Henry Armstrong: New Zealand is in a Democratic Shambles – but who is listening?

The Cambridge Dictionary defines democracy as “The belief in freedom and equality between people or a system of government based on this belief in which power is either held by elected representatives or directly by the people themselves”.

Most New Zealanders view democracy within this definition as meaning one person, one vote, majority rule. They also believe that in a democratic society, freedom of speech and expression and the right to be consulted on important political and constitutional issues is fundamental, along with a non-partisan media and apolitical universities, inter alia.  But this simplistic view of democracy is actually quite incorrect, even dangerous, in New Zealand in 2023.

Under the Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) system, minority parties can establish a presence in our Parliament if they win a mere 5% of the overall party vote. And, MMP allows the voter two votes, one for an electorate candidate and another for a political party. MMP also allows for the continued existence of the long-established (1867) Maori seats in Parliament, currently seven, whereby the Maori people enjoy a permanent presence, irrespective of their representation in non-Maori electorates. The number of Maori seats is determined by the numbers on the Maori Electoral Roll. The Royal Commission on the Electoral System, and research by Canterbury University Law Professor Philip Joseph have both recommended that the Maori seats be abolished, but no government has been willing to do so.

Using the MMP system plus the Maori seats results in New Zealanders of Maori descent having four avenues of entering Parliament, compared to just two for everyone else:  elected by Maori to a Maori seat; as a list candidate for any of the political parties; elected to a general (non-Maori) seat; and finally, via Te Pati Maori (The Maori Party).

Taken together, how well are the Maori people (16%) of the population, represented in the New Zealand Parliament under MMP?  In 2020, there were 27 MPs of Maori descent out of a total of 120 MPs (22.5%). If this result is repeated in the 2023 election, and if Te Pati Maori (The Maori Party) achieves  5% of the party vote, the number of MPs of Maori descent could quite possibly be as high as 37 of 120 MPs (31%) - not at all bad for an ethnic minority of just 16% of the population.

Just how “democratic” is MMP if one’s political identity (gender, ethnicity, etc) is the primary reason for representation in Parliament? The answer to this particular question can be found in one of the forty-two different types of systems claiming to be a democracy, namely “representative” democracy, which holds that parliament must faithfully and accurately reflect the social make-up of the society it represents, namely gender, ethnicity, age, culture, religion and other social or cultural differences, (ie, one’s cultural identity) as opposed to a person being selected to stand primarily on their merits such as knowledge, experience and qualifications.

The utter incompetence of the current Labour-Green government in New Zealand illustrates what happens when political identity replaces merit.

The Labour-Green government of New Zealand has adopted this political model to the extent that if a current MP resigns, that person’s replacement must reflect the political diversity determined by the governing body. The hypocrisy and deceptiveness of the current New Zealand government can best be illustrated by the fact that New Zealanders of other (non-Maori) ethnic backgrounds, eg Asian, Indian, Pacific, African, etc, are not considered equal under this rubric.

What about majority rule, one of the traditional definitions of democracy?

Under MMP, if two major parties are very close, within say, 2-3% in voting numbers, a minority party, with a mere 5% of the total vote can exercise the balance of power. Such an outcome could be referred to as the “tyranny of the minority”.

The concepts of equality and freedom under the law are two fundamental aspects of a true democracy. Equality means that the law and government treats everyone the same, irrespective of their status or identity (ref-University of Berkeley California). But even these simple democratic concepts are under real threat in 2023 New Zealand.

The Treaty of Waitangi (1840) between some 500 separate Maori Tribes and the British Crown established the political and constitutional framework within which New Zealand was to be governed into the future. This constitutional model was and is based upon the Westminster Parliamentary Democracy model.

The Treaty itself is a simple, straightforward document comprising three Articles: The crown will govern; Maori are guaranteed continued possession of their lands, forests and fisheries at the time of signing; and Maori people are accorded the same rights as British subjects. Seems fair?

In 2023 New Zealand, however, various academics, historians and political activists now contend that the Treaty does not mean what it clearly says, but means what these charlatans now, in 2023, say it means. Using flawed concepts such as “presentism” (applying today’s values to historical events), plus revisionist histories and disingenuous arguments, as well as outright lies, these revisionists claim that the Treaty is a “partnership” between the various tribes and the Crown. They quote an “obiter dictum” by Justice Cook in the 1987 Lands Case as evidence, when he opined that in his view the Treaty was “akin” to a “partnership”. The fact that “obiter dicta” have no legal status or authority is simply ignored by the revisionists. Using this approach, the revisionists now claim that under their “partnership” interpretation, Maori are entitled to co-govern New Zealand. Co-governance models  for political and constitutional reform are currently being widely discussed with Maori iwi, using two reports - He Puapua (2019) and Matike Mai Aotearoa (2016).

But non-Maori New Zealanders (84% of the population) are not allowed to be involved in any discussions concerning their recommendations. In fact the current Labour-Green government purposely withheld He Puapua from their governing partner, NZ First, in the 2020 election. Only after the election was NZ First leader Winston Peters made aware of its existence. Any further reference to these reports has now been shut down by government and the media, pending the 2023 election, but will surely be resurrected should Labour and the Greens be re-elected.

These documents set out a totally undemocratic bi-cultural constitutional model whereby New Zealand would have two parliaments, one for Maori (16%) and one for non-Maori (84%), overseen by a “Treaty House” comprising equal numbers of Maori and non-Maori which would ultimately pass (or not) all legislation.

Pathways to achieving this constitutional transformation by 2040, the 200^th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, are provided in these documents, but are not for public discussion. The reason given by the Labour-Green government is that “they are not policy”, but in fact several recommendations have already been implemented.

The revisionists, ably supported by a politicised public broadcasting system (specifically funded by the government’s Public Interest Journalism Fund of $55million), purposely and dishonestly fuse several terms in order to support these undemocratic activities. “Co-governance” is differentiated from” co-government” and is now euphemistically rebranded as “partnering”. The governing bodies (directors, boards, councils, etc) of almost every New Zealand public body now comprise equal numbers of Maori and non-Maori, plus equal numbers of women. The boards of RNZ and TVNZ are prime strategic examples. So, “co-governance” is already widely in place. The public have not been involved in, nor invited to comment upon, these political appointments. In some cases, for example university Councils, ministerial and government appointees outnumber elected members. Merit per se is not the primary appointment factor in these appointments, but political identity and political allegiances most certainly are.

When challenged on matters of claimed inequality (inequality is illegal under the NZ Human Rights Act) the revisionists simply substitute the term “inequity” which is different from “inequality”. Inequities which only affect Maori, apparently abound right across New Zealand’s social make-up, in health, education, welfare, and justice. The list is endless. Statistics are used (or misused) to claim such inequities, such as the 7 year life-expectancy difference between Maori and non-Maori . When asked why there are such differences, the revisionists claim the existence of racism in the health sector, amongst others. When asked for evidence of this, the revisionists are unable to provide clear evidence so always fall back on their favourite trump card - it is the impact of the “colonisation” of Maori 200 years ago.

But the most disturbing factor in all of the forgoing examples is the total absence of any public discussion or debate. Any attempt to challenge or discuss these issues immediately draws the insulting accusation of racism, including, unbelievably, in New Zealand’s universities. A comprehensive and well-researched range of books and articles which provide wider and alternative viewpoints on where New Zealand is currently at, including those by Tross Publishing, have been dismissed by the revisionists or are not acknowledged by them, for to acknowledge their existence gives them credibility, apparently.

In many cases, these books have been excluded or removed from school libraries.

A recent New Zealand-wide tour by Northland resident Julian Batchelor opposing the undemocratic, bi-cultural model of “co-governance” is being regularly shut down for “security” reasons following strident and in some cases, violent, protests by supporters of “co-governance”.

Batchelor has been threatened with violence and house burning by Northland Maori activists. He and former political leader and former Reserve Bank Governor Don Brash, are now labelled “far right” and “white supremacists” by the mainstream media. Brash, incidentally, simply calls for “one law for all” in New Zealand. How democratic is that?

Given the forgoing examples, New Zealand in 2023 cannot possibly be considered to be a democratic nation. Around the world, there are many examples where ethnicity alone has been considered far more important than the rights of all the people, including Sharia law and the genocide of “ethnic cleansing”.

Is this what New Zealanders want? We are now, sadly, increasingly divided by race and face a frightening and very uncertain future. But are we listening?

Henry Armstrong is retired, follows politics, and writes.