Nats won’t support voting from jail

The National Party will oppose any moves in Parliament to grant voting rights to prisoners.

This is despite a scathing Waitangi Tribunal report that said a 2010 ban on prisoners voting had disproportionately hurt Ma¯ori and breached the Crown’s Treaty of Waitangi obligations.

A bill was passed in 2010 that banned all prisoners from enrolling to vote, whereas previously prisoners serving sentences of less than three years were allowed to enrol.

It passed under the previous National-led Government with the support Act.

Justice Minister Andrew Little said the tribunal’s report, as well as a Supreme Court decision that said the 2010 law breached the Bill of Rights Act, made a compelling case and the issue would be considered by Cabinet in the coming weeks.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern believes only those serving a sentence less than three years should have the vote.

She said a threshold of a three-year jail sentence meant a prisoner should be able to vote on the Government that would be in power when they were released.

“We accept that prison does strip away a person’s freedoms for a period

Ultimately this isn’t a legal question. It’s one of values. Simon Bridges, National Party leader

of time. I don’t think anyone would deny that is one of the roles as part of paying that price to society. The balance is about right at three years.”

A law change may hinge on New Zealand First’s position, as Labour voted against the 2010 bill and the Green Party supports prisoner voting.

National Party leader Simon Bridges said his party would oppose any law change.

“Ultimately this isn’t a legal question. It’s one of values. Parliament is supreme and gets to work out its values in law,” Bridges said.

“We will oppose change. National believes that if the crime is serious enough for someone to go to jail and lose their liberty, they should also, while in jail, lose the right to vote.”

The tribunal report found the 2010 law breached the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty on multiple fronts:

● Crown advice failed to look into how the ban would affect Ma¯ori.

● The disproportionate effect of the law on Ma¯ori breached Crown duty to protect their interests.

● The high likelihood that Ma¯ori released from prison would not reenrol to vote shows a lack of duty to protect Ma¯ori interests.

In 2010, Ma¯ ori were 2.1 times more likely to have been removed from the electoral roll than non-Ma¯ori. In 2018, they were 11.4 times more likely.

The tribunal questioned the point of the 2010 law in the first place, noting this wasn’t even addressed in the parliamentary debates at the time.

Bridges said National understood the importance of prisoner rehabilitation and reintegration, but that could be done without granting prisoners the right to vote.

NZ First leader Winston Peters, who is also Deputy Prime Minister, said he had a personal view on the issue, but did not want to divulge that until after Cabinet and the party caucus had had time to consider it.

Little said it was unfair to assume NZ First would be against granting prisoners the right to vote, noting the party was not in Parliament in 2010 when the bill passed.