges having discretion. This is also not under discussion.
Good morning to you Spud.
I’m not talking like a pirate today.
David Garrett MP was on the committee that dealt with this Bill “currently under discussion”. So it’s very relevant!
You really should take the time to read the links in Grant’s post, Richard. Especially Andrew Geddis’. You’d have a lot less egg on your face.
As an afterthought…the idiots who end up in jail probably don’t have the intelligence to know how to vote anyway. So who really cares. Any candidate who wants the vote of criminals doesn’t deserve to be elected to anything.
No egg on my face Sam
Aw, I’d stand for Crimville
“Spud Says: Member of Parliament for Crimeville” – I don’t think I would volunteer to be on your campaign team though. Lol.
Garrett might have been in jail had he revealled t the Court he had a previous conviction, in fact he would have been aying for his own blood.
I don’t blame you Gipper, there’s bound to be someone out there willing to do it though
Garrett might have been in jail had he revealled t the Court he had a previous conviction, in fact he would have been aying for his own blood.
That is simply not true.
There is absolutely no chance that anyone in the position of Mr Garrett would ever get a prison sentence.
Interesting though Graeme, because those in law enforcement ought to be held to a stricter line not lesser because of their position, that he is a lawyer is a count against his actions, imo, not for them.
Interestingly the law Society is investigating. I see Mr Laws has swallowed the “it happened long ago” line…
Funny how the most recent lies we know about were
2005, when police first approached him about the passport fraud, he denied it
2005 in sentencing he failed to reveal tonga conviction
Whenever SST had Hides goulies by the short and curlies
These are recent displays of character or lack thereof, not historical…
Still Mr. Key says Hide showed good judgment, I assume he meansin letting Garrett go and trying to save himself
Great law! Voting is a freedom. If you are so far removed from the morals of society that you are in prison, not only is non-vote part of the punishment, it is much safer to not let prisoners have the power of casting a vote. Re Garrett ..he ain’t in prison and if he was IMO as outlined above..goodbye right to vote.
Graeme, what is different about Garrett? Dom Post lists six other people who obtained passports using the Day of the Jackal method, for two years or more.
let me try again, without elison:
Graeme, what is different about Garrett? Dom Post lists six other people who obtained passports using the Day of the Jackal method, and three of those were jailed for two years or more.
How are they different from Garrett? Was it because he was a lawyer at the time of the case?
Taking away the rights of citizens to participate in democratic activity because they are in prison (say because of court fines they cannot afford to pay) damages the values of democracy for all.
Not that I expect you to give a ****
In addition Ped, you bring up the idea of the “morals of society” but frankly, you’ve completely mixed up the idea of what is legal and what is moral.
They are not always the same thing. At all.
Again, I don’t really expect you to make this distinction.
“It happened a long time ago” has a big effect.
David Garrett committed his offence in 1984. In 1984 passport fraud was covered by the passports act 1980. I haven’t seen a charge sheet, but section 13 of that act appears to cover the offending David Garrett has engaged in (making a false representation to obtain a passport). The maximum penalty for that offending was, in 1984, a $500 fine or three months imprisonment.
In 1992, we adopted a new passport act, and a slightly different offence could have applied, with a maximum of 2 years. In 2002, we created a whole range of new offending, and raised the three months to five years, and the two years to 10.
No-one coming up for a first or second offence for a maximum penalty of three months is ever going to get prison. It’s pretty damn unlikely for offending with a two year max as well. With a lot of previous, maybe some prison, but not what Garrett had.
I suspect that all the people the dompost have listed as getting longish prison terms for passport related offending committed their offences when the maximum was 10 years, not 2 years (which may arguably have applied to Garrett), and certainly not three months.
Some of those people will have pleaded not guilty (cf. Garrett), or not been remorseful (cf. Garrett). And all of them will have been convicted much closer to the offending.
The sentencing act lists a number of purposes of sentencing. Very few of them will apply to someone who is charged in 2005 for offending that occurred 21 years earlier. There is no reason to rehabilitate someone who hasn’t offended in 21 years, no reason to deter them, no need to reintegrate them into society, no need to protect the community, etc.
Had David Garrett done what he did in 1984, in 2005, he’d have gotten prison – whether as a 26 year-old or a 46 year-old. But no-one caught for that 21 years later who hasn’t committed a single crime in the intervening years is going to get prison.
Now had the court known about Garrett’s assault in Tonga, he may not have gotten name suppression, or his push for a discharge without conviction may have been harder (perhaps a convict and discharge, but I suspect not). It was 21 years previously, back when the offending wasn’t considered by Parliament or the courts to be all that serious, a conviction let alone a sentence of imprisonment serves no purpose for David Garrett or anyone else in his shoes.
Given the offending, and section 10B of the Crimes Act (which imposes a 10-year limitation without A-G consent for minor crimes), and section 16(2) of the Passports Act 1980 (which imposes a 2-year limitation for all offences against that act) David Garrett was damned unlucky to be charged at all.
In the end a society is judged on how we treat the least among us…
Whether we like it or not criminals are members of our society, who is in charge of our government affects them – just as it affects the rest of us – so they should have a say…
It’s hard enough to rehabilatate these guys without further alienating them from society…
The right to vote should be available universally, anything less is a shame on all of us…
Agreed
Has anybody started a petition about this matter? I would like to know where I might find it.