Not many groups in society are as vulnerable to the power of the state as prisoners. Photo / File
Not many groups in society are as vulnerable to the power of the state as prisoners. Photo / File
The system is broke, and allowing prisoners to vote won't fix it. But it will be an ever-so-slightly better system.
The decision of the Waitangi Tribunal last week to find that the Electoral Act amendments made in 2010 denying sentenced prisoners the right to vote, breached the Treaty of Waitangiwas significant because all of a sudden it drew a line between what is evidence and what is rhetoric. Interesting that the Crown having to argue in favour of the legislation could offer no evidence in favour of removing the vote and struggled to justify the 2010 change at all.
The basis of the Tribunal's finding was that with such a rule the impact is dramatically racially skewed against Māori. In 2010 the impact on Māori was that about twice as many Māori were likely to lose their vote as opposed to Pākehā in the same situation. Now it is that Māori are 11.4 times more likely to lose their vote than Pākehā in the same situation.
There are a number of arguments in favour of allowing inmates to vote. One is that learning about the civic responsibility in voting in preparation for an election and then taking part enhances the ownership a released prisoner takes in their community.
This means there is a lesser chance of recidivism, even if only slightly less. Another is that our laws are not supposed to impact more heavily on people of one ethnicity over another and this law obviously does, as the incarceration rates on ethnic lines are stark in their over-representation.
Another argument is that there are not many groups in society as vulnerable to the power of the state as prisoners. If they are forced to live in situations so beyond their own control, surely that is a greater reason to allow them to vote on who is dealing out that control.Citizens in the leafy suburbs who can vote with impunity have the resources to have less and less contact with the state.
A prisoner locked in a cell 23 hours a day has a much greater interest in who will be the next government.
The old mantra from the American War of Independence comes to mind, "No taxation without representation". The injustice of incarceration without representation would be equally relevant but for New Zealanders' infatuation with punishment that sees more and more people locked up in times of less and less crime.
Having read the amendments and the legislation, I note there is nothing banning prisoners on remand from voting, as they are not "serving a sentence". It would be interesting to know how much effort is made by Corrections to facilitate remand prisoners voting. Maybe we could run a couple of "meet the candidate" meetings at the local choky and gauge the interest?
I remember at the time this discussion was going on among National MPs that the arguments were along the lines of " ... they never bother to vote and those who do don't vote for us". It was seen as playing to a core voter base.
It also came at a time when the member's bill ballot was swamped with Green Party and Labour Party member's bills and National was sick of having to waste time on members days — debating stuff they were always going to oppose.
To now claim this matter is one of principle because nobody finds any evidence to support it is pretty rich.
•Chester Borrows served as Whanganui MP for 12 years and as a minister in the National Government. He is chairman of the Justice Reform Advisory Group, a lawyer and a former policeman.
