Kmart shoppers rank above basic human right
Justice Minister Andrew Little says a few changes to the Electoral Act, by far New Zealand’s most important law, are so urgent they must be passed as soon as possible. The Government has accelerated the process, side-stepping the justice select committee’s slowmoving review of the last election, to get these urgent amendments passed.
And what are these urgent, very important, changes? He wants to let people vote and enrol to vote at supermarkets or malls on election day.
Supermarkets and malls – perhaps two of the most miserable, downright horrible places in this fair land. But I am not Andrew Little. He has put the power of the Government behind these consumer citadels, preparing urgent legislation to move voting booths inside them.
He says our ability to vote there, while we peruse packs of crisps and get lost in Kmart, is very important. Far more important, it seems, than the profoundly unjust parts of this law which the highest court in the land has red-flagged as being very, very bad. Parts of the Electoral Act – which is literally the only barrier between New Zealand being a democracy or rogue South Pacific dictatorship – have been highlighted as detrimental to our human rights.
That’s right, the Supreme Court essentially said the Electoral Act is as dodgy as hell. Our courts can’t overrule Parliament’s laws, so instead the Supreme Court strongly encouraged the politicians to change their bad law. In particular, it upheld a High Court ruling that prisoners’ human rights mean they should be allowed to vote. By removing prisoners’ voting rights, the courts say the Electoral Act is in breach of the Bill of Rights.
Since 2010, an amendment to the Electoral Act has meant prisoners cannot vote. Before, prisoners were banned from voting only if their sentence was more than three years. But thanks to former National MP Paul Quinn, who himself barely served three years in Parliament, no prisoners can vote.
On top of that, the Waitangi Tribunal is considering whether the voting ban breaches Te
Tiriti. Its report is due out soon, after it heard arguments that the law unfairly targeted Ma¯ ori.
Ma¯ ori are more likely to be sent to jail for committing the same crime as non-Ma¯ ori. Be it violence, white collar or any crime at all, Stats NZ shows Ma¯ ori are more likely to be imprisoned for it. Half of the prison population, but only 20 per cent of the general population, is Ma¯ ori.
Even before the law was passed, our politicians were warned that this voter ban means elections are now operating against the Bill of Rights. The attorney-general at the time warned the law ‘‘cannot be justified’’. It passed by a slim majority.
And even though pretty much everyone knows it’s a bad law, and they’ve all been told it’s superdodgy, the Government is not fixing it. Little admits he personally knows the law is wrong, but he told RNZ ‘‘it’s not that much of a priority’’.
The priority for him is getting voting booths outside Kmart, not human rights.
In fact, of the five parties in Parliament, only one thinks removing basic human rights against the courts’ advice is bad. Golriz Ghahraman, the Green Party justice spokeswoman, put forward a bill on the 125th anniversary of what was meant to mark universal suffrage in New Zealand. Her private member’s bill will restore voting rights for prisoners.
Although I’m sure the comments on this article will show little or no support for prisoners voting, Ghahraman tells me she thinks everyone should be worried by Parliament’s cavalier approach to removing that human right.
‘‘All of the populist tropes are bad people shouldn’t be able to vote . . . but of course, when you flesh that out, we have human rights not because we are good but because we are human,’’ she says.
‘‘If we are disenfranchising people, where do we stop? Should we be free from torture, and have access to healthcare? Is the purpose of prisons not to make our communities safer?
‘‘If prisoners are remaining connected with the community, being treated with dignity and having their human rights upheld, then they can reintegrate better into the community,’’ she says.
Her position makes sense. It’s principled, it’s fair and it will almost certainly gain Ghahraman and the Greens no votes at the next election.
But at least, if her bill passes despite the Government’s insouciant approach to human rights, then she will have achieved something meaningful and worthwhile.
Meanwhile, the justice minister is focused on how to get voting booths at all good bookstores. He is a lover of convenience, a multiplex believer, a champion of Kmart. Those are his priorities.
They are, of course, far more important than fundamental human rights.
The attorneygeneral at the time warned the law ‘‘cannot be justified’’.