The Jackson school of thought believes that governing New Zealand is best served by having two separate and incompatible forms of Government operating side by side with equal authority.
He sets out his supporting arguments in the article. Leaving aside his misguided excursion into American and British constitutional law he puts forward six reasons for slamming the foundations of New Zealand’s liberal democracy: “one person one vote”.
1. Partnership is promised in the Treaty.What Jackson and his allies really espouse is a system that is not democratic but system that is democratic for everyone except those who are of Maori descent. He does not believe in universal suffrage. He believes in a distorted governance system which distributes power, not to individuals, but to tribal elites who are not elected by universal suffrage but are appointed by unaccountable tribal executives.
The Treaty is crystal clear in both the English and the Maori translation. In Article one Maori ceded sovereignty to the Queen. In Article three Maori where granted the same rights and obligations as all British citizens. These rights were granted to every Maori person individually regardless of their tribal identity. Partnership is not mentioned. What is granted by the Treaty is equality of rights and obligations. The constitutional rights conferred are now set out in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the Human Rights Act 1993.
2. MMP is not one person one vote
Whilst it is true that under MMP a voter can exercise two votes that is in no way an infringement of the one person one vote principle. A voter can vote for two separate things under MMP. One can vote in a constituency for an MP to represent you in Parliament and one can vote for a political party. The vote for a constituency MP is on a first past the post basis, i.e. on a plurality of votes (the one who gets the most wins). The party vote will determine how many seats a Party has in Parliament. The party chooses who will become an MP from a ranked list compiled by the party. For example if a Party receives 30% of the Party votes it must receive 30% of the seats in Parliament. Invariably, the number of constituency seats will be far fewer than the percentage gained by the party vote. The constituency seats are topped up by appointing people from the party list.
This differs from, for example, when a person of Maori descent can enrol on the Maori role and vote for an MP in a Maori seat as a constituency MP, but can then also vote for the Maori Party or any other party. A non-Maori person cannot vote in a Maori seat because they cannot be on the Maori electoral roll. A person of Maori descent can choose to be on either the Maori roll or on a general roll.
That is discrimination on the basis of race.
3. Extended Universal Suffrage
Universal suffrage was complete when on the 19th of September 1893 New Zealand became the first self-governing county in the world in which women had the right to vote in parliamentary elections. In addition it is enshrined in New Zealand’s Human Rights legislation that the right to vote in New Zealand is a right enjoyed by every eligible voter regardless of gender, race, sexuality or disability. Universal suffrage gives the right to vote to all adult citizens (over 18 years), regardless of wealth, income, gender, social status, race, ethnicity, political stance, or any other restriction, subject to relatively minor exceptions. In other words equality as promised by the Treaty.
4. Landowners voting in more than one local authority
Jackson, amazingly, has just discovered that, “multiple property owners can vote in multiple local body elections. One has to wonder where he has been hiding to miss such a significant fact. He says that because of this the “one person one vote” principle is violated.
What Jackson fails to understand is that each local authority is a separate jurisdiction with its own elected (until recently) representatives. A Local authority’s jurisdiction is limited to its geographic boundaries. It can only tax property owners who own property within its jurisdiction.
In democratic societies, such as New Zealand, there is a strict rule which holds that there can be no tax without representation. Mr Jackson, who is interested in American political history, will know of the famous events that took place in Boston 1773 which ignited the American Revolution. The settlers in 1773 objected to being levied a tax on tea because they were denied the vote in Britain which sought to impose the tax on them.
No tax without representation.
Property owners who own property in several local authority jurisdictions who exercise their right to vote are in no way undermining the principle of “one person one vote”.
5. A new democracy to build bridges not walls
It is Jackson and his cabal of ethno nationalists who are building the wall by ongoing misrepresentation of the meaning of the Treaty. The whole notion of an equal partnership between people of Maori descent and the rest is, simply put, a myth. The Treaty, as stated above gave individual rights and obligations to all Maori people living in New Zealand in 1840 now and hopefully, for ever.
There is no new democracy as Jackson is proposing. New Zealand is one of the oldest continuing democracies in the world. It is not perfect. Nothing is perfect. But whatever deficiencies it may have will not be cured by the creation of two racially separate states. The evidence of dividing societies by race or religion is stark and there for all to see all around the world now and throughout history.
6. Shift away from Majoritarian democracy
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of Jackson’s world view is contained in the last paragraph of his opinion piece. He claims that MMP was introduced to shift New Zealand away from a majoritarian democracy. In fact MMP was introduced to move away from governance by plurality and to move it towards governance by the majority. That is either the Party that has a 50+1 majority or a coalition of Parties that have a majority of 50+1.
Ironically, he raises this issue at time when one Party has an absolute majority and is running amuck with it. Majoritarian democracy, otherwise referred to as the tyranny of the majority is alive and well under this Labour Government.
Jackson finishes his opinion piece with this, “Whether the right want to admit it or not the facts are that we are now a more moderate, consensual and participatory democracy. This dramatic shift reflects our nation’s desire for a government that is more inclusive of a diversity of views including minority voices. Ngai Tahu will now ensure those voices will be heard.”
What he actually means is that the only minority that will be heard is Ngai Tahu and now that it has compulsory unelected seats around the Canterbury Regional Council it will enforce its agenda. No one else’s.
The Royal Commission that recommended MMP wrote a whole chapter on why the Maori seats should be removed. The reason being that they had not served Maori well. Remember that the Maori seats were introduced in 1867.
Graeme Reeves is a lawyer and former National MP.
5 comments:
Jackson's a bigot and a racist. He's also a liar when he tells the 83% of Kiwis not identifying as the chosen race that everything will be perfectly fair and there's nothing to worry about.
He's also not a great thinker but most of his neural activity does go into talking so it must be hard for the reasoning part of his brain to keep up.
The saddest thing of all is the real racism these mp's have stirred up. If you look at te pati maori facebook page and the comments people have put there against european people, it is just sad. I hope willoe jackson is proud of himself. Teaching people that they are not responsible for their own actions if they commit crime or join a gang, as their anger is due to years of being ruled under a white mans system, is an utter lie. ILuckily i have many maori friends who are also appauled. I wonder how willie jackson and those with similar views to him will like it when 1 million more of us leave nz for good, thereby reducing the pool of taxpayers to fund his racist system.
I feel sad for Willie Jackson. He doesn’t understand his own history and just fires comments like, ‘being a moron and an idiot’, when i questioned him about his stand on co-governess.
Willie Jackson is just stirring up racial prejudice, the treaty is not a partnership and the Maori who signed it new that. Its a pity a spokes person for a once respectful race of people has to stoop to these depths. The Maori get far more fair treatment than any other so called "indigenous" People than anywhere else in the world.
It is time they accepted what they have and not continue to ask for more.
Genetically there's very few full blooded Maori left most are a mix. Why is it that they always push Maori band wagon when 80% of there genetic make up is European?
They were a Stone Age People when Europeans arrived in NZ where would they be now without them?
Time for them to stop complaining and whining and get on with being a New Zealander like the rest of the races in NZ eg Chinese, Asian, Indian etc
Since when have 15% of any population had so much representation in the government and all places in NZ society, If they are worthy and elected good on them, however position given based on race is a poor way to run a country as we currently see with 3 Waters, He Puapua agendas which are purely ways to increase the Maori elite coffers. The average law abiding / tax paying Maori will never see any money from these projects or any of the land settlements of the past.
Maori enrolling to vote for Maori electorates or wards is racial separatism but it doesn't necessarily contravene the 'one person, one vote' principle. However, the power or value of a Maori vote will be greater than that for the rest of us if the proportion of Maori ward or Maori seat representatives is greater than the proportion that Maori roll voters comprise of the population. I.e. if 20% of a council is voted for by those on the Maori roll then those votes wield more power over the council than 17% or less of Maori in the population should wield. That is still not the case either in central government or local council Maori wards but Maori activists are working towards that in seeking 50-50 racial co-governance, as they tried to do in Rotorua. 50-50 co-governance is being established for other bodies such as those managing national parks, rivers, the new health system and the proposed 3-waters bodies.
The Canterbury Regional Council Ngai Tahu Representation Act also makes a Maori person's vote more powerful than everyone else's vote because Maori can vote like everyone else for representatives on that council but they will have two (so far) further people there appointed by the iwi to forward their race-based interests. Also, if those iwi appointments are based on voting by Ngai Tahu people, then they will effectively have more than one vote each for representatives on that council.
The recent law change enabling Maori to jump more freely between Maori and general rolls also makes their votes more powerful than everyone else's because they can and will be used strategically for the closest poll where only a few votes could determine the outcome.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.