Prisoner voting ban shows how few parliamentary power checks there are
In short, removing prisoner voting rights will damage a critical but fragile check on Government power — what is known as the 'judicial declaration of inconsistency'.
An 'executive paradise'
New Zealand has been described as an ' executive paradise ' by constitutional lawyer and former Prime Minister Geoffrey Palmer. There is no upper house, no federal structure, and the courts lack the power to strike down unconstitutional legislation.
The constitution itself is a collection of statutes and conventions that, for the most part, can be changed by a simple parliamentary majority. The 1990 Bill of Rights Act is a cornerstone of that constitution, but is an ineffectual check on Government power.
When Parliament considers a bill that is potentially inconsistent with ' the human rights and fundamental freedoms ' set out in the Bill of Rights, the Attorney-General delivers a report explaining the inconsistencies.
This is supposed to be a deterrent, and one might think it would be the end of the matter. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Adverse Attorney-General reports have appeared regularly (there have been 15 since 2021) without blocking legislation.
Parliament's habit of passing legislation that does not comply with the Bill of Rights is why the recently developed judicial declaration of inconsistency is constitutionally important.
The declaration is a 'soft' legal power. It doesn't strike down laws or rewrite them. Rather, it is a ' weak form ' of review that enables affected citizens to petition the court to declare a law inconsistent with the Bill of Rights. This should then spur Parliament to fix the problem.
The declaration aims to start a constitutional dialogue between the two branches of government. Enabling citizens to hold Parliament accountable, it is a vital instrument in a system otherwise heavily dominated by the executive branch.
Constitutional dialogue in action
The High Court issued the first such declaration in the case of Taylor vs Attorney-General in 2015, declaring a total ban on prisoners voting was inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act. The Government appealed, but the Supreme Court affirmed the declaration in a landmark 2018 decision.
What happened next, however, was just as important. If the declaration was to initiate a constitutional dialogue, it was up to Parliament to respond — which it did. In 2020, it rescinded the ban on voting for prisoners incarcerated for less than three years.
Then, in 2022, it amended the Bill of Rights to require the Attorney-General to notify Parliament when a superior court issues a declaration of inconsistency. And it required a ministerial report to Parliament on the Government's response within six months.
Those measures put in place a framework for constitutional dialogues. And this process played out in the next (and to date only) declaration of inconsistency. This was in 2022, when the Supreme Court declared prohibiting 16-year-olds from voting was inconsistent with the Bill of Rights.
In 2023, the Government tabled its response and introduced a bill to enable 16-year-olds to vote in local elections. The Government initially announced it would do the same for parliamentary elections. But that idea was dropped when it became clear this wouldn't get the necessary super-majority support of 75% of MPs.
An over-powered Parliament
Although modest, Parliament's responses were constitutionally important because they modelled a new framework for accountability. Chief Justice Helen Winkelmann suggested the process illustrated how courts and parliament could work together in the ' gradual and collaborative elaboration ' of New Zealand's constitution.
An evolving constitutional dialogue would enable the courts to pose a modest check on New Zealand's over-powered Parliament. So, those who hoped they were seeing the dawn of a new constitutional convention will be disheartened by the move to ban all prisoners from voting.
The current Government has already terminated the bill enabling 16-year-olds to vote, without mentioning this contradicted the Supreme Court's declaration of inconsistency.
Should Parliament now ban prisoner voting, it will have nullified all substantial responses to declarations of inconsistency. That would be a profound constitutional setback.
Parliament regularly flouts the Bill of Rights. We are now seeing it double down by rolling back its previous responses to judicial declarations.
New Zealanders already have comparatively little constitutional protection from Parliament. Reinstating a total ban on prisoner voting will undermine the practice of constitutional dialogue between the two branches of government. And it will weaken a fragile check on Government power.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
11 hours ago
- Scoop
Defence Heads Face Scrutiny Week Hearing, Promise To Be Fiscally Responsible
Defence heads have assured politicians their huge new budget takes into account soldiers actually having to fire their weapons. They fronted up to an even-tempered scrutiny week hearing with MPs at Parliament on Thursday afternoon. Greens MP Lawrence Xu-Nan asked whether the budget boost of $9 billion new spending over four years allowed for buying the likes of replacement Javelin missiles, which cost $400,000 each. Defence secretary Brook Barrington responded that the increased budget meant troops could now move past the approach from the last 50 years of being only partly equipped. "The defence force is actually being provided with funding to ensure that, if we upgrade the capabilty, we are also able to shoot things with it," he said. Along with defence force Chief Air Marshal Tony Davies, Barrington laid out a raft of measures they said would enable them to buy weapons and other systems faster and smarter. "The demand queue is growing," Barrington said. "The longer it takes us to lodge an order, someone else has got their place in the queue before us and some of this stuff takes three years. "You know, you lose your place in the queue... and you're losing time." They felt a sense of urgency, but also had to ensure quality thresholds were set, so that in 3-4 years he was not up before MPs again being told, "We knew we couldn't trust you folk to bloody get your way out of a paper bag", he said. "We've got to find a sweet spot between rigour, confidence and pace." He added defence had already met with 280 people from 174 companies, both last month and this month, and that an industry strategy would be put out soon. They would be fiscally responsible with the billions of taxpayer money, Davies said. To accelerate, they would drop the old approach of trying to get 30 years of life from gear and retreading it, and instead, look at getting a "minimum viable product" quickly out to the field, he said. "Simple... quick... lean." On the personnel front, they had to rebuild forces, he said. The budget and plan had "buoyed" personnel, but their thinned-back ranks still constrained how much notice they needed to deploy, how long they could deploy for and whether they could mount multiple operations. Personnel turnover had fallen to less than seven percent, but vacancy rates in February were about 30 percent, an Official Information Act request (OIA) showed. The army was short 1500 people, Air Force 660 and navy 630. Defence was "over-training" people to hit 100 percent, when it did not need to, so was reviewing how to speed training up, Davies said. The 15-year plan was to add 20 percent to combat forces - or 2500 people - and the only way to do that currently was to cut civilian jobs down, he said. "At the moment, we've got ships tied up that can't go to sea, because we haven't got the sailors. We've got people that are going on their fifth deployment overseas, because we don't have the number of soldiers. "We've got Joint Force headquarters out at Trentham with watchfloors that can't be filled, because we haven't got the uniformed people with those skills. "We need those. The money is tight, still, even with uplifts." An OIA response showed that, in March, a hefty 313 positions were vacant at Joint Defence Services, far more than in other sections. Defence Minister Judith Collins said the point was to be able to defend against anybody who "threatened our people, or our assets". "Our people are not going to have to wave a white flag anymore. They are going to be able to get out there and protect themselves." She said she had told "prime" multinational defence contractors their best bet for getting a share of the business was to involve New Zealand firms. The small firms would not be written "out of the equation", Barrington said. He added the business cases for two very large projects - replacing the 757s and the maritime helicopters - were well advanced. Other business cases would be made short and sharp. The fleet renewal planning was by far the biggest job, but the budget gave the ministry a couple of million dollars extra for teams to do that. "What happens in two years, if the world situation's got worse and we need to step it up again?" Davies said. "How are we going to accelerate our capability acquisition process. It might be that we need to double our efforts there, so we are constantly looking at ways to fine tune it." The budget set aside $155m over four years for new military allowances for deployments and hundreds of millions for more operations.
NZ Herald
16 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Letters: Absence of economic evaluation of commercial GMO raises concerns
Photo / Food HQ Letter of the week Gene technology - at what cost? The Government is hypocritical in claiming it is over-riding local government powers for economic reasons when it is already doing so in the Gene Technology Bill without any economic risk-benefit analysis. The absence of an economic evaluation of the
NZ Herald
17 hours ago
- NZ Herald
The real cost of Government retreat on gender equity
Dellwyn Stuart is critical of the Government for halting pay equity claims and gutting the Equal Pay Amendment Act. Photo / Marty Melville There's a reason The Emperor's New Clothes is an enduring story. It's not just a children's tale – it's a sharp allegory for political vanity, wilful blindness and the cost of silence. In the story, the emperor is convinced to parade through town in invisible garments, woven only for
