Latest news with #NewZealandBillofRightsAct1990
The Spinoff
19 hours ago
- Politics
- The Spinoff
The problem with making ‘educational attainment' the key objective for schools
Honouring a promise in the National-Act coalition agreement, a bill that proposes to demote the place of te Tiriti in the official objectives for state schools is part of a concerning wider pattern, argues Jessie Moss. At first glance, it might look straightforward. The government's Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2) proposes to 'enshrine educational attainment as the paramount objective for state schools'. But scratch the surface of the bill, on which submissions close this week, and you quickly start asking, educational attainment for whom? Spoiler alert: it's not Māori or disabled tamariki. It all gets alarming in section 127, which sets out the objectives for school boards in governing state and state-integrated kura and schools. That's where the government pulls apart education's current focus on inclusive, authentic, localised and culturally affirming schooling for all tamariki. You can trace it back to Act's coalition deal with National. Act wanted (and National agreed to) 'amend the Education and Training Act 2020 to enshrine educational attainment as the paramount objective for state schools'. And so here we are, with almost that same wording typed into this bill. The problem is that by promoting one objective as 'paramount', you demote all others – and the objectives we currently have are pretty bloody important. They are: That every student is able to attain their highest possible standard in educational achievement. That schools are safe for students and staff and give effect to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the Human Rights Act 1993. And, that they take steps to eliminate racism, stigma, bullying and other discrimination. That schools are inclusive of and cater for students with 'differing needs'. And, critically, that schools give effect to te Tiriti o Waitangi. Educators, disability rights groups and Māori fought to have the current objectives introduced in order to reverse the equity gap and address institutional racism and ableism in education. The Act Party has no record of evidence-based education policy, but it does have a record of protesting loudly against te Tiriti and equity-based approaches. When this bill was first proposed in October last year, Māori, as well those working in education and children's rights, scrutinised it and then tried to stop this rollback. The Ministry of Education's summary of consultation on the bill (prior to it heading to select committee) shows 80.5% of submitters opposed giving one objective 'paramount' status. Submitters said, 'educational achievement [was] already a key focus of schools and their core responsibility'. They felt the bill's changes 'would deprioritise the other objectives' and 'undermine the requirement to give effect to Te Tiriti'. These submissions explained what should be obvious; that educational achievement can't occur without focus on te Tiriti o Waitangi, inclusion and wellbeing. The consultation on the bill also proposed removing 'unnecessary references' to the Human Rights Act and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in the objectives. It was only submissions by Māori, educators and disability rights groups that saved the references. As for demoting te Tiriti o Waitangi? Educator Kārena Ngata puts it simply: 'Our obligations to te Tiriti o Waitangi should be realised in every aspect of the school's systems, policies and practices.' Māori tino rangatiratanga over Māori education has been sidelined, and the bill also weakens schools' responsibilities for engaging with mana whenua and local communities. Given the impact for Māori, you'd expect consultation would be solid, but the Regulatory Impact Statement for the bill said otherwise, noting there was 'inadequate time for comprehensive consultation with Māori, iwi and hapū'. Once again, the government has decided on a timeframe too short for real engagement. Zoom out and this bill is just part of a wider pattern emerging in education. This government has already downgraded te Tiriti in the New Zealand curriculum, scrapped Te Ahu o Te Reo Māori language programme for teachers, and defunded resource teachers of Māori. So, strap in, because here we go again. The government is taking another crack at putting Māori second in education. And that diminishes education for us all.
The Spinoff
30-04-2025
- Politics
- The Spinoff
Here we go again… why voting is not a privilege to be removed as punishment
The move to reinstate the total ban on prisoners voting resurrects a deeper debate over who deserves to be a part of our political community, writes Andrew Geddis. Sigh. Looks like I'm going to have to join the battle again over the issue of voting rights and, specifically, should people who are in prison get to cast one. I feel a bit like Al Pacino in The Godfather Part III: wheeled out to play the same role for diminishing returns in a storyline that has pretty much run its course. The lines have been drawn by Paul Goldsmith's announcement that the current National/New Zealand First/Act government plans to reverse a law passed in 2020 by the then Labour/New Zealand First government. That law in turn reversed a law passed in 2010 by the then-National/Act government. And that law repealed a law passed in 1993 by every MP in parliament. Honestly, the amount of parliamentary time and political energy spent on this particular issue in an era of collapsing everything is just a little bit silly. Nevertheless, here's where Goldsmith's proposal would take us. All people serving a sentence of imprisonment will lose the legal right to enrol to vote. That means, if you are in jail when an election takes place having been convicted and sentenced to that punishment, you won't be able to vote in it. This would be a change from the current rule that only prisoners serving sentences of three years or more lose their right to vote. In practice, some 2,000 people would be affected (on current prisoner populations, which very likely will go up given other changes to sentencing laws). Beyond such raw numbers, the move resurrects a deeper debate over who deserves to be a part of our political community. Goldsmith told RNZ that: 'A total prison voting ban for all sentenced prisoners underlines the importance that New Zealanders afford to the rule of law, and the civic responsibility that goes hand-in-hand with the right to participate in our democracy through voting.' On this view, the right to take part in collectively choosing our nation's leaders is a privilege that can be taken from you if you fail to exhibit the right moral virtues. Given the cyclical nature of this debate, I've had cause to disagree with this view before. And the Independent Electoral Review that I was a part of also rejected it in our final report at the end of 2023: 'The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 provides for the right of citizens to vote. Voting is an inherent right that should not be removed when a person is in prison without strong justification. The law has generally moved away from the concept of voting as a privilege and by extension the need for a person to prove their moral worth to be able to vote. What society seeks to achieve by sentencing a person to prison is fundamentally different from what it seeks to achieve through voting in elections, which upholds the principles of participation and representation. On that basis, the loss of voting rights should not generally be used as an additional form of punishment.' There's then a bunch of more technical reasons why (as both the attorney general and Supreme Court have found) a total ban on prisoner voting will result in arbitrary, and thus unjustifiable, limits on the right to vote. The consequence is tied to when a person is sentenced and so happens to be in prison, not to what they have done to be imprisoned in the first place. A person sentenced to five years' imprisonment the day after an election likely will be free on parole at the next election and so can vote, while a person sentenced to two months' imprisonment a few weeks out from it cannot. The sentencing decision that puts a person in prison doesn't just reflect their offending. For example, a person whose actions would attract a sentence of two or fewer years in prison but with access to suitable accommodation can get a home detention sentence instead (and so retain their right to vote). A person who has no such access will be sent to prison and so lose their right to vote. Same crime, different consequences. And we cannot ignore the differential impact on Māori of the removal of voting rights from prisoners. As Carwyn Jones has pointed out, the Waitangi Tribunal found in its quite blistering report in 2020 that the consequence of our shamefully racialised criminal justice process is that any law that impedes the rights of prisoners to vote will disproportionately impact Māori more than any other group. It consequently recommended that the Electoral Act 1993 'is amended urgently to remove the disqualification of all prisoners from voting, irrespective of their sentence. … All Māori have a Treaty right to exercise their individual and collective tino rangatiratanga by being able to exercise their vote in the appointment of their political representatives.' All of which is to say that the government's proposal is a pretty terrible one for a lot of reasons. But, for all that, it's odds on that it will still get passed. The current coalition is so wedded to the wedge-issue 'we're tough on crime, the opposition aren't' mantra that pesky things like individual rights and the reasons for limiting them can't be allowed to get in the way. And the hostility shown by various ministers to institutions like the Waitangi Tribunal and 'activist' courts makes it unlikely that it'll be swayed by their views of the matter. Added to that, the last time National and Act collaborated on a total ban on prisoner voting back in 2010 we saw some of the worst law-making behaviour in parliamentary history. I'm being serious about that; take a look at the Act Party's explanation in the House (via then MP Hillary Calvert) for why it was supporting the legislation.
Newsroom
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Newsroom
Government to reinstate full prisoner voting ban
Cabinet has agreed to introduce legislation that would remove voting rights from those sentenced to prison for up to three years, in a move that the Supreme Court has already said breaches human rights law. The move, signed off on in April, essentially reverses legislation passed by the Labour-led coalition government in 2020 – a law that NZ First supported at the time. It comes despite the Independent Electoral Commission recommending that all prisoners – not just those serving a term of less than three years – should be allowed to vote. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith ruled out this recommendation when the review's final report was released last year. A Cabinet paper seen by Newsroom shows that on April 15, Cabinet agreed it would introduce legislation to amend the Electoral Act 1993 so that anyone convicted and detained in prison would be disqualified from voting. The legislation would not be retrospective, meaning those already serving a term of imprisonment of less than three years would not have their voter registration revoked. While the total on-site prison population fluctuates, on Tuesday, it was 10,727, of which 5972 were sentenced prisoners. Under the current law, roughly 2000 of those prisoners would be eligible to vote, as they were serving a prison term of less than three years. Meanwhile, Cabinet also agreed that Goldsmith would seek advice on revoking voting rights from a group of people who were not criminals. The Cabinet paper said the Government was considering whether to disqualify people who had committed a crime, 'but might not be in prison due to mental health reasons or on the grounds of an intellectual disability'. The debate over whether prisoners should be allowed to vote has been a long-running one, which includes questions relating to human rights. It's a discussion that has extended all the way to the Supreme Court. The Cabinet paper noted that officials had advised the Government that a full ban on prisoner voting was not consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, with Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, or with the Crown's obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. Goldsmith confirmed the Cabinet decision would reverse the Labour-led coalition's 2020 legislation. 'Restoring prisoner voting was typical of the previous government's soft-on-crime approach; we don't agree with it,' he said. 'Citizenship brings rights and responsibilities. People who breach those responsibilities to the extent that they are sentenced to jail temporarily lose some of their rights, including the right to vote.' Goldsmith said the proposed change would establish a consistent approach to prisoner voting, regardless of the length of sentence. 'The Government is committed to restoring law and order, and part of the response is to place a greater emphasis on personal responsibility and accountability. 'A total prison voting ban for all sentenced prisoners underlines the importance that New Zealanders afford to the rule of law, and the civic responsibility that goes hand in hand with the right to participate in our democracy through voting.' He did not respond to a question on his decision to seek advice on removing voting rights from those who had committed an illegal act but had not been convicted or sentenced to a term of imprisonment – instead being held in a specialist forensic facility – due to their mental health or an intellectual disability. Green Party MP Tamatha Paul said the proposed legislation was a 'total breach of the democratic civil rights of people in prison'. With only a few thousand people (give or take) who were eligible to vote, this was barely worth the Government's time and focus. But for that group, it could impact their ability to interact with democracy. Paul said she did not see how removing voting rights for all prisoners would act as a deterrent to criminal offending. 'I don't know why [the right to vote] would be taken away from people as if it's a luxury or a reward.' Being socially active and involved in making decisions about elected representatives was an important part of reintegrating into society, fostering a sense of belonging, as well as some accountability and responsibility for the decisions being made around them. 'I struggled to see the logic in such a decision.' Paul put the move in the context of calls from other groups to be afforded voting rights, including those aged 16 and 17. In 2022, the Supreme Court issued a rare declaration that restricting the voting age to those aged 18 and over was inconsistent with the Bill of Rights. The Independent Electoral Review also recommended that the voting age be lowered – something Paul and the Greens supported – but Goldsmith had also ruled out that recommendation. Labour Party justice spokesperson Duncan Webb said this legislation was 'sending a signal to a prisoner that your voice doesn't count'. 'This is a signal by the Government that there are two kinds of people: There are 'them' and 'us', and they are putting people who have committed crimes very much in the 'them' category. They want to distance them, you know, they want to essentially make them the other party who they can vilify.' While people went to prison and served time – as they should in many cases – they were still part of society and the community, he said. 'We've got to be very careful about pushing them too far away, because they do come back into the community.' Webb also noted that short-term prisoners had higher reoffending rates, so those setting policies and making legislation should be working harder to keep this group connected to their communities, and extend to them the ordinary rights afforded to other citizens. 'This is my question: What's the problem you're trying to fix? Which is question one for any policy initiative. There is no problem to fix. This is just a spiteful dig to try and appeal to some of our lower instincts; of a sense to want to take away the rights of others.' Te Pāti Māori said a full ban on prisoner voting weakened democracy and breached Te Tiriti o Waitangi. 'Voting is not a privilege to be taken away — it is a fundamental human right. Stripping whānau of their right to participate in democracy only deepens the cycles of marginalisation and injustice that our people have been subjected to for generations,' justice spokesperson Tākuta Ferris said. The party's policy was to introduce voting for everyone in prison. In 2010, the National-led government passed a bill that banned all prisoners from voting (akin to this bill). Previously, prisoners serving a sentence less than three years were allowed to enrol. In 2013, Arthur Taylor – the so-called 'prison lawyer' – took the Government to the High Court to get prisoners the right to vote. In 2015, the the High Court made a 'declaration of inconsistency' after hearing Taylor's case, saying the 2010 extension of the voting ban to all prisoners – under the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act – infringed on New Zealanders' right to vote, which is enshrined in the Bill of Rights Act. In 2018, the Supreme Court upheld that decision, ruling that courts did have the power to make a statement of declaration when laws were consistent with the bill of rights. The declaration sent a message to Parliament that the law it passed was indefensible as it limited individual rights without reasonable justification. It came as the government was carrying out its routine review of electoral laws. In 2019, the Waitangi Tribunal released a scathing report, saying the 2010 prisoner voting ban would disproportionately impact Māori and breached the Crown's Treaty obligations. Later that year, then-justice minister Andrew Little announced a return to allowing those serving a term of imprisonment of less than three years to register to vote. And the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill passed into law ahead of the 2020 election. At the time of the bill's third reading, NZ First MP Jenny Marcroft spoke in support of the law change, saying reinstating some prisoners' right to vote would overturn 'a silly rule'. 'This bill will restore some dignity, it will restore some humanity, and it will uphold the ability for reintegration to society, engagement back into society, for those who are in prison with less than three years,' she said at the time. 'I am proud to speak to this bill, because the Supreme Court takes this seriously, the Waitangi Tribunal takes this seriously, and the government, on this side of the House, takes this seriously. 'Rehabilitation is at the very heart of this bill, so I'm very proud to stand and say New Zealand First supports this bill, and I commend it to the House.' NZ First was now a member of the coalition Government that would reverse the legislation. According to the Cabinet paper, the Electoral Matters Bill was expected to be introduced in July and passed by the end of the year.
