image of a ballot box

Proportional Representation – Disproportional Influence

Proportional Representation – Disproportional Influence

 

By Dr Muriel Newman

The 446,287 special votes cast during last month’s election have now been counted. According to the Electoral Commission, the final election tally gives National 44.4 percent of the party vote and 56 seats, Labour 36.9 percent and 46 seats, New Zealand First 7.2 percent and 9 seats, the Greens 6.3 percent and 8 seats, and ACT 0.5 percent and one seat.

In other words, as a result of the special votes, National has lost two seats from the provisional total on election night, while Labour and the Greens have gained one seat each.

In terms of potential future coalition deals, in a Parliament where 61 seats are needed to govern, the National Party and New Zealand First would have 65 seats between them, while Labour, the Greens and New Zealand First would have 63 seats.

Under New Zealand’s previous First Past the Post voting system the party with the most electorates would have won the right to govern. Had the 2017 election been held under FPP, in all likelihood National, which won 41 electorates compared with Labour’s 29, would have gone on to form a government – albeit with only 44 percent of the popular vote.

Critics argued, however, that such minority governments were unfair to the majority who did not vote for the winning party. This, and other factors, gave rise to the review that resulted in a change to the Mixed Member Proportional voting system.

Fast forward 21 years, through seven previous MMP elections, to 2017 and we now have the bizarre situation where the most popular party – and by a clear margin – could be locked out of government entirely.

So, even though the National Party gained ten more seats at the election, than Labour, if New Zealand First decides to team up with Labour and the Greens in a ruling coalition, the 1,152,075 people who voted for National – out of the total of 2,630,173 votes cast – would have no representation at all in the new Government.

In other words, while MMP has delivered proportional representation, it has not delivered proportional power. In fact, we have seen this many times before, when small parties can, and do, hold the country to ransom, wielding influence that is far greater than their proportion of the vote. And while critics are currently expressing strong warnings about the power that New Zealand First now has, we should not forget that in the last three Parliaments, the Maori Party was able to impose its radical separatist agenda onto the country – even though in the 2014 election it gained only 1.3 percent of the total party vote.

As this week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator, freelance journalist Karl du Fresne explains, not only was MMP sold to New Zealanders on the understanding that it would keep extremism out of Parliament – which it has clearly failed to do – but it has also enabled coalition parties to dodge some of their more difficult election pledges:

“Adopted in 1996 and modelled on the electoral system created in post-war Germany to ensure that no extremist party could again win total power as the Nazis did, MMP was promoted to Kiwi voters as a means of reasserting control over rogue politicians. In fact it turned out to be every bit as flawed as the first-past-the-post system it replaced.

“Under MMP, voters are shut out of the game the moment the votes are in. Unless one party has an absolute majority, which hasn’t happened in any of the eight elections since MMP was introduced, the politicians then disappear behind closed doors to do whatever furtive horse-trading is necessary to cut a deal.

“At that point, all bets are off. Every policy dangled in front of voters during the election campaign is effectively up for negotiation. What were solemnly declared on the campaign trail to be bottom lines become wondrously elastic or evaporate altogether. Voters have no influence over this process and can only await the outcome.”

The election result has some claiming it’s time for another review of MMP.

In particular, the ‘wasted’ vote arising from the demise of the Maori Party and the failure of The Opportunities Party and other minor parties to gain Parliamentary representation, has led to calls for a reduction in the 5 percent party vote threshold to enter Parliament.

In the last three elections, parties bankrolled by wealthy individuals, who positioned themselves at number one on their party list, attempted to win seats in Parliament. Had the threshold been dropped to 4 percent, Colin Craig and the Conservative Party would have entered Parliament in 2014, and if the threshold was 2 percent, Gareth Morgan and TOP would have been successful at this election.

Calls to reduce election thresholds are common in countries with proportional voting systems.

In fact, following a decision in Germany by the Constitutional Court in 2011, that the 5 percent threshold for European Parliamentary elections disadvantaged small parties and was unconstitutional, the threshold was reduced to 3 percent. However, the Court then ruled the new three percent threshold also hurt the equal opportunities of parties and so the threshold was then removed altogether.

As a result, while Germany has still retained a 5 percent threshold in its Federal Parliament, where five parties are represented, in the European Parliament, the seven parties that represented Germany before the threshold was removed, have now grown to 15, with seven of them – including the neo-Nazi National Democratic Party – having only one member each.

In other words, concerns that removing or reducing the threshold under proportional electoral systems would undermine political stability through fragmentation and the rise of radical parties, has indeed been borne out.

If New Zealand’s five percent threshold was lowered, and it was easier for more extremist minor parties to hold the balance of power, then all of the concerns that are currently being raised by the critics of New Zealand First would be exacerbated.

Those critics have also been disapproving of New Zealand First’s insistence that the special votes had to be counted before coalition talks could begin. However, they need to remember that in the past, the special votes have had a profound impact on election results. In 1999, the 225,329 special votes pushed the Green Party over the threshold for Parliamentary representation, resulting in them gaining and other parties losing seven seats – one from New Zealand First, two from National, three from Labour and one from the Alliance.

There have also been criticisms about the timeframe of coalition negotiations, but the overseas experience with MMP shows that most coalitions take months to formalise, rather than weeks. The record is Belgium, which, in 2011, went 589 days without an elected government! That was even longer than in Iraq, which struggled in 2010 to form a government after the fall of Saddam Hussein, only managing to do so on day 249 of the stalemate.

In Germany, which held its election the day after ours, coalition negotiations aren’t expected to deliver results until at least three months after the election. And in Holland, which held its election back in March, a ruling coalition still hasn’t been finalised.

In New Zealand, the length of time between the election and the swearing in of a new government has varied from just over three weeks in 1999, to over eight weeks in 1996 – our first MMP Government. Over the last three elections, the formation of a National-led coalition has taken around four weeks.

One of the most notable aspects of our election was the demise of the Maori Party – at least from Parliament. Many commentators have argued that this was due to it becoming too close to the National Party through its coalition deals over the last nine years. While that may have had an impact, there are many other factors that have contributed to the Maori Party losing the support of voters on the Maori roll.

One that commentators don’t mention is the fact that much of what the Maori Party stands for is at odds with what most New Zealanders want – including most Maori. The Party’s ideology embraces the class system, tribalism, and racial privilege – “values” that are the antithesis of what it means to be a Kiwi: fairness, equality, humility.

The net result of the Maori Party’s agenda is a tribal elite that is doing very well for themselves, while disadvantaged Maori continue to struggle.

Quite simply, by becoming a vehicle for Maoridom’s elite, the Maori Party lost touch with the needs of its electorate base.

In fact it is also likely that the Maori Party had become too radical for most Maori. At the start of the election campaign, Maori Party President Tukoroirangi Morgan outlined that the ultimate objective of their Maori supremacy agenda was to become a permanent Treaty ‘partner’ in Government: “The Maori Party represents the dreams and aspirations of all Maori who believe that we have a right to share political power and resources as was envisaged under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. This year is … about sending a clear and undeniable message that the Maori Party is the only genuine and independent Maori voice in Parliament. We will not be subservient to the Pakeha and tokenistic Maori leadership in the mainstream political parties. Our wero and call to arms is Mana Motuhake – our right to shape our own destiny.”

As it turned out, however, most Maori voters did not support the Maori Party’s separatist approach, preferring instead to support the Labour Party candidates in the Maori seats and be part of the mainstream.

The Maori Party’s co-leader Marama Fox – who stands in both worlds with a Maori mother and European father – was scathing about voters on the Maori roll opting to vote for Labour: “What I think the whanau have done is they’ve gone back to the mothership, they’ve gone back like a beaten wife to the abuser who has abused our people over and over again… They want to go back to the age of colonisation, where the paternalistic parties of red and blue tell Maori how to live.”

Such was her anger on election night that she even refused to concede defeat: “I don’t concede because conceding means that we let red and blue government rule our people like they’ve done so for a hundred and fifty years. I don’t concede to that. Not ever. We’ll be back to fight another day.”

In fact, Marama Fox outlined the plan for shared sovereignty in a recent interview in the Listener: “In her vision, New Zealand would gradually move to its own unique form of governance, one that would abandon the Westminster model in favour of Maori customs, principles and values.”

She had ‘plotted it out’: “It would take 36 years – 12 election cycles – for a Maori sovereignty party to share government… it’s a radical vision… but if we believe in it, then we need to march towards it. The critical step in shifting New Zealand thinking is to make the Maori language a core subject in the country’s schools.”

Marama Fox argued that “people look at things differently once they’ve acquired te reo. It’s a world view. The Maori world view is different and that’s expressed in the language. The language unlocks our history and our thinking.”

In other words, the compulsory teaching of the Maori language is the key to imposing a Maori world view – and Maori supremacy – onto New Zealand. It’s no wonder sovereignty advocates are so strongly pushing for the compulsory teaching of the Maori language in schools. It’s a pre-requisite for their march to ultimate power.

While the Maori Party have lost their Parliamentary representation, it would be naive to think they will disappear.  No doubt they will return to activism while they rebuild their party in the hope of coming back as a more powerful force in three years time. That activism will include targeting the most impressionable members of our community, with a campaign to make Maori language compulsory in our schools – and continue to portray Maori as the chief victims of our history.

[From a newsletter by Muriel Newman]

Rabid Racists Demise

Rabid Racists Demise

With any luck, the rabidly racist Maori Party has been consigned to the dustbin of history.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

The vitriol spewed by ex news reader Marama Fox was sobering reading. It was all the voters fault, she exclaimed.

Never, not once, not for a moment, did the racist duo of Flavell and Fox show any signs of asking themselves the most obvious question.

Perhaps the voters don’t like our Maori supremacist policies? Our words? Our actions? Us?

That the Maori language has no word for “democracy” takes on a whole new perception, eh?

The halving of the Greens MPs. Was that because the benefit fraud confession of Miss Meretricious? Or that people have had a gutsful of the Greens’ social engineering?

That’s why they’re called the watermelon party. A thin green veneer over a rapacious red core of extreme socialism.

That aside, the next few weeks will provide some interesting observations. Another but more wily and experienced fox will be courting the chickens in various political party hen houses.

Where to from here?

 

 

 

John Key funny

Arise Sir John

Disclaimer:

Whilst I have reblogged this article from another blog, and I do agree that John Key has been a disaster for this country, it does not mean I or 1Law4All agree with every statement made in the article. For example, I don’t believe we have true poverty in New Zealand. If you calculate the number of people living in poverty as the number living on a percentage of the average wage, then we will always have poverty, even if that same percentage are on an income of $100,000.00 a year. It’s a ridiculous way to decide if people are living in poverty. I also know that by always stating the number of kids, rather than the number of people, is designed to tug at the heart strings, (or guilt strings), because most of us know that if kids are living in poverty, it’s their parents fault. Not the Governments or the taxpayers.

Arise Sir John

For creating a New Zealand where there are over 250,000 kids living in poverty …

For refusing to get the bodies out of the Pike River mine and thereby helping individuals avoid justice …

For Dirty Politics …

For the increasing numbers of homeless sleeping rough …

For selling off shares in the electricity companies and in Air New Zealand and enriching the wealthy at the expense of the rest of us …

For presiding over the development of a housing crisis yet refusing to accept that one existed …

For increasing the Crown’s debt from $10 billion to $93 billion and claiming this was evidence of sound financial management …

For widening inequality in NZ …

For the widening sexist pay gap in NZ …

For legislating to give Sky City further gambling rights so that the convention centre can be built on the back of problem gamblers …

For attacking scientists, reporters and media …

For the repeated lie that every budget would result in a further 170,000 jobs being created …

For ruling out an increase in GST but then implementing one …

For stuffing up negotiations with Warner Bros, Rio Tinto, SkyCity …

For systematically under funding health …

For deliberately running down state housing stock …

For increased surveillance and “jihadi “brides” fear mongering …

For running down the education system with stupid ideological policies …

For the rising rates of “third world” diseases of poverty and overcrowding …

For claiming that tax cuts were fiscally neutral when they caused Crown debt to escalate …

For wanting to make New Zealand a nirvana for the 1% …

For harassing a waitress (and making us an international laughing stock) …

For the stupid failed “War on P” …

For wasting $26m on a failed vanity flag referendum …

For suspending local democracy in Canterbury …

For the creation of the working poor …

For under funding mental health and the highest suicide rates ever …

For claiming that he would apply higher Ministerial standards but then allowing Murray McCully to complete #sheepgate …

For destroying New Zealand’s ability to respond to climate change …

For the fiasco of private prisons …

For taxing paperboys and girls …

For forcing the TPP down our throats …

For turning your back on meaningful refugee increases …

For trying to use tax payer money to pay your Bradley Ambrose payout …

For destroying so many of our waterways in the name of intensified dairying …

For sheltering ministers who have been incompetent and worse …

For lying habitually about everything …

And for all that – achieving nothing of vision or significance …

For pandering to Maori demands, fueling resentment and entitlement and increasing racism in New Zealand…

For allowing mega companies to take our fresh water for nothing…

For championing racist policies which have destroyed New Zealand’s democracy…

Arise Sir John.

By: of The Standard

The last few in green I’ve added. I’m sure you can think of many more. Let’s hear them in the comments!

 

Save

Save

Anthony Willy

The State of Democracy in New Zealand

The State of Democracy in New Zealand

 

Posted on
By

Posted on: NZCPR.COM

Until the passing of the Resource Management Amendment Act 2017 the business of territorial local authorities was conducted by the elected representatives of the citizens living in the particular area. That is no longer the case. Henceforth councils will be required to share their statutory powers with self-selected, unelected entities. This marks the end of democratic local government in New Zealand for the obvious reason that the elected members are no longer sovereign but must take account of the wishes of the self-selected group none of whom will be required to submit to the ballot box. Given that the activities of local authorities play an increasingly important role in our lives this has the potential for far reaching consequences. No longer will the contents of the district plans which control all important aspects of; land and water use, and any activities involving discharges to the atmosphere, be arrived at with the consent and input of the occupants of the district but will become subject to the wishes of unelected group.

However, given that there seems to be increasing disinterest in local body elections one may wonder whether this is necessarily such a bad thing. Why not leave it to the professional staff and an unelected pressure group to determine what activities are, and are not allowed to take place within a district. In other words is democracy such a necessary or good thing? To answer this question it is helpful to start with three aphorisms:

  • “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.” – Lord Acton 1887.
  • “Democracy is a psychopathic expression of inferiority” – William Joyce, an American better known as Lord Haw Haw who broadcast defeatist propaganda from Berlin during to the war. He was hung as a traitor by the British at war’s end.
  • Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…” – Winston Churchill 1947.

Churchill uttered this in the aftermath of the general election in which Clement Attlee’s Labour government swept to power. It was an astonishing affirmation of the place of democracy as a political institution. Having lately been instrumental in salvaging the free world from German hegemony, Churchill was nevertheless comprehensively rejected by the United Kingdom voters. One would have expected some bitterness, or questioning of a political structure which intended to and did demolish much of the existing social norms into which he was born, and which his party represented. Not so – he continued to believe in the common sense and life experiences of the electorate in deciding who should govern the country. What then are some of the other forms about which Churchill spoke? To mention a few:

[Read more…]

Muriel Newman

Democracy Under Attack

DEMOCRACY UNDER ATTACK

By Dr Muriel Newman

NZCPR Weekly:

Democracy has been described as a ‘fragile flower’. Indeed it is, and it’s something we take for granted because our relatively young society has not yet experienced its collapse. But it’s that complacency along with a naive assumption that serious social disorder could never really happen here, that has created opportunities for those who seek to undermine democracy for their own personal gratification and enrichment.

The sad truth is that we have allowed those who want to subvert democracy to have a free reign.

This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator retired Judge and former university law lecturer Anthony Willy, outlines what’s been going on:

“Until the passing of the Resource Management Amendment Act 2017 the business of territorial local authorities was conducted by the elected representatives of the citizens living in the particular area. That is no longer the case. Henceforth councils will be required to share their statutory powers with self-selected, unelected entities. This marks the end of democratic local government in New Zealand for the obvious reason that the elected members are no longer sovereign but must take account of the wishes of the self-selected group none of whom will be required to submit to the ballot box.”

Anthony is, of course, referring to the consequences of the back-room political deal making  between the National and Maori parties earlier this year to unilaterally pass their ‘Mana Whakahono a Rohe’ agreements into law in such a way as to deny all public consultation and avoid any scrutiny by the wider public whatsoever.

By National’s own admission, the new powers that they granted are significant.  They will elevate any number of Maori tribal and family groups into positions of partnership with their local authorities for “plan-making, consenting, appointment of committees, monitoring and enforcement, bylaws, regulations and other council statutory responsibilities” – including over fresh water.

Anthony goes on to say, “Given that the activities of local authorities play an increasingly important role in our lives this has the potential for far reaching consequences. No longer will the contents of the district plans which control all important aspects of land and water use, and any activities involving discharges to the atmosphere, be arrived at with the consent and input of the occupants of the district, but they will become subject to the wishes of unelected groups.”

He further explains, “Democracy has fathered a notion of equal importance and that is the ‘Rule of Law’. This is a lawyer’s construct and little discussed or even understood by the general public. It involves the simple imperative that laws enacted by our democratically elected government will be applied equally to all irrespective of creed, colour or social circumstance. The combination of democratic government and the rule of law are the twin pillars on which all of our freedoms rest. Without the support of both pillars the house cannot stand. Absent either of these foundations, the liberties  we hold dear cannot survive and one of the competing forms of government will come back to haunt us.”

In legislating Maori tribal groups into the status of an elite ruling class that is totally unaccountable to the public, the National Party has undermined the Rule of Law in New Zealand and corrupted democracy as we know it.

It’s fair to ask, how on earth it could have got to this stage – has the nation been asleep while iwi leaders have been advancing their sovereignty agenda?

While the iwi agenda has not been secret, it has not been entirely open either. Much of their manoeuvring has been carried out under the guise of helping disadvantaged Maori. As a result, most New Zealanders have been totally unaware that a long-running and well-planned offensive has been underway.

Some, however, have been trying to raise the alarm for years.

For more than two decades, Professor Elizabeth Rata of Auckland University has warned of the threat being posed by the bicultural movement in New Zealand. She has outlined how a powerful cultural elite from within Maoridom – who were committed to subverting democracy – were positioned inside the State system, to destroy it from within.

According to Professor Rata, biculturalism arose in the seventies, driven by left wing activists who were seeking an alternative to traditional class politics.

What they found, of course, was cultural Marxism – a socialist philosophy originated by a former leader of the Italian Communist Party, Antonio Gramsci, who saw ‘culture’ as the way to win the class struggle. While the traditional battle to ‘liberate’ the working class involved taking control of the ‘economic means of production and distribution’, he focused on controlling the ‘cultural means of production’. His work inspired a literal socialist march through culture-forming institutions such as the media, universities, and churches – enlightening those within about the struggle for social justice by ‘oppressed’ groups in society, centred on race, gender, and sexuality.

Professor Rata explained that many ‘biculturalists’ moved into positions of power and influence in the education and health professions, social services, and government circles, as public servants and politicians, bringing with them their political commitment to the identity politics agenda: “Victimhood was subsequently understood as oppression by colonisation, the patriarchy, and ‘Western’ culture generally – an oppression experienced by ethnic groups, indigenous peoples, women, gays, and religious minorities rather than the capitalist exploitation of working class people.”

Over the years, New Zealanders have been deceived by the bicultural activists, who have claimed that the movement was a means to greater social justice for marginalised Maori. Yet, in reality, it has been used as a Trojan Horse to enable a rich and powerful tribal elite to grow stronger at a cost to disadvantaged Maori, who are little better off today than they were back then.

John Moore, writing on the Liberation blog run by Dr Bryce Edwards of Otago University, has called identity politics an “elitist scam” that enables the state largesse flowing to groups claiming to be marginalised, to end up in the hands of the elites who run the groups, instead of those in need: “Modern social-liberalism – in the form of identity politics – has been exposed as an elitist scam. Gender politics and tino rangatiratanga struggles were all presented as a way to alleviate the poverty, oppression and discrimination of those at the bottom of society. Instead these ideologies have acted to elevate… an elite of those from subjugated sectors of society…”

Professor Rata has also pointed out that while the agenda promoted by biculturalists occurs in the name of social justice, the path to social justice cannot be through ethnic division.

This was reinforced by former US President Barack Obama in 2006, when he said, “Ethnic-based tribal politics has to stop. It is rooted in the bankrupt idea that the goal of politics or business is to funnel as much of the pie as possible to one’s family, tribe, or circle with little regard for the public good. It stifles innovation and fractures the fabric of the society. Instead of opening businesses and engaging in commerce, people come to rely on patronage and payback as a means of advancing. Instead of unifying the country to move forward on solving problems, it divides neighbour from neighbour.”

The reality is that tribalism is an archaic social structure that suits the tribal elite, and no one else. Yet this is what National is supporting through massive state subsidies.

Policies enacted under the tribal ‘by Maori for Maori’ bicultural umbrella have led to separate Maori education systems, Maori university quotas, Maori health care, Maori welfare programmes, Maori housing schemes, and Maori justice programmes. There are Maori government departments and tribunals, Maori-only consultation rights, Maori-only co-governance rights, Maori-only tax rates, and Maori-only charitable status – to name but a few of a vast array of separatist privileges that now exist to support tribalism.

The problem is that the pressure for more tribal power and control is never-ending. Now the Maori Party not only wants to restructure the entire Justice System on “the basis of the Treaty of Waitangi and the foundation of partnership”, but it is also pushing “cultural competency” and a “Maori world view” across the whole of the public sector.

The education system is the latest victim, with cultural competency requirements having become compulsory from 1 July. As a result, all primary and secondary school teachers now have to “Demonstrate a commitment to a bicultural Aotearoa New Zealand” and prioritise “Maori learners as tangata whenua”.

As Professor Barend Vlaardingerbroek explained recently in an article for the NZCPR, “Passive acquiescence won’t do any more: teachers must now be personally committed to this political paradigm. This is where the new standards leave the democratic domain and enter the totalitarian realm. Bang go teachers’ rights as citizens to hold their own opinions without interference. New Zealand teachers are being deprived of a fundamental right of all citizens in a democracy – the right to disagree with ideological dicta promulgated by the political elite. This right is not about letting teachers get away with denigrating or abusing Maori kids, which falls foul of the duty of care and professional ethics. This is about hitting teachers who are actual or potential political dissenters with a stark choice: submit or vacate. And that is enforced ideological conformity – the antithesis of democracy and an infringement of teachers’ internationally acknowledged human rights.”

With there now being a critical shortage of teachers in New Zealand, one can’t help but wonder whether compulsory cultural competency requirements, that requires all teachers to not only swear an allegiance to the Maori sovereignty agenda, but to indoctrinate the children as well, is the straw that is breaking the camel’s back.

It’s all emerging as Professor Rata warned. The bicultural movement was captured by radical Maori separatists who will not stop until Maori control all governance processes – they want to return the country to Maori. “The bicultural movement in New Zealand has been a mistake – it is subverting democracy, erecting ethnic boundaries between Maori and non-Maori, and promoting a cultural elite within Maoridom.”

But she has also warned that there are two sides to biculturalism – the small elite group that are promoting it and the much larger group that is allowing it to happen.

And that’s where our fragile flower of democracy stands today.

So, what of the future and the possibility of a new government come 23 September?

The National Party has already said that if it wins sufficient support it would prefer to enter into another coalition agreement with the Maori Party after the election.

This news will have no doubt caused many former National voters to despair.

Anyone in doubt about the merits of National’s liaison with the Maori Party needs only reflect on the mess that National’s concession to the Maori Party over the foreshore and seabed has caused, whereby hundreds of Maori groups, gifted with millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money to fund their opportunistic grab for New Zealand’s coastline, have lodged claims covering every square inch of our coast, many times over, forcing citizens to have to fight to protect our public rights.

Labour, it appears, would be no better as their leader Andrew Little has already said he supports Maori sovereignty. So too does the Green Party, which also wants a new constitution based on the Treaty of Waitangi.

That’s also one of the goals of Gareth Morgan’s Opportunities Party – to increase Maori rights and put the Treaty at the heart of all Government affairs.

At this stage the only dissenting voice is that of Winston Peters with his call for a binding referendum of all voters on the future of the Maori seats – which, of course, are the power base of the bicultural movement and their Maori sovereignty agenda.

As the election jostling continues, one can only hope that more political parties will come to recognise the crucial importance of the Rule of Law and Democracy to New Zealanders – and realise that overwhelmingly, Kiwis want to live in a country where all citizens are treated equally.
 

Photo of Alan Duff

Doug Graham: Who has got to him?

Doug Graham: Who has got to him?

By Alan Duff

Published in the Rotorua Review 17 June 2017

There is no sense of remorse, or evidence of a conscience, or awareness of the extent of his public humiliation that will make Tuku Morgan apologise.

So this columnist is not going to waste more breath on him or his foolish political friends, who seem intent on going down with his ship already with just its prow out of the water.

If they sink with him, they’ll know who to blame for their lack of judgement and political cowardice.

Talking of judgement, ex-Justice Minister Doug Graham’s statements that we must all come to terms with there being one law for Maori and another for the rest of New Zealand is about as dunderheaded and “got at” as you can get. Brown men in suits down there in the capital must have got at him. Sly old brown foxes must have turned the hunt on him and made him the pursued.

He’s taken European legal principle and thrown it into the pot cooked up by cunning, self-serving jokers with the gall, the fee-charging effrontery, to call themselves Maori, representing, no-one bothers to check, themselves – a small group of them.

Doug Graham wont go down in history as the man who did so much to settle the long-standing Maori land grievances, not with statements like this. Instead, he’ll be remembered as the white man who sold out his fellow New Zealanders, part-Maori and non-Maori, to a bunch of brown gangsters and their pale brown thugs.

*(He’ll have lots of company in that club – John Key, Nick Smith, Bill English, Chris Finlayson and many others)

Undemocratic

There cannot be one law for Maori and another for the rest. It is undemocratic, divisive in the extreme. And anyway, it’s so stupid when you try to think of its application you would be right to question the intelligence of its advocates like Graham.

What happens to mixed blood marriages and their offspring? What are the children in the eyes of the law – Maori, European, half of each, what? Is my European wife under a separate law from myself?

Are our children, being quarter Maori, about the same percentage as Sir Tipene O’Regan, one or the other? Which part of their anatomy holds the trout-licence exemption? The eyes that spot the fish and think of which fly to tie? Or the hands and arms that cast the rod? Do their European first cousins fish along side them under threat of the law if they don’t have a fishing licence?

Can the law be broken by their mother but not me for the exact same recreational activity and catching fish which are not traditional but introduced? Is Doug Graham the ass the law can sometimes be?

What about our sports teams, say a rugby team? Same citizenry rights, to vote, to go to war, civil freedoms, but under separate law for certain things? Did Doug Graham see none of this when he opened his mouth? Can he really be that blind, that monumentally stupid, not to mention gutless for not standing up to these gangsters, that he fails to see the ramifications for his country? Has he got some sort of an agenda?

Screaming

Most of us are tired of screaming about lazy Maoris wanting money for nothing. Most of us are appalled at seeing Maoris attempt to carve up a state funded Maori television station among themselves while telling us they’re out for our interests.

Education trusts spend the money on paying burgeoning bureaucracy higher and higher salaries and perks, leaving nothing for the education. Tribal trusts blow their iwi’s funds. We’re still arguing four years later over the quarter billion dollar fisheries handout.

But the consultants and lawyers are still being paid. Public funding has become the Maori equivalent to robbery without arms. Hands are all that are needed. Fast ones. Working hard and having a work ethic, is considered dumb.

The best thieves get the most honour. They pin medals on their chests. The rest of Maoridom gets the pie in the sky promises whilst these jokers eat up large here on earth. The message goes out to Maoris that it’s a good thing not to earn money by the sweat of your own brow, just fill out the application form. And kick up brown hell if you get questioned too hard, let along turned down.

Accountants

Every state dollar meant to be thrown at Maori “problems” becomes only a “problem” for the accountants of the brown mafia as to where to channel the dosh. Hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars meant to help “cure” Maori social woes and all they’ve done is get worse. Any wonder when the money’s not reaching anywhere near the problem.

Maoris now shamelessly kick up when they’re not consulted on every tiny civil matter. They kick up when they lose a legal argument, whine when public funding comes with a demand for accountability. They whine even when it doesn’t because it’s never enough. Neglectful Maori parents – of which the country’s overwhelming majority are Maori – never get it that you have to tell children their existence is wonderful.

They never get it that you have to make sacrifices for your children to advance beyond what you got given. They’ll continue to not get the picture on anything so long as they’ve got politicians like Doug Graham telling them they live under separate laws and rules.

This column is contributed and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Rotorua Review.

*Comment in green added by 1Law4All.

Nothing The Treaty Can’t be Blamed For

Nothing The Treaty Can’t be Blamed For

Treaty of Waitangi claim targets alcohol harm among part-Maori

Maori Warden David Ratu says he’ll take his fight for fair alcohol policy to international courts if he has to. A claim before the Waitangi Tribunal is calling on the Government to raise the price of alcohol in an effort to curb the impact of drinking on the health of part-Maori.

In his claim, David Ratu said the Government had breached the Treaty of Waitangi by not implementing recommendations laid out by the Law Commission in 2010, which included increasing the price of alcohol, raising the drinking age to 20 and restricting alcohol advertising and sponsorship. Ratu also objected to the Government failing to ensure the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act was consistent with the Treaty of Waitangi.

Maori Party co-leader Te Ururoa Flavell says the effects of alcohol and its consumption and supply have been a matter of concern to part-Maori communities. Ratu, who works in south Auckland for the Turehou Maori Wardens ki Otara Charitable Trust, said he believed the sale, supply, and consumption of alcohol in New Zealand was actively driving health inequalities between part-Maori and non-Maori.

His Treaty claim is part one of the 140 claims that make up the Wai 2575 Health Services and Outcomes Kaupapa Inquiry. He argues that part-Maori have poor health as a result of the sale, supply and consumption of alcohol. The claim is currently before the Tribunal, which will examine breaches of the Treaty in health services and outcomes for part-Maori.

“Every piece of legislation out there has a treaty clause in it, except alcohol; except the one that has the biggest impact on and does the most damage to my people. That is simply not good enough,” Ratu said. Alcohol-related issues affecting part-Maori would continue unless the Law Commission’s recommendations were adopted, he added.

Alcohol Healthwatch said hazardous drinking amongst part-Maori had increased, particularly for part-Maori women where problem drinking had jumped from 21 per cent in 2011, to 29 per cent in 2015. Ratu’s claim is endorsed by Alcohol Healthwatch executive director Nicki Jackson. “The high level of alcohol-related harm that part-Maori experience is simply unjust, and is often related to living in communities saturated with liquor outlets,” Jackson said.

Jackson said the claim was unique, given it was seeking changes to New Zealand’s key legislation regulating the sale and supply of alcohol. Part-Maori communities and organisations faced significant challenges in matching the legal resources used by the alcohol industry to appeal policies, she said. “So although many groups are trying to reduce the availability of alcohol in their neighbourhoods, they are severely limited in their ability to have an effect. That is why this claim is so important.”

Maori Party co-leader and part-Maori Development Minister Te Ururoa Flavell said he wasn’t aware of the claim and it would be inappropriate for him to comment while it was before the Waitangi Tribunal. “I can say that the effects of alcohol and its consumption and supply have been a matter of concern to many of our part-Maori communities across the motu (island) for some time,” he said.

Regardless of the claim outcome, Ratu said he would continue to fight for fair alcohol laws. “I wont stop and if it has to go to the international court, then so be it.” Associate Health Minister Peter Dunne said he was not aware of the claim and would not comment while it was before the Waitangi Tribunal.

More Spin on Racism

More Spin on Racism

A recent Listener Article by Richard Harman prompted a pithy reply from John Ansell, wherein he said:


How deftly Richard Harman models the Left’s five-point Maorification strategy.

First, denigrate.

Mock anyone who champions the 80 percent of Kiwis who reject racial favouritism in poll after poll. Cast Don Brash as an ageing rock star, Waikanae as Wellington’s retirement town, and his audience as grey-haired baby boomers. Smugly assume most readers share the leftists’ distaste for my factual observation that whingeing Maori radicals have gone from the Stone Age to the Space Age in 150 years and haven’t said thanks.

Second, intimidate.

Harman didn’t tell you he spent Brash’s meeting furtively photographing every audience member’s face like a Stasi informant.

Third, invalidate.

Frame Brash’s Orewa speech as notorious. Forget that 93% of Dominion Post readers applauded it. Frame my Iwi/Kiwi billboard as controversial, despite floating voters rating it their favourite of thirteen billboards that won two campaign-of-the-year awards.

Fourth, exaggerate.

Harman cites one dissenter as evidence that the billboards were unpopular with National MPs. (Not evident to me when a clapping caucus confirmed post-election that many wouldn’t be in Parliament without them.)

Fifth, fabricate. (Remember when ‘history revision’ meant studying, not muddying?)

Trot out the party line that the chiefs retained sovereignty post-Waitangi, cunningly entitling their distant descendants to specific representation in an increasing number of pieces of legislation and regulation.

The Treaty specified nothing of the kind, of course – Cultural Marxist revisionist historians, journalists and Maori-vote-grubbing politicians did.

But Harman is right that National is looking more like an urban liberal party that’s working hard to align itself with Maori in the run-up to the election. Clearly any MPs who still represent the party’s members and principles have effectively been silenced as National and the rest of the Left test the line between [non-] partnership and [anti-] democracy.


For those who feel the need for some context to those feisty points, or who have the patience and fortitude to wade through it, click here to read Harman’s article.

The New Plymouth Racist Mayoral Zombie Reincarnates

The New Plymouth Racist Mayoral Zombie Reincarnates

Below is the alleged content of a facebook post by Murray Chong (a New Plymouth councillor) regarding the part-Maori committee on the New Plymouth council.

Iwi representation debate . . .

We had a referendum last term based having Maori Wards, and 83% of the voters didn’t want it due to it not being democratic as it was a race based rule.

On Monday we debate the set up of this new committee, and I hope our councillors remember and consider how the majority of its ratepayers voted in the above referendum.

This new Iwi representation committee will not only offer recommendations to our council (which is fine) but they will also have the power to make final decisions on the items shown below without it having to go through to full council for all elected councillors to have the final vote on.

We have elections to vote for councillors to make final decisions on our behalf and many people have suggested to me that unelected committee members should only have the authority to give recommendations to our council and definitely not have the authority to make final decisions.

This ruling that they are wanting to allow in this committee is unlike any other council committee and is not the standard democratic process.

This will be a very interesting debate on how we will all vote on this, on Monday.

Read the drivel on Stuff about how exhuming racist representation for New Plymouth is somehow a fresh start!

Iwi and council launch a new governance partnership and a fresh start


From the Racist New Plymouth Council . . .

New Governance Partnership Between NPDC and Senior Iwi Leaders Created

22 June 2017

New Plymouth District Council (NPDC) and iwi leadership have created Te Huinga Taumatua Committee to bring the expertise of iwi leaders to the Council’s decision-making process.

“This is a pleasing step forward and is about iwi leaders having a seat at the governance table,” says Mayor Neil Holdom.

Te Huinga Taumatua Committee will consist of five iwi leaders and five elected Councillors to identify and discuss issues of cultural, economic, environmental and social importance to Maori in the district. Unlike the former Iwi Relationship Subcommittee, Te Huinga Taumatua will generate items for the Council to consider as well as make recommendations on Council issues.

“The committee consists of iwi leaders with strong mana and governance experience. It will focus on issues of importance to Maori and provide strategic guidance to NPDC,” says Cr Gordon Brown.

“It’s a pleasing step forward in our partnership and we’re looking forward to the future of this governance committee,” says Cr Marie Pearce.

The committee consists of:

Mayor Neil Holdom.
Councillor Gordon Brown.
Councillor Richard Handley.
Councillor Stacey Hitchcock.
Councillor Marie Pearce.
Larry Crow (Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Tama Trust).
Leanne Horo (Te Kāhui o Taranaki Trust).
Glenn Peri (Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Maru Trust).
Liana Poutu (Te Kotahitanga o Te Atiawa Trust).
Colleen Tuuta (Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Mutunga).

The committee’s name has two parts: Te Huinga, which has a dual meaning for a gathering of people and a gathering of leaders, and Taumatua, a place where birds gather high in the trees.*

The committee will meet every five weeks starting 17 August, pending Councillors’ confirmation of its terms of reference at their next meeting on 26 June.

It will also help NPDC meet its statutory obligations relating to the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi under the Local Government Act 2002.

The committee’s full terms and references are online in the 26 June Council Meeting agenda.


* From whence they can undemocratically defecate on Ratepayers, below.

Swansong

Swansong?

Despite the possibility of civil unrest, the pervasive apathy of so many New Zealanders have made the task of championing racist-free democracy untenable for the 1Law4All Party and its Board.

The Board feels that by continuing to oversee the Party limping along in the way it is, members and donors may be given the impression that the Party has some chance of meaningfully opposing the rampant racism that is perverting NZ’s democracy.

In 2013 and 2014, 1Law4All solicited members with the promise of having the name 1Law4All on every NZ ballot paper. That promise was broken.

The present Board and several hundred stalwart members, donors and supporters have soldiered on since then, resolved to get the name 1Law4All on to every ballot paper and hoping to regain the credibility forfeited by the treachery of certain Board members of that time.

Alas, despite the need being even greater now, time has not healed the wound. The Party has never really recovered from that betrayal of members in 2014. As a consequence and despite everyone’s best efforts, the present position is:

  • The Party lacks the 550 financial members necessary to register to be eligible to lodge a Party List with the Electoral Commission, or utilise the $37,500 allocated to it for public broadcast funding; (see EC letter, below)
  • The Party has insufficient prospective Party List candidates (6-7 would be required if the 5% voting threshold was reached);
  • The Party has no President, or Secretary;
  • The Party has no Leader or deputy;
  • The Party is not broke, but lacks anything remotely like the necessary money to fight an election campaign—est: 1.5 million min;
  • The Party lacks the necessary administrative staff and general human resources necessary fight an election campaign.

Therefore, with a truly heavy and somewhat exhausted heart, the Board has proposed the motion to wind up. However . . .

Possible Alternatives

Instead of winding up, 1Law4All could advertise for candidates for the 64 general electorate seats. With its current bank balance (May 2017) and subject to some modest conditions, 1Law4All would offer to pay 50% of the candidates’ $300 deposit. If that was achieved, 1Law4All would indeed be on every General Election ballot paper. But not its logo. Unfortunately, only registered political parties can use a registered logo beside electorate candidates names on ballot papers.

There is no requirement for 1Law4All to be a registered political party to enable electorate candidates to use the party’s logo and name.

Another option might be assisting with the legal fees of the Council of Outdoor Recreation Associations (CORANZ) in fighting the recently advertised 550+ applications for NZ’s coastline by part-Maori opportunists, using the Marine & Coastal Area Act.

Yet another might be combining with another existing organisation that has the same or very similar objectives.

Or election advertising to ensure the racism of National, Labour & the Greens is well-known by all NZ voters. Of course, that still leaves the problem of who to vote for.

All are welcome to suggest more options for consideration.

The Annual General Meeting of 1Law4All (Inc) is to be held at the Armitage Hotel, 9 Willow Street, Tauranga at 1.00pm on Saturday 24 June 2017.


1 2 3 18

Doubtless paid for by the NZ taxpayer - not Mr Ratu.

%d bloggers like this: