So in Luxon's view the Bill of Rights is a nothing? I voted for all prisoners to have the right to vote. Emprisonment is the punishment, rehabilitation is the goal. Voting in prison is in part about regaining respect which aids rehabilitation.
All a bit disappointing and simply an opportunity for the government to play the 'we are the guys who are tough on crime' tune. It is unlikely to make any substantial difference in the political arena, provides fodder for the mean-spirited among us and deflects attention from the current struggle the government is having to meet its police recruitment targets.
Thanks for your post. It was nice to realise that my recent turn to the right hasn’t been as sharp as I feared! If a person, no matter who or where they are, takes a step towards participation in democracy it should be applauded and encouraged, to do otherwise is plain dumb. Or to put it another way, if you think about it for more than 5 minutes it's obvious that the only prisoners who will be genuinely punished through disenfranchisement will be those who have already made the choice to (re)engage with society. Unfortunately, I don't think Mr Luxon is dumb, so I can only conclude that he is cynical.
Voting is a right, but it is also a responsibility, and I would tend to emphasise the latter. I think Mr Luxon missed an opportunity to spin this in the opposite direction. What he might have said to you is...”No! If you're in prison you don't get the option of shirking your responsibility! Prisoner voting must be compulsory. Prisoners who fail to vote will be punished with an additional month on their sentence."
I was also disappointed by the cavalier disregard for the Bill of Rights.
Why must we suffer this dearth of substance, depth and wisdom in our politics. Alas it’s all our fault….
Convicted felons are punished by removal of their normal rights and freedoms, and this could include removal of the right to vote.
However the measure of a civilized, progressive and rational society is exactly what rights and freedoms it chooses to withdraw from the felon. If the right to vote can be withdrawn then why not the right to practice religion? Because both are generally assumed to represent positive social values which should not be discouraged, particularly in the case of those who might otherwise be considered to be beyond the social pale.
Yet I would be very surprised if any political party wanted to withdraw the right of a prisoner to practice their faith. During my own time in prison a Bible was my constant companion, one book that I was permitted to have as of right in my cell night and day, and for that I was deeply grateful. As it happens the Bible meant more to me than the right to vote.
However there were other prisoners to whom the Bible and religion in general meant nothing, but to whom the vote was a means of showing and exercising their own sense of social responsibility. Why should they not be allowed to exercise their own moral obligation in such a way, if that is their perception of the matter?
Perhaps the politicians believe that prisoners are not fit people to vote because their conviction and sentence reveals a moral incapacity to vote responsibly? If that is the case, I suggest they are mistaken.
The inclination to sin is not found exclusively among the inmates of our prisons, and neither is the quality of loving kindness entirely absent among those held in prison. In fact, I could say that (quite remarkably) during my entire period of incarceration I did not suffer a single unkind act from a fellow prisoner.
Certainly the great majority of those in prison are there because they have acted badly, in some cases with the most grievous consequences for innocent people, but we should not fall victim to the fallacious notion that all the evils of society are locked away in its prisons and that outside of that prison system is a world of unadulterated virtue.
Therefore the suffrage should be truly universal. We should acknowledge it as a right given indiscriminately to the good and the bad, the wise and the foolish, the young and the old, the innocent and the cynical, the self-interested and the altruist. It is a right that, in being unlimited, describes our society as it really is, "warts and all". That is the way it should always be.
It sounds like a low-risk way for Luxon to sound a bit Trumpy, and reduce the attrition of his vote support by ACT and New Zealand First, who are willing to be more overtly Trumpy. Here in Australia, it's interesting to watch Peter Dutton, the Leader of the Opposition, trying to send a few Trumpish signals to avoid too great attrition of his vote by the Far Right One Nation Party under Pauline Hanson. A few days after deploring the heckling of the Welcome to Country ceremony at the Anzac Day dawn ceremony in Melbourne, Dutton said he didn't think most veterans would want a Welcome to Country. So he edged towards being more dismissive of rituals that acknowledge Aboriginal custodianship of their country (and thus indirectly supporting people to disrupt them). It's tricky, as the Australian electorate is substantially anti-Trump - but with a largish Far Right fringe who wish we had a Trump here too. How to sound a bit Trumpish without actually being Trumpish? Gosh, politics is a smoke-and-mirrors business!
While custodial incarceration denies the right to participate freely within the community, it can have both intended and unintended consequences. The greater the level of punishment and denial of social connection and sense of inclusion, whether within or outside the walls, the more the prisoner will interpret it as exclusion from and resentment towards the legal process and the society that perpetuates it.
Denying a fundamental right such as the right to vote could be interpreted by the prisoner as being disenfranchised from the society/community that imposed their sentence, to which they may eventually rejoin. Disenfranchising sectors of society from voting, as women in New Zealand were until 1893, now seems incomprehensible on many levels.
Denying any member of a society the right to vote in a democratic society, regardless of that person's situation, appears contrary to the values our society is understood to uphold. It could only be enacted to support a more punitive approach, signal a tough stance on law and order, and adopt a self-serving position to gain more votes for a political party, as has been standard in New Zealand.
Furthermore, those incarcerated before any new law is enacted, which negates their right to vote, should be excluded, as it was not deemed part of their original sentence.
Great comments, thanks John! (Just FYI, and not to defend the measure, the minister's statement says "The ban will not be retrospective, meaning prisoners already serving sentences of less than three years at the time the ban comes into force before the 2026 General Election will retain the ability to vote.")
Grant - thanks for a great piece. Personally for me I don't care about the political implications - disallowing them to vote, and repealing the 3 year rule, just further disenfranchises them and makes it harder to integrate and rehabilitate. Conservative voters should, in my view, care about that.
FYI I couldn't vote on the poll for some reason, all buttons were greyed out.
Denying the vote to prisoners is just being churlish. Easier and cheaper to let them all vote. It might help some re integrate. What's the downside?
So in Luxon's view the Bill of Rights is a nothing? I voted for all prisoners to have the right to vote. Emprisonment is the punishment, rehabilitation is the goal. Voting in prison is in part about regaining respect which aids rehabilitation.
All a bit disappointing and simply an opportunity for the government to play the 'we are the guys who are tough on crime' tune. It is unlikely to make any substantial difference in the political arena, provides fodder for the mean-spirited among us and deflects attention from the current struggle the government is having to meet its police recruitment targets.
Hi Grant,
Thanks for your post. It was nice to realise that my recent turn to the right hasn’t been as sharp as I feared! If a person, no matter who or where they are, takes a step towards participation in democracy it should be applauded and encouraged, to do otherwise is plain dumb. Or to put it another way, if you think about it for more than 5 minutes it's obvious that the only prisoners who will be genuinely punished through disenfranchisement will be those who have already made the choice to (re)engage with society. Unfortunately, I don't think Mr Luxon is dumb, so I can only conclude that he is cynical.
Voting is a right, but it is also a responsibility, and I would tend to emphasise the latter. I think Mr Luxon missed an opportunity to spin this in the opposite direction. What he might have said to you is...”No! If you're in prison you don't get the option of shirking your responsibility! Prisoner voting must be compulsory. Prisoners who fail to vote will be punished with an additional month on their sentence."
I was also disappointed by the cavalier disregard for the Bill of Rights.
Why must we suffer this dearth of substance, depth and wisdom in our politics. Alas it’s all our fault….
Kind Regards,
Rhys
Convicted felons are punished by removal of their normal rights and freedoms, and this could include removal of the right to vote.
However the measure of a civilized, progressive and rational society is exactly what rights and freedoms it chooses to withdraw from the felon. If the right to vote can be withdrawn then why not the right to practice religion? Because both are generally assumed to represent positive social values which should not be discouraged, particularly in the case of those who might otherwise be considered to be beyond the social pale.
Yet I would be very surprised if any political party wanted to withdraw the right of a prisoner to practice their faith. During my own time in prison a Bible was my constant companion, one book that I was permitted to have as of right in my cell night and day, and for that I was deeply grateful. As it happens the Bible meant more to me than the right to vote.
However there were other prisoners to whom the Bible and religion in general meant nothing, but to whom the vote was a means of showing and exercising their own sense of social responsibility. Why should they not be allowed to exercise their own moral obligation in such a way, if that is their perception of the matter?
Perhaps the politicians believe that prisoners are not fit people to vote because their conviction and sentence reveals a moral incapacity to vote responsibly? If that is the case, I suggest they are mistaken.
The inclination to sin is not found exclusively among the inmates of our prisons, and neither is the quality of loving kindness entirely absent among those held in prison. In fact, I could say that (quite remarkably) during my entire period of incarceration I did not suffer a single unkind act from a fellow prisoner.
Certainly the great majority of those in prison are there because they have acted badly, in some cases with the most grievous consequences for innocent people, but we should not fall victim to the fallacious notion that all the evils of society are locked away in its prisons and that outside of that prison system is a world of unadulterated virtue.
Therefore the suffrage should be truly universal. We should acknowledge it as a right given indiscriminately to the good and the bad, the wise and the foolish, the young and the old, the innocent and the cynical, the self-interested and the altruist. It is a right that, in being unlimited, describes our society as it really is, "warts and all". That is the way it should always be.
Well said! Thanks, Geoff.
It sounds like a low-risk way for Luxon to sound a bit Trumpy, and reduce the attrition of his vote support by ACT and New Zealand First, who are willing to be more overtly Trumpy. Here in Australia, it's interesting to watch Peter Dutton, the Leader of the Opposition, trying to send a few Trumpish signals to avoid too great attrition of his vote by the Far Right One Nation Party under Pauline Hanson. A few days after deploring the heckling of the Welcome to Country ceremony at the Anzac Day dawn ceremony in Melbourne, Dutton said he didn't think most veterans would want a Welcome to Country. So he edged towards being more dismissive of rituals that acknowledge Aboriginal custodianship of their country (and thus indirectly supporting people to disrupt them). It's tricky, as the Australian electorate is substantially anti-Trump - but with a largish Far Right fringe who wish we had a Trump here too. How to sound a bit Trumpish without actually being Trumpish? Gosh, politics is a smoke-and-mirrors business!
Perhaps the Trump you have when you're not having a Trump will from now on be known as a Dutton.
While custodial incarceration denies the right to participate freely within the community, it can have both intended and unintended consequences. The greater the level of punishment and denial of social connection and sense of inclusion, whether within or outside the walls, the more the prisoner will interpret it as exclusion from and resentment towards the legal process and the society that perpetuates it.
Denying a fundamental right such as the right to vote could be interpreted by the prisoner as being disenfranchised from the society/community that imposed their sentence, to which they may eventually rejoin. Disenfranchising sectors of society from voting, as women in New Zealand were until 1893, now seems incomprehensible on many levels.
In 2023, 51% of our Members of Parliament were female, compared with 9% in 1981 in parliamentary elections." https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/womens-suffrage
Denying any member of a society the right to vote in a democratic society, regardless of that person's situation, appears contrary to the values our society is understood to uphold. It could only be enacted to support a more punitive approach, signal a tough stance on law and order, and adopt a self-serving position to gain more votes for a political party, as has been standard in New Zealand.
Furthermore, those incarcerated before any new law is enacted, which negates their right to vote, should be excluded, as it was not deemed part of their original sentence.
Great comments, thanks John! (Just FYI, and not to defend the measure, the minister's statement says "The ban will not be retrospective, meaning prisoners already serving sentences of less than three years at the time the ban comes into force before the 2026 General Election will retain the ability to vote.")
The minister's statement is not logical.
Grant - thanks for a great piece. Personally for me I don't care about the political implications - disallowing them to vote, and repealing the 3 year rule, just further disenfranchises them and makes it harder to integrate and rehabilitate. Conservative voters should, in my view, care about that.
FYI I couldn't vote on the poll for some reason, all buttons were greyed out.
Thanks for the comment! I'm afraid I can't see why the poll wasn't working for you. Is there a 'show options' thing?
I’ll take another look later for sure - but if working for others, all good. I quite like polls :-)
Comment removed due to mention of violence.