AWA: Academic Writing at Auckland

PART ONE

Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill

The Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill abolished the right of an individual serving a prison term of less than three years to register on the electoral roll and therefore vote in national or local elections (Quinn, 2010). It amends section 80(1)(d)(iii) which states who, in prison, will be allowed to vote.

Before this bill, the 1993 Electoral Act deemed a person imprisoned with a sentence of life, three years or more, or on preventative detention was disqualified from this voting process, though not those with a sentence of three years or less (Quinn, 2010). National MP Paul Quinn now has introduced this member’s bill, which has returned New Zealand to the pre-1993 status, stripping all prisoners of the right to vote.

From a health promotion perspective, this is not a welcome change. Denying any person the right to vote is a breach of international human rights standards and New Zealand’s own Bill of Rights Act (The Human Rights Commission [HRC], 2010). It has been expressly recognised by many, including the Prime Minister, that this amendment will not in any way reduce initial or recidivist offending. What the legislation does do is isolate a large group of people from society. Health promotion encourages participation of those who are most at risk, as this encourages their control over determinants of health and makes them feel like a valued member of society (World Health Organisation, 1986). This marginalisation can create a feeling of hopelessness and lack of control for prisoners as they have no means through which to create change (Parkes, 2007). It further signals an imposed reduction of worth from vulnerable citizens who are in greatest need of society’s support. This encourages poor mental health and a belief that their health and well-being is not important for the rest of society (Martinez, 2005). Furthermore, this legislation is indirectly racially discriminatory (Orr, 2007). Māori are disproportionately represented in New Zealand prisons, and such legislation increases exclusion of Māori (National Health Committee, 2010). It undermines any effort at rehabilitation and inclusion back into society, and disempowers those in prison (Martinez, 2005).

Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill

The Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill repeals the Foreshore and Seabed legislation of 2004.  The bill removes crown ownership of the marine and seabed area, deeming it officially owned by nobody (Finlayson, 2010). The bill recognises the mana tuku iho and customary interest of tangata whenua. It gives them the opportunity to gain customary title to the marine area if Iwi can prove that a specific marine or coastal area has been in their undisturbed possession from 1840 to the present day (Finlayson, 2010). 

The Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, to be repealed by this bill, deemed that the foreshore was owned by the Crown, now amended to have no owner. The old legislation acknowledged some customary title and the holders of customary rights were able to utilise the area without resource consent and obtain commercial benefit from any such activity (Finlayson, 2010).

The Marine and Coastal Area Bill claims to be less discriminatory than the Foreshore and Seabed Act (Finlayson, 2010). The Bill appears, however, to be equally as discriminatory as its predecessor. Forcing Iwi to prove uninterrupted use of a particular area of land since 1840 is virtually impossible (Turei, 2011). While the Marine and Coastal Area Bill claims to have given up Crown ownership into a ‘common space’, there is essentially no change occurring. The crown continues to hold ownership rights and asserts control over the space, as they did under previous legislation (Turei, 2011).  This Bill is not favorable to a health promoting environment, which favours equity and application of Te Tiriti o Waitangi as a means of enhancing Māori health and reducing disparities. Durie (1998) discusses the importance of the treaty in guaranteeing that Māori would not be alienated from any land. This breach of the Treaty encourages a feeling of hopelessness among Māori in regards to being able to fully overcome wrongs of the past and social disparities of the present (Durie, 1998). It enforces the message that Māori indigenous rights are not as worthy as the needs of the dominant culture (Robson & Harris, 2007). This legislation is not socially just in its undermining of Māori values and in its creation of hoplessness for overcoming Colonial land confiscation (Durie, 1998).

Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill

The Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill aims to prohibit the display of tobacco products in a retail setting and prevent the use of brand names in a manner which advertises the product (Turia, 2010). It will more efficiently enforce tobacco control by implementing stricter penalties and providing smoke-free enforcement officers with stronger powers (Turia, 2010). In this vein, the bill strives to discourage the uptake of smoking tobacco and encourage the cessation of current smoking habits.

The Bill is repealing the 1990 Smoke-free Environments Act, which originally did not have such advertising restrictions (Turia, 2010). Tobacco control has evolved steadily over the decade since this Act was introduced. In 2004 the Act was amended to state that the display of tobacco at retail counters must be limited to 100 packages, unless the premises is a tobacconist shop (Turia, 2010).

Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in New Zealand, with approximately 5000 New Zealanders dying every year due to tobacco (Ministry of Health [MOH], 2010). By removing the display of tobacco in retail centres, an environment more conducive to discouraging smoking is created (WHO, 1986). This is a beneficial move from a health promotion perspective. Tobacco displays are the only remaining way in which companies may advertise their products in New Zealand. Thus much effort is put into the design of the products which are displayed in a manner that accentuates this design and minimises the view of health warnings (MOH, 2010). Research shows that retail displays of tobacco play a large role in normalising smoking for people (MOH, 2010). This is particularly relevant for young people who are more likely to be influenced to start smoking by such displays. Having cigarettes visible in stores selling everyday products such as food items encourages impulse buys by ex-smokers or those attempting to quit (MOH, 2010). Prohibiting the display of tobacco products would thus discourage smoking initiation and impulse buys and the normalisation of smoking. It creates an environment more conducive to not smoking and thus helps minimise the health damage by tobacco with which New Zealand is continually burdened (WHO, 1986).

PART TWO

Secretariat 

Law and Order Committee

Select Committee Office

Parliament Buildings

WELLINGTON 6011

14^th April 2011

Submission on the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill.

‘Speaking generally, punishment hardens and numbs. It produces concentration, it sharpens the consciousness of alienation, it strengthens the power of resistance.’

- Friedrich Nietzsche.

To the Law and Order Select Committee:

This submission is written in opposition of the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill.

I would like to appear before the committee to speak to my submission.

Thank you and kind regards,

Rosemary Williams.

4C/XX Anzac Avenue

Auckland Central 1010

[email address]

+642765343XX

INTRODUCTION1.0

1.1 This Bill is inherently flawed for a number of reasons. It blatantly ignores the New Zealand Bill of Rights, Te Tiriti O Waitangi and a number of human rights documents that New Zealand has ratified. The Bill has no benefits for crime reduction, for those in prison or wider society. This bill marginalises those in prison and in doing so, damages their health and chances at rehabilitation. Furthermore, it promotes values that go against the social good and democracy. It is most strongly recommended that the committee oppose this amendment bill.

A RIGHTS APPROACH 2.0

2.1 This bill is a clear breach of section 12 of New Zealand’s Bill of Rights Act 1990, which states that all New Zealand citizens over the age of 18 must be permitted to vote in elections (New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, 1990).

2.2 It is additionally contrary to Article 25 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which New Zealand has ratified (New Zealand Government, 2010). Article 25 discusses the right to vote of all, supported by Article 2 which states that these rights should be applied to all without distinction of any kind. Furthermore, Article 10 sets out that all persons denied of their liberty must be treated respectfully and have their human rights ensured (HRC, 2010).

2.3 New Zealand Parliament is internationally unique in that it has no constitution, and thus it is of particular importance that the government pays close attention to the Bill of Rights and International human rights law, of which New Zealand is a signatory (HRC, 2010). It must be a highly compelling and necessary reason that would cause any government to turn a blind eye to these documents. However, in regards to this Bill, this was not the case. There is no evidence to suggest that the Bill will reduce crime or recidivism, or support reintegration into society.

A PUNITIVE APPROACH 3.0

3.1 The stated objective of the bill is to disenfranchise the most serious offenders (New Zealand Government, 2010). Firstly, not all of those imprisoned are serious offenders. The Act, prior to this suggested change, already excluded from voting those who were serving a sentence of three years of more (New Zealand Government, 2010). Thus, the majority of those termed serious offenders are already covered by the existing Act. The change suggests that the past 17 years whereby prisoners serving a sentence of three years or less could vote were somehow detrimental to New Zealand. However, there is no evidence in support of this statement (HRC, 2010). A blanket ban on everyone in prison will not be conducive to making the desired change.

3.2 Furthermore, a government that creates legislation with the sole purpose of disenfranchising a group from society without due cause is not conducive to an equal and just society. The government’s rationale behind this bill is punitive and based on a desire to further discipline those who are already serving their sentence as judged by a court (HRC, 2010). The justice system should not be based on arbitrary punishment, which does not have the backing of any evidence to suggest it will reduce crime.

MARGINILASATION 4.0

4.1 Those in prison are already highly marginalised from society for a number of reasons. Imprisonment currently includes the side effect of poor health outcomes, with those imprisoned having a significantly higher risk for health problems than other groups (National Health Committee, 2010). One in four prisoners are found to have a psychiatric condition which consequently makes it difficult for them to function in everyday life (Lindbery & Huang, 2006). The majority of those imprisoned come from a low socioeconomic background, with more than half without qualifications. (MOJ & MOH, 1999). While it is not always possible to reintegrate all inmates into society, there are some, especially those serving a sentence of three years or less who will be returned to society. Taking the opportunity to vote is an additional burden which will make it more difficult for these people to be reintegrated.

4.2 Much research has found links between prisoner marginalisation and negative health status. Taking the right to vote enforces this notion that those in prison are not part of ‘normal’ society and do not have the right to participate in its development. If they do not feel worthy of living as part of mainstream society, their health will suffer in a number of ways (Parkes, 2003). The mental health will suffer as a result of being excluded, as the extremely high rates of depression among prisoners indicate (MOH & MOJ, 1999). Furthermore, this institutionalised discrimination fosters an internalised belief that a prisoner’s own health and life is unimportant. Ultimately it will consolidate the belief that those in prisons are undeserving of such rights like health. Prisoners will not strive to be healthy and take care of themselves if it is accepted that it is not important or valued by others (Parkes, 2007).

4.3 Conversely, allowing prisoners to vote will increase social ties and a commitment to improving their surroundings and community, promoting participation and responsibility (Dhami, 2005). Health promotion values participation as this allows groups to take control over aspects of their lives. Voting can facilitate a positive perception that those in prison have of themselves as helpful, reliable, and law-abiding citizens. Such a thoughtful and enlightened approach would see an advance in a prisoner’s rehabilitation and help with reintegration into society upon release (Dhami, 2005).

ETHNIC VOTE DILUTION 5.0

5.1 This Bill is also indirectly ethnically discriminatory and a breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, as Māori make up more than half of the prison population within New Zealand (MOH & MOJ, 1999). Dramatically more Māori  than any other group in society are being excluded from voting. Harvey (1994) refers to this discrimination against particular ethnicities as ‘racial vote dilution’. Prehus (2001) found that within the United States, as the percentage of particular minority ethnic groups increased in an area, the severity of the prison disenfranchisement laws increased proportionally. In New Zealand this means the grave health and social implications promoted by the Bill are especially relevant to Māori. As Māori already have existing disparities in health outcomes and access to determinants of health, the government should be focusing its efforts on Māori participation and inclusion in society rather than forced exclusion (HRC, 2010).

SOCIAL VALUES 6.0

6.1 Aside from the indirect effects on ill health this bill will have, it has the direct impact of enforcing values that stand counter to health promotion, democracy and against the general sense of decency that all countries strive for (HRC, 2010). It goes against the principle of equity as it excludes certain members of society and distributes opportunities for participation and power differentially (Marmot & Wilkinson, 2006).

6.2 It is most disempowering for a group of people who need to be empowered more than most (Marmot & Wilkinson, 2006). It has been well documented that a society that does not value these principles is unhealthier, has more crime and less social cohesion than those that do (Marmot & Wilkinson, 2006).

6.3 Finally, it goes against the very spirit of democracy; an ideal social value for promoting health as it encourages participation and gives people a voice and mechanism to create change (Orr, 2007). However, when a particular group is denied this opportunity, its members miss out on known benefits, as do wider society if it is not based on a true democracy (Orr, 2007).

POLITICAL EMPOWERMENT 7.0

7.1 Denying those in prison the right to vote has a large impact on the political situation of a nation. As has been mentioned, those in prison in most countries are largely those from low socioeconomic backgrounds, indigenous peoples, ethnic groups which make up a small proportion of society, and young people (Dhami, 2005). These groups have a tendency to vote more liberally than others in society. Dhami (2005) discusses how research in the United States has found that throughout history, seven senate elections would have been overturned to the Democrats as opposed to Republicans if those in prison were enfranchised to vote. This illustrates the opportunites which are being denied of the country as a whole when the views of a particular group are limited in such a way. Ultimately, this means that a government that is able to silence the voice of a particular group is a government that does not have an interest in the welfare of said group, contributing to the cycle of disenfranchisement they experience (Dhami, 2005). Furthermore, it creates a society where a select group of authority figures are able to control more tightly the political environment, creating a country with less opportunity and ability to challenge the status quo (Dhami, 2005)

CONVICTED VERSUS SENTENCED 8.0

8.1 Despite the opposition to the majority of this Amendment Bill, the change to clause five of the Act and the consequential amendment to 81(1) of the Act is one positive aspect. This will see the change from ‘convicted’ prisoner to ‘sentenced’ prisoner. While this is a small benefit in an overall damaging Bill, it is still a constructive move (New Zealand Government, 2010). It will mean that those who have not been sentenced and who may receive a non-custodial sentence will not have to be excluded from the voting process (New Zealand Government, 2010). Those who are involved in the justice system for only a short period will not have to be deregistered, thus limiting the feeling of being treated as less than other members of society.

SUGGESTED CHANGES AND OMMISSIONS 9.0

9.1 Instead of taking the vote from those imprisoned for three years or less, the Bill should instead look to amend the Act to instead allow all prisoners the ability to register as an elector. Many positive outcomes for all of society would be possible from such an amendment, and Government is urged to look again at the rationale behind the proposed amendment, then consider a bold and worthwhile approach.

9.2 The Bill fails to mention how prisoners will be reintegrated into society, specifically the process through which ex-prisoners will be reinstated on to the electoral roll. There is brief mention of the possibility of such a project, though it is claimed that due to administrative complexities, this would not be possible to work into this Bill (New Zealand Government, 2010). This is a clear omission of a highly necessary component. If a government is going to systematically deregister a substantial group of people from voting, they must have a substantive plan in place to reintegrate these people (HRC, 2010). Further, it is likely there will be public opposition to the proposed amendment once taxpayers are aware of the costs involved in the administration of the de-registration and re-registration process.

SUMMARY 10.0

10.1 It is strongly recommended that the Law and Order select committee reject this amendment Bill on the basis that it is inherently flawed. It is an arbitrary punishment that will not discourage crime in any manner. It alienates people from society and treats them as second-class citizens. It makes it difficult for these people to reintegrate into their community, and thereby damages their self-esteem and health. The government must consider these wider implications of this Bill and instead look to encourage participation and developing the social responsibility of these disempowered people. Civil death for those in prison is a threat to their health, to democracy and to the values of society as a whole. In the interests of maintaining a civil and humane society, a threat of such monumental implication as that posed by the Bill, is one that must not be left unchallenged.

References

Dhami, M. (2005). Prisoner Disenfranchisement Policy: A Threat to Democracy? Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 5(1).

Drexler, M. (2007, July 15). How Racism Hurts – Literally. The Boston Globe, p.

Durie, M. (1998). Te Kawenata o Waitangi: The Application of the Treaty of Waitangi to Health. Chapter 6 in Whaiora. Māori Health Development (second edition). Auckland: Oxford University Press.

Finlayson, C. (2010). Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. Retrieved from http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2010/0201/12.0/DLM3213131.html

Harvey, A. E. (1994). Ex-felon disenfranchisement and its influence on the black vote: The need for a second look. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 142, 1145–1189.

Human Rights Commission. (2010).  Submission by the Human Rights Commission - Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill. Wellington: The Human Rights Commission.

Jones, C. (2000). Levels of Racism: A Theoretic Framework and a Gardener’s Tale. American Journal of Public Health. 90(8): 1212-1215.

Lindbery, K., & Huang, K. (2006).  Results from the prisoner health survey 2005.  Public Health Intelligence Occassional Bulletin 37.  Wellington: Public Health Intelligence, Ministry of Health.

Marmot, M., & Wilkinson, R. (2006). Social Determinants of Health, Second Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. 376.

Martinez, D. (2005). Felony Disenfranchisement and Voting Participation: Considerations in Latino Ex-Prisoner Reentry. Columbia Human Rights Law Review. 36(217).

Ministry of Health. (2010). Better Retail Controls on Tobacco: Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill. Wellington: Ministry of Health.

Ministry of Justice & Ministry of Health. (1999). National Study of Psychiatric Mobidity in New Zealand Prisons: Executive Summary. Wellington: Ministry of Justice & Ministry of Health.

National Health Committee. ( 2010).  Health in Justice: Kia Piki te Ora, Kia Tika! – Improving the health of prisoners and their families and whānau: He whakapiki i te ora o ngā mauhere me ō rātou whānau.  Wellington: Ministry of Health.

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. (1990). Retrieved from http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/DLM224792.html

New Zealand Government. (2010). Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill 117-2 (2010), Members Bill – Comentary. Retrieved from http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/member/2010/0117/latest/DLM3240200.html

Orr, G. (2007).Constitutionalising the franchise and the status quo: The High Court on prisoner voting rights. Democratic Audit of Australia. Australian National University: Canberra.

Parkes, D. (2007). A Prisoner’s Charter?: Reflections on Prisoner Litigation under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. University of Manitoba School of Law: Winnipeg.

Parkes, D. (2003). Ballot Boxes Behind Bars: Toward the Repeal of Prisoner Disenfranchisement Laws. Temple Political & Civil Rights Law Review 71(13).

Preuhs, R. R. (2001). State felon disenfranchisement policy. Social Science Quarterly, 82, 733–748.

Quinn, P. (2010). Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill. Retrieved from http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/member/2010/0117/latest/DLM2739702.html

Robson, B., & Harris, R. (Eds). (2007). Hauora: Māori Standards of Health IV. A Study of the years 2000-2005. Wellington: Te Rōpū Rangahau Hauora a Eru Pōmare. Pp 5.

Smith, R. (1999) Medicine and the marginalised: They deserve the best, not the poorest, care. The British Medical Journal. 319: 1589-1590.

Turei, M. (2011). Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill – Third reading. New Zealand Parlimentary Debates.

Turia, T. (2010). Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill. Retrieved from http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2010/0267/latest/DLM3418508.html

Williams, D.R. (1997). Race and health: Basic questions, emerging directions Annals of Epidemiology, 7(5), 322-333

World Health Organisation [WHO]. (1986). Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. WHO: Geneva.