What’s going on? Last week Labour, the Greens and the Maori Party passed the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill.
Under this Bill, the people of Canterbury will elect 14 councillors. Everyone gets a vote – Māori, Pakeha and everyone else. And then something extraordinary happens. Ngāi Tahu appoints two more councillors. No voting and no election.
This is not a Māori ward, allocated proportionately to the population. These are additional appointments made by an independent entity – Ngāi Tahu. Something like the English aristocracy of old, or the Fijian Great Council of Chiefs.
National has opposed the Bill and will repeal it, if re-elected next year, because it offends two basic principles – equal voting rights for all New Zealanders, and basic accountability at the ballot box.
Ministry of Justice advice to the Government on the Bill points out that this clearly discriminates against non-Māori. Yet extraordinarily, the Ministry also says in a couple of loose paragraphs that the Treaty justifies this change.
This is a dramatic and radical change to the way we choose our government in New Zealand. When did we, as a country, decide that the Treaty trumps democracy? We haven’t.
The idea of equal suffrage – equal voting rights, regardless of gender, class and ethnicity – has been a pillar of our democracy for decades. Remember Kate Sheppard? All New Zealanders should have an equal say in who governs them; an equal say in appointing the people that make the decisions that affects their lives.
Equally fundamental to our system is the ability to throw poor performers out at the next election – that is the bedrock accountability in our democracy. But not under this Bill. Ngai Tahu’s representatives could never be thrown out.
Why this Labour Government thinks they can casually move away from these principles without a broad national discussion or clear mandate is beyond me. Where are the legal profession; the constitutional experts, the Human Rights Commission, the usual noisy crowd? The silence is deafening.
Kiritapu Allan, the Minister of Justice, says incoherently that “equal voting rights are critically fundamental to New Zealand’s democracy” and that she nevertheless supports giving Ngai Tahu the ability to appoint councillors, after they’ve already enjoyed equal voting rights. She makes no attempt to reconcile the two.
Some Labour MPs have said that Ngai Tahu is a special case; other Labour MPs (Tamati Coffey) have said: “I put a pānui out to all of those other iwi that are listening: Ngāi Tahu have opened the door.”
It’s clear that the argument for the Canterbury legislation will be extended to every other regional council, then unitary councils, then the rest.
If we as a country no longer think that equal voting rights apply at one level of government, pressure will build for change in national elections.
I can’t think of a more divisive agenda for any government to run.
In the absence of any comments from the Prime Minister on the topic, New Zealanders can rightly conclude it is the agenda of the Labour Party to change our democracy away from equal voting rights and accountability to one that points to two classes of citizens.
If Jacinda Ardern and her government Ministers no longer think that Kiwis should have equal voting rights, then they should make the case and ask New Zealanders whether they agree.
If it is dog-whistling to question these things, then we are all lost.
Paul Goldsmith is a National MP and spokesperson for Justice. This article was first published HERE
National has opposed the Bill and will repeal it, if re-elected next year, because it offends two basic principles – equal voting rights for all New Zealanders, and basic accountability at the ballot box.
Ministry of Justice advice to the Government on the Bill points out that this clearly discriminates against non-Māori. Yet extraordinarily, the Ministry also says in a couple of loose paragraphs that the Treaty justifies this change.
This is a dramatic and radical change to the way we choose our government in New Zealand. When did we, as a country, decide that the Treaty trumps democracy? We haven’t.
The idea of equal suffrage – equal voting rights, regardless of gender, class and ethnicity – has been a pillar of our democracy for decades. Remember Kate Sheppard? All New Zealanders should have an equal say in who governs them; an equal say in appointing the people that make the decisions that affects their lives.
Equally fundamental to our system is the ability to throw poor performers out at the next election – that is the bedrock accountability in our democracy. But not under this Bill. Ngai Tahu’s representatives could never be thrown out.
Why this Labour Government thinks they can casually move away from these principles without a broad national discussion or clear mandate is beyond me. Where are the legal profession; the constitutional experts, the Human Rights Commission, the usual noisy crowd? The silence is deafening.
Kiritapu Allan, the Minister of Justice, says incoherently that “equal voting rights are critically fundamental to New Zealand’s democracy” and that she nevertheless supports giving Ngai Tahu the ability to appoint councillors, after they’ve already enjoyed equal voting rights. She makes no attempt to reconcile the two.
Some Labour MPs have said that Ngai Tahu is a special case; other Labour MPs (Tamati Coffey) have said: “I put a pānui out to all of those other iwi that are listening: Ngāi Tahu have opened the door.”
It’s clear that the argument for the Canterbury legislation will be extended to every other regional council, then unitary councils, then the rest.
If we as a country no longer think that equal voting rights apply at one level of government, pressure will build for change in national elections.
I can’t think of a more divisive agenda for any government to run.
In the absence of any comments from the Prime Minister on the topic, New Zealanders can rightly conclude it is the agenda of the Labour Party to change our democracy away from equal voting rights and accountability to one that points to two classes of citizens.
If Jacinda Ardern and her government Ministers no longer think that Kiwis should have equal voting rights, then they should make the case and ask New Zealanders whether they agree.
If it is dog-whistling to question these things, then we are all lost.
Paul Goldsmith is a National MP and spokesperson for Justice. This article was first published HERE
9 comments:
Surely the only problem is the double dipping. Ngai Tahu should be given a choice. Accept the two unelected seats and have all members of the iwi removed from the electoral roll.
This would allow them to revert to the tribal system they appear to desire, the rest of us could continue with our democratic ways.
New Zealand is in a very bad way when fundamental decisions affecting our individual rights and democratic freedoms are taken in this manner.
When the Minister of Justice and her officials state that the Bill is "discriminatory to non-Maori and not in keeping with the one-person-one-vote tenet of our democratic system"....but then dismiss it as not in accordance with the Treaty so we're happy to override democracy - no explanation or justification - government is rotten.
These people are on an ideological crusade and are not fit to govern us. They care only about their own part-race group which they mystically elevate above all others - again with absolutely no justification other real world evidence than we were here first.
The main problem is that not enough everyday nzers care. They will just shrug their shoulders and say - oh well, i just try not to think about it. This is a common response when you talk to people. Those who are standing up and protesting are seen as bad citizens. People don't seem to understand that generations fought and paid with their lives so that future generations could have freedom. I am so shocked and disheartened by the some of my fellow kiwis.
The noisy crowd is not heard from because they are terrified of cancellation. As applies to all who comment in a vein not fawningly supportive of maori ambitions. Only a few insular totally independant folk with commercial or business interests or conventional employment are somewhat immune.
The various govt agencies have staff chosen for their proclivity to pander to the govt.
Ngai Tahu are a billion dollar corporation with commercial interests in water, they pay no tax. Would we give Fonterra two seats - they have strong interests in water quality ? This is foolish in the extreme.
Where does this put non Ngai Tahu Maori living in the electorate - clearly some Maori are more equal than others.
So is co-governance based on Tribe or Race?
If we can self identify our gender can we self identify our race ?
NZ has become a Clown Republic.
So what are National going to do about it?
How are future governments going to be structured so that these sort of undemocratic movements by treaty wielding Maori racists,stopped?
To have DJ Willie tell all the people of NZ that Democracy has changed and then watch the elected officials sit back and see it unfold without even a squeek of disquiet is quite frankly astounding.
There are people being paid by the Taxpayers of NZ to protect their rights.
If you can't defend the Democracy that pays your salary, then you are not fit for the role. Maybe a Jobseeker benefit will get you off your overpaid arses
Yeah, all good points Paul, but what are National proposing to do about it really? Repealing this one specific abomination of legislation is like curing measles by rubbing the spots off. What has to be repealed is all reference to the Treaty, "partnership" and co-governance in all legislation and from all government departments. National are still a million miles from winning back my vote.
All of the above where the Labour Government is concerned, and some- but I think not all - Maori. What is more alarming is that NZ may not be able to depend on the probity of our judiciary when it comes to wrestling with te tiriti, about which so many ludicrous claims are being made.
Why isn't the auditor general coming forward like in the rotorua situation and declaring this undemocratic like he did with the rotorua council? Has he been silenced?
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.