Māori Party MP Oriini Kaipara went out to bat for democracy – hurrah! – at Question Time in Parliament yesterday. But her mission, more pointedly, was to expose the discrimination against Māori which (she would have us believe) will result from government proposals to change electoral legislation.
In the upshot, she was reminded of what the law now requires.
This means that if anyone is being denied the right to vote, it’s because they have broken the law: they have failed to enroll as voters, as the legislation requires, or they have been banged up in prison.
Kaipara kicked off by asking Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith if he stood by the Government’s policy to ban enrollments in the final 13 days before an election, despite the Attorney-General warning that this might result in more than 100,000 people being directly or indirectly disenfranchised.
Goldsmith – not unexpectedly – said yes, he did stand by the policy.
He said he had every confidence that New Zealanders can respond to a change in the signal that is sent to them regarding their enrollment obligations.
They’ve got a year to get enrolled, and I’ve got every confidence that they will be able to get enrolled 13 days before the election.
It then became apparent that Kaipara was concerned more specifically about the voting rights of Māori women.
She asked about the impact on Māori women “who are one of the most overincarcerated groups in the world?”
The answer was simple: if they’re imprisoned more than three years currently, they don’t have a vote. After the legislation is passed, they will lose their vote also if they’re imprisoned for less than three years.
…and that’s about sending a clear message to those who are victims of crime that we take that seriously. There are consequences for crime, and one of those consequences is temporarily losing one’s vote while one is in prison.
Kaipara drew Goldsmith’s attention to evidence that rehabilitation goals are undermined by denying prisoners the right to vote. Social exclusion and the risk of reoffending is increased.
Goldsmith was unmoved: he said he tends to think more about the needs of the victims of crime who are trying to put their lives together after having been bashed or stolen or murdered or the many other victims of crime that live in this country.
Look, we have a robust, strong democracy. There are many countries around the world that have various restrictions on prisoners voting. Currently, it is the law that if you’re in prison for three years or more, you lose your vote. We are extending that earlier, and we think that’s fully justified.
Kaipara broadened her line of question far beyond Māori women in prison:
Does the Minister’s Government truly care about democracy, or do they only care about democracy when it can be weaponised against Māori, such as when they removed Māori wards dismantled co-governance, and introduced the Treaty principles bill?
But whoa.
“They” didn’t remove Māori wards. The citizens of some parts of the country did that when they were given the chance by the Luxon government to vote for or against the race-based wards which their local authorities had introduced.
Isn’t that an example of democracy being exercised at the local level?
As for “co-governance”, it’s an arrangement which gives unelected iwi and hapu leaders shared decision-making arrangements with the Crown (central or local government), invariably by invoking the Treaty of Waitangi. It means both sides have equal authority at the governance table, but only one side is democratically accountable to voters for its decisions.
And no, despite the expectations – and hopes – of significant numbers of voters for National, ACT and New Zealand First in 2023, co-governance has not been dismantled.
Luxon’s coalition government has scaled back or removed some co-governance arrangements in public services, but it remains in Treaty settlements, local governance structures and community organisations
Then there’s the Treaty principles bill.
National failed significant numbers of its supporters on that one by determining not to support it beyond the first reading and an exhaustive select committee process.
But Kaipara’s question was ruled out of order by the Speaker because it didn’t comply with the requirements of Standing Orders.
In so much as the Minister was able to make a statement, he could.
And he did.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I can assure the House that this Government does care about democracy—very much so. The good news about democracy is that Governments are held to account, and we are perfectly willing to put our record before New Zealanders, particularly in the justice space, where we’ve seen 38—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Just a moment. Things have to settle down. There are people just yelling for no particular purpose—they are not interventions; they are just boorish barracking. It’s got to stop. The Minister will briefly eat his answer.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I was just continuing about the virtues of democracy and the accountability and where we lay our performance before the people of New Zealand at the next election, and we’re very proud of the progress that we’ve made on many fronts.
Now came the chance for ACT leader David Seymour to expose the nonsense of Kaipara’s concerns about voters being denied the chance to enroll.
Hon David Seymour: Can the Minister confirm it’s actually a legal obligation—one of the few blanket obligations the law places on all New Zealanders—to be enrolled to vote with an up-to-date address from the age of 18, so it shouldn’t be much of a problem to be enrolled 13 days before an election, and, if so, does he believe that New Zealanders of all races are equally capable of fulfilling this basic requirement?
Did you get that, dear reader?
There’s a legal requirement for all New Zealanders over the age of 18 to enroll.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes, and yes. I have always been troubled by a particular party claiming that their voters are disadvantaged by any changes, which would imply that their voters are less capable than other voters of getting themselves enrolled—which is a strange way to talk about your voters.
Perhaps Kaipara was unaware of the law.
New Zealand citizens (or permanent residents) aged 18 or older, who have lived in New Zealand continuously for at least 12 months at some point in their lives, must put their names on the electoral roll.
Voting is not compulsory. Enrollment is.
Enforcement is rare, but failing to enroll when eligible can result in fines under the Electoral Act.
But you have to get up to much more serious mischief to find yourself in jail and be denied the right to vote.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE. - where this article was sourced.
Kaipara kicked off by asking Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith if he stood by the Government’s policy to ban enrollments in the final 13 days before an election, despite the Attorney-General warning that this might result in more than 100,000 people being directly or indirectly disenfranchised.
Goldsmith – not unexpectedly – said yes, he did stand by the policy.
He said he had every confidence that New Zealanders can respond to a change in the signal that is sent to them regarding their enrollment obligations.
They’ve got a year to get enrolled, and I’ve got every confidence that they will be able to get enrolled 13 days before the election.
It then became apparent that Kaipara was concerned more specifically about the voting rights of Māori women.
She asked about the impact on Māori women “who are one of the most overincarcerated groups in the world?”
The answer was simple: if they’re imprisoned more than three years currently, they don’t have a vote. After the legislation is passed, they will lose their vote also if they’re imprisoned for less than three years.
…and that’s about sending a clear message to those who are victims of crime that we take that seriously. There are consequences for crime, and one of those consequences is temporarily losing one’s vote while one is in prison.
Kaipara drew Goldsmith’s attention to evidence that rehabilitation goals are undermined by denying prisoners the right to vote. Social exclusion and the risk of reoffending is increased.
Goldsmith was unmoved: he said he tends to think more about the needs of the victims of crime who are trying to put their lives together after having been bashed or stolen or murdered or the many other victims of crime that live in this country.
Look, we have a robust, strong democracy. There are many countries around the world that have various restrictions on prisoners voting. Currently, it is the law that if you’re in prison for three years or more, you lose your vote. We are extending that earlier, and we think that’s fully justified.
Kaipara broadened her line of question far beyond Māori women in prison:
Does the Minister’s Government truly care about democracy, or do they only care about democracy when it can be weaponised against Māori, such as when they removed Māori wards dismantled co-governance, and introduced the Treaty principles bill?
But whoa.
“They” didn’t remove Māori wards. The citizens of some parts of the country did that when they were given the chance by the Luxon government to vote for or against the race-based wards which their local authorities had introduced.
Isn’t that an example of democracy being exercised at the local level?
As for “co-governance”, it’s an arrangement which gives unelected iwi and hapu leaders shared decision-making arrangements with the Crown (central or local government), invariably by invoking the Treaty of Waitangi. It means both sides have equal authority at the governance table, but only one side is democratically accountable to voters for its decisions.
And no, despite the expectations – and hopes – of significant numbers of voters for National, ACT and New Zealand First in 2023, co-governance has not been dismantled.
Luxon’s coalition government has scaled back or removed some co-governance arrangements in public services, but it remains in Treaty settlements, local governance structures and community organisations
Then there’s the Treaty principles bill.
National failed significant numbers of its supporters on that one by determining not to support it beyond the first reading and an exhaustive select committee process.
But Kaipara’s question was ruled out of order by the Speaker because it didn’t comply with the requirements of Standing Orders.
In so much as the Minister was able to make a statement, he could.
And he did.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I can assure the House that this Government does care about democracy—very much so. The good news about democracy is that Governments are held to account, and we are perfectly willing to put our record before New Zealanders, particularly in the justice space, where we’ve seen 38—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Just a moment. Things have to settle down. There are people just yelling for no particular purpose—they are not interventions; they are just boorish barracking. It’s got to stop. The Minister will briefly eat his answer.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I was just continuing about the virtues of democracy and the accountability and where we lay our performance before the people of New Zealand at the next election, and we’re very proud of the progress that we’ve made on many fronts.
Now came the chance for ACT leader David Seymour to expose the nonsense of Kaipara’s concerns about voters being denied the chance to enroll.
Hon David Seymour: Can the Minister confirm it’s actually a legal obligation—one of the few blanket obligations the law places on all New Zealanders—to be enrolled to vote with an up-to-date address from the age of 18, so it shouldn’t be much of a problem to be enrolled 13 days before an election, and, if so, does he believe that New Zealanders of all races are equally capable of fulfilling this basic requirement?
Did you get that, dear reader?
There’s a legal requirement for all New Zealanders over the age of 18 to enroll.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes, and yes. I have always been troubled by a particular party claiming that their voters are disadvantaged by any changes, which would imply that their voters are less capable than other voters of getting themselves enrolled—which is a strange way to talk about your voters.
Perhaps Kaipara was unaware of the law.
New Zealand citizens (or permanent residents) aged 18 or older, who have lived in New Zealand continuously for at least 12 months at some point in their lives, must put their names on the electoral roll.
Voting is not compulsory. Enrollment is.
Enforcement is rare, but failing to enroll when eligible can result in fines under the Electoral Act.
But you have to get up to much more serious mischief to find yourself in jail and be denied the right to vote.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE. - where this article was sourced.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.