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.
 

Those Brochures!

Those Brochures.

Here they are! For all to see and read!

Spot the deplorable, despicable, bigoted, racist, anti-treaty bits – if you can!

If anyone can point out any parts of those brochures which contain “disgraceful, despicable, racist bigotry or nasty, racist drivel,” then 1Law4All will give Peter Dunne a one year’s free 1Law4All Party membership.

Photo of Casey Costello

An Outstanding Landmark Speech by Casey Costello – Hobson’s Pledge

An Outstanding Landmark Speech by Casey Costello – Hobson’s Pledge

Please read this amazing speech by Casey Costello of Hobson’s Pledge.

BEWARE OF SEPARATISM – WE ARE NEW ZEALANDERS FIRST

by Casey Costello

“He iwi tahi tatou… At this time in New Zealand I don’t think there is a more powerful statement to be made.

Hobson’s Pledge has been established with total commitment to New Zealand’s history of equality – setting precedent for inclusion and unity.

Standing next to Don Brash does of course raise the question as to who I am, on what authority can I speak on such an important issue, and to be honest it is a question I ask myself.

Don Brash is a person who, on top of his personal and professional achivements, has continued to have the conviction, fortitude and integrity to never walk away from any opportunity to support and encourage our nation’s leaders and decision makers.

On top of this he has been consistent and steadfast in his position regarding equality before the law, the founding principle of Hobson’s Pledge Trust.

This consistency in his position has somehow been used as a reason to minimize and negate our message.

Astounding that someone with such a political background has remained steadfast on any issue let alone an issue as important as this.

For my part I am proud to be a spokesperson and my credentials are simple.

I am a New Zealander.

I am so proud of our nation, our place in the world and our melting pot culture.

We are not without our history both good and bad but it is time to focus on our future, on the path that New Zealand is taking in the years ahead.

There are many challenges that face us in terms of housing, protecting our environment, managing our nation’s resources and supporting those in need.

These are issues that impact all New Zealanders and are not peculiar to any ethnicity.

Hobson’s Pledge seeks to highlight the actions that are being taken by our government that undermine the foundations our country was built on – equality, democracy, and unity.

We have reached a point where we are being asked to identify by ethnicity and not citizenship.

I am a New Zealander, a Maori and a descendant of Anglo/Irish settlers who came here in the 1860s but firstly a New Zealander.

We all have our journey that brought us to this country and our unifying factor is our New Zealander citizenship.

Regardless of when we or our ancestors came here we have always known that our citizenship assures us equal recognition and representation before the law.

When I became involved with Hobson’s Pledge I was aware of an increasing level of concern and frustration that exists broadly among New Zealanders in regard to separatist policies that were creating racial division.

Unfortunately this was a subject difficult to discuss for fear of being labelled racist and anti-Maori.

Even when I speak out on this divisive and separatist platform that our government has created it has been suggested that I am a “token”.

I have had my ancestry and credentials as a Maori challenged.

It has even become an issue as to how much Maori I am, apparently percentages count.

To be clear I am here to speak for Hobson’s Pledge as a New Zealander with respect for the Treaty of Waitangi, for all the people that are part of our nation and to protect our legacy of forward thinking inclusive legislation as first demonstrated in the treaty…

He iwi tahi tatou – we are now one people.

But our Government, our nation’s leaders are NOT allowing us to be one people.

We are being delivered separatism and an erosion of our democracy on the basis that this will redress historical issues and achieve an equality that we are expected to accept has not previously been available to Maori.

This is not true.

I have been privileged in my life to be raised at a time where I did not know that Maori ancestry deprived us of an opportunity to succeed, where we were not equal.

When I stood beside my grandfather while he worked his land in Whakapara, no one told me he was poor, that we were disadvantaged.

Despite the fact that, if he was assessed by today’s standards, he would be deemed to be “in need” my grandfather, Honi Pani Tamati Waka Nene Davis, never considered that he was not equal and that he had been prevented from achieving economic prosperity.

What he did know was that he was responsible for his family and he got up every morning and proudly took care of those that depended on him.

Together with my gracious, proud and loving grandmother all their mokopuna were taught their culture and instilled with pride.

We were taught respect, we knew how to show empathy, and we were never in any doubt about how much we had to be grateful for.

When my mother married my father they left Northland to start their family and all six of us were raised in Auckland.

We remained connected with our heritage both Ngapuhi and Anglo/Irish.

Just like so many New Zealanders we knew where we had come from and that there was no limit on what we could become.

And there were no limits… but I suppose the difference was that there was definitely no handouts.

I vividly recall my brother full of teenage arrogance deciding that he would leave school and claim an unemployment benefit.

On finding this out my mother made him pay the money back – no child of hers was going to live on handouts when we were capable of working and succeeding.

I came from a proud heritage and was lucky enough to live in a country where I would not be judged on anything other than my ability and my work ethic.

From leaving school to work in an icecream parlour, through a range of industries, to the Police (leaving as a detective sergeant), vice president of the New Zealand Police Association, to my current position as general manager of a building services company, I have been exposed to a full range of industries and responsibilities and at no time have I ever encountered barriers or restrictions either for my race or my gender.

To go even further I have observed that when in a position of being equally qualified to my peers my ethnicity and gender has been an advantage and I defy anyone to dispute that point.

Never in my lifetime have I seen an instance where being a Maori has been a disadvantage. It has also never been an excuse for lack of achievement.

We are so frequently told that there is a need to make special allowance and extra compensation to those with Maori ancestry because without this we will not see Maori succeed.

This rationale is flawed and any special allowance that is based upon when your ancestors arrived in New Zealand is, at its core, racist and separatist.

For those who try to tell me that this special allowance is needed for Maori to achieve equality then I stand here today to tell you that you insult me, you patronize my heritage and MOST importantly you deprive the generations ahead of us of an inherent belief that anything is possible.

So what has changed from the New Zealand I was raised in to now?
Somewhere along the way Te Tiriti o Waitangi – the Treaty of Waitangi, established to provide equal recognition and opportunity to all New Zealanders – has become the mechanism by which division and disempowerment are the stock in trade.

A runaway train that is gathering momentum channeling increasing amounts of money to frequently self-appointed representatives with virtually no benefit being distributed to those with genuine need.

I defer to the very wise words of Sir Apirana Ngata from a speech he delivered in 1940 –

‘What remains of the treaty of Waitangi? What is there in the treaty that the Maori can today celebrate whole heartedly with you?

‘Let me say one thing. Clause 1 of the Treaty handed over the mana and the sovereignty of New Zealand to Queen Victoria and her descendants forever.

‘That is the outstanding fact today.

‘That but for the shield of the sovereignty handed over to her Majesty and her descendants I doubt whether there would be a free Maori race in New Zealand today.

‘Let me acknowledge further that in the whole of the world I doubt whether any native race has been so well treated by a European people as the Maori of New Zealand.’

I wonder how Sir Apirana would reflect on the situation now.

New Zealand is being divided, the country that was founded on unity and inclusion, the country that was the first to give women the vote, is being divided by a vocal minority that has made it impossible to even have the conversation about the issues of equality and unity without being labelled racist.

Through legislation, policy and process New Zealand is being separated.

I have been told so many times that the reason for the challenges that seem to be confronting Maori is due to grievances that occurred over the last 175 years.

We are asked to believe that Maori are so poorly represented in the all the worst statistics due to racial disadvantage and prejudice.

It is never about poor personal choices and lack of responsibility or accountability.

The strongest message we are bombarded with is that there needs to be a putting “right”, to make amends but this isn’t being done through creating opportunity but through separatist legislation, erosion of our democracy and lastly handing over money without any condition or control on how it should be used.

We fully acknowledge that where it can be established land has been confiscated then compensation should be paid by way of a full and final settlement.

And where are these settlement funds going? Is it being used to support the most vulnerable and in need, has it enhanced prospects for Maori.

Since 1990 over $2 billion has been allocated for settlement and yet this does not seem to be achieving any tangible benefit for Maori.

In fact it seems to be the opposite impact we are being asked to believe things are worse, worse than it was for my grandparents and worse than it was for me.

So for the sake of this elusive equality for those with Maori ancestry we are now eroding our democracy… it seems the more that is given the less is achieved.

It makes me glad that my grandparents are not around to hear Maori leaders promote that it is okay to expect less of Maori; that it is okay to offer no accountability, no responsibility; that it is okay to excuse failure and lack of pride and motivation because of a history that has long since been put right.

The strongest message from so many is that Maori have been failed, deprived, held back. This is not true.

All that is being created by a vocal minority is a demotivating sense of entitlement and mounting resentment.

I am not alone on this, there are many respected and accomplished leaders with a proud Maori ancestry that support this position.

No matter who you are, what your ancestry is, or what country you call home if your Government, if your legislation, if your society continues to send a clear message that you cannot achieve because of some vague, undefined, and frequently imaginary barriers, then you will never achieve. Why would you even try?

I do not stand here claiming there isn’t need, there isn’t poverty, there isn’t social issues but this is not exclusive to any ethnicity.

More and more is being done to ensure that there is not even a suggestion of bias or inequality but we still see Maori being more poorly represented in the worst statistics now than they were 30 years ago.

And yet we still cannot stop and discuss the situation without cries of racism.

I am fully aware of the challenges and often horrific conditions that exist for those in New Zealand who are vulnerable and in need.

I have 14 years of Police service, mostly in South Auckland that gives me the knowledge and first-hand experience to be able to comment on the challenges that face our most vulnerable.

Hobson’s Pledge fully acknowledge that need exists and I believe every society must be judged on how they treat their most vulnerable and most in need.

But need is based upon need, not on ethnicity.

Equal distribution of support is essential and cannot be prioritized based upon race or upon when you or your ancestors arrived in New Zealand.

Maori have succeeded and continue to succeed in academia, arts, business, media, politics.

To continue to claim special representation is needed is patronizing, divisive and counterproductive.

Hiding behind their claims of addressing equality our Government is protecting their alliances and balance of power by making concessions that undermine our democracy and create inequality before the law.

Management of our resources, control of fresh water, Hauraki Gulf, Waikato River, even down to consulting on the use of geographically significant place names… the concessions continue

And yet New Zealanders are still reluctant to speak out for fear of being seen as ignorant and racist… best not to mention that despite all the fancy words, the Emperor is actually naked!

Our Prime Minister has the arrogance and demonstrated contempt for those people who have supported his party to suggest that “New Zealand has moved passed this” – deriding Hobson’s Pledge for its position.

How offensive that he can scoff at a stand for equality and unity while actively endorsing legislation that is dividing New Zealand based on race.

Our strength as a nation will continue to grow through recognizing our diversity, individual accountability, personal responsibility and our foundation of unity: he iwi tahi tatou

We cannot allow the voice of a few to force us into separatism.

I ask you for your support. I ask you to help us send a very clear message that New Zealanders are smarter and more informed than our Government gives us credit for.

Register your support. Give us the numbers to verify the importance of this issue. It is through your support, your donations and your involvement that we can create the Political appetite for change.

In the powerful words of another respected and accomplished Maori leader, Sir Peter Buck:

‘Beware of separatism. The Maori can do anything the Pakeha can do, but in order to achieve this we must all be New Zealanders first.'”

Casey delivered this landmark speech in Tauranga on the 22nd of November, 2016.

Ethnicity Anomalies

Ethnicity Anomalies

26 April 2016
The Editor
Northland Age

Many Kiwis are making valid protests about Waitangi claimants with very slight maori bloodlines (ethnicity) and looking for a formula on how to address this anomaly.  Well here’s the solution; it’s called the Ethnicity Equalisation Scheme (EES).

For openers, we must address the quixotic definition of maori in S.2 Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1974 which most sensible Kiwis consider to be farcical because it seeks to create a statutory maori race.  If claimants are going to use any level of maori ethnicity for Waitangi claims etc. then a scheme is required with authenticated certified documents to ensure whakapapas are accurate, with Birth Certificates, Driver’s Licences and Passports, etc. endorsed all showing the degree of ethnicity attributed to claimants and this must be the minimum prerequisite legal requirement prior to obtaining any payments from Waitangi claims. All this actioned at the cost of the claimant.

It follows when looking at a tribe of say 2,000 ‘members’ there must be supporting documentation and evidence for each and every tribal member with lists made available for public inspection and then the ethnicity of the whole tribe must be averaged out.

Should the perceived grievance claim  or any other claim (hard to take seriously) for some reason be successful and for example assessed at say $32 million, then if the average maori ethnicity of the tribe is 1/8th the payment out would be only $4 million and the $28 million balance would be withheld along the same lines as the ‘contributory negligence doctrine’ to the extent of 7/8th representing the ethnicity percentage other than maori and funds returned to the NZ taxpayer via the Government, i.e, not paid out.

Now isn’t that a fair and equitable outcome because Kiwis are entitled as of right to know all those who are claiming to be statutory maori are providing accurate documentary proof and word of mouth mumbo jumbo is not good enough. If citizens don’t want special endorsement there is no need to complete any details and they will simply receive a normal Kiwi passport without notation – the choice is theirs. Of course other citizens could also choose to apply for the ethnicity endorsement at their own cost. Current assessments indicate no one can claim to have 50% maori ethnicity and therefore other than by virtue of the statutory definition everyone in NZ must currently be classified as non maori.

Rob Paterson
Matapihi

Post Election Analysis

Ballot Paper SpoofThe situation re the steady advancement of Maori privilege seems to be as bad, if not worse, after the election than before it. One of Ngai Tahu’s Board members, Tutehounuku (“Nuk”) Korako, is a new List M.P. for National. Watch how fast he will be promoted. Every bit as fast as the utterly incompetent Hekia Parata – also a List M.P. because no electorate will vote her in. With this character and Whinlayson, Ngai Tahu’s ex-lawyer (but don’t count on the “ex”), the interests of that greedy tribe will be pushed at every opportunity and no doubt more and more public resources will be transferred to it, requiring more and more money from taxpayers and/or more borrowings to fund the consequential government deficit.

National will continue to bow to the Maori Party’s ever increasing demands. Key has given the powerful and big budget Te Puni Kokiri (Ministry of Maori Affairs) to Flavell of the Maori Party even though that party got only 2 seats with just 31,849 (1.32%) of the votes. The first thing that Flavell said in public was that he will be pushing for a big increase in expenditure for the racist Whanau Ora programme, which is effectively a means for Maori to govern themselves in matters of health, education, social services, etc., quite apart from the rest of society. Whanau Ora is one of the greater forces in creating an apartheid society as it pushes Maori health, etc., into the hands of inept and incompetent tribal organisations that are publicly funded but not subject to the same financial accounting as other government bodies. Of course, it is racist to ever question “the Maori way,” whereby they just write “koha” for any unauthorised expenditure. These organisations milk the public purse but deliver very little, and what they do deliver is tainted by racism.

After two terms, National scored a large vote which, combined with what is and will continue to be for the next three years an effectively self-destructing Labour Party, is not good for democracy as it means that at the next election there will be little chance of close contests in electorates to put National M.P.s on their toes. They can afford to be as arrogant as they like with the NZ Electorate.

So, with Labour effectively out of the picture until well after the next election, if not forever, how will 1Law4All stop the juggernaut of apartheid ruining this wonderful country? What is certain is that it will not be stopped by either New Zealand First or the Conservatives.

For many years it has been the NZ First’s party policy that the Maori seats in parliament must go. Then, a few weeks before the election, this policy changed to letting the Maoris (and them only) decide whether the seats should be abolished. And we all know what they would say – at least the minority who actually vote and they are under the influence of the tribal elite, which has a vested interest in retaining these racist seats.

Peering through the haze, there has always been a strong Maori presence in NZ First but, under the influence of Tracey Martin M.P. and her extended family, several of whom have key positions in NZ First, there has been a shift in emphasis towards obliging the tribal elite, which seems to have infiltrated the party. Perhaps it was that influence that caused Dr. Hugh Barr, co-founder of Coastal Coalition and an outspoken opponent of the transfer of the foreshore and seabed to coastal tribes under the Marine and Coastal Area Act, to be bumped down the NZ First List from No. 10 to No. 20 shortly before the Election.

Peters might huff and puff in public, saying what he thinks voters want to hear, but it appears that he has lost control of his Party and it would be folly to think that the principle of One Law For All would be advanced by NZ First. Therefore, the sad conclusion is that, despite NZ First’s oft-repeated rhetoric on the principle of One Law For All, genuine supporters of that principle can not rely on NZ First, which under the new order backtracked on the Maori seats and demoted Hugh Barr for obvious reasons.

The Conservatives contested the 2011 election and got about 2.6% of the vote – not bad considering that the Party was put together only a few months earlier. It is only natural that they thought that they would build on that figure and achieve over 5% (120,000 party votes) in 2014.

Over the last three years Colin Craig has travelled the country, addressing virtually every Grey Power and Probus club and has put millions of his own money into the Party. Fair enough. They were expected to get over the 5%. They put everything – and that means EVERYTHING – they ever had or are ever likely to have into the 2013 election and yet got only 95,598 (4.0%) Party votes – a long way short of the required 120,000.

If, after all this effort, that is all they can get, then they will not get more votes in 2017. In other words, they have had their chance and failed. At the next election quite a few of those who voted Conservative this time will likely not do so again as it will be seen as a wasted vote. They will never cross that threshold of 120,0000. It seems that even the Conservatives believe this and that would explain why Garth McVicar, their highest polling candidate (in Napier) has, in the words of Wellington’s Dominion of 28th November, 2014, “decided to leave the Conservative Party and return to the Sensible Sentencing Trust”, which he founded.

A strange thing is that quite a few big drinking and even liberal people said that they voted Conservative, seen by many as a party of wowsers and religious types. Why did these people vote for a party which, in normal circumstances would not be the type of party they would support?

For voters, was it a process of elimination? They’ve never voted Labour, they don’t like National, they don’t trust Peters and that only left the Conservatives. If that’s the case, that doesn’t provide the Conservatives much hope for a strong support basis as next time such disenchanted floating voters will be looking for the next BIG NEW THING. Maybe 1Law4All? Back in the 1978 election, Social Credit got 16.1% of the votes – not necessarily because people believed in their policies, but because they were not enamoured of National or Labour.

By 2017 Colin Craig will be old hat – just like NZ First which recently had its 25th anniversary – and will join Social Credit to be considered a part of NZ’s political history. The 1Law4All line to Conservative Party voters should be: why not try something new instead of voting for a party that will never get 5% of the party votes.

So there it is. A National government of unpatriotic appeasers, a Labour Party with no prospect of ever being the government (and, even if they were, they’re opposed to the principle of One Law For All), a NZ First Party that has gone off the rails towards the marae and a Conservative Party that has not a hope in hell of ever getting 120,000 votes. And yet the 1Law4All issue is the most important one facing the country.

1Law4All has a little under three years to expand its membership and make its presence felt. How it does that is up to the Board and, since it’s now been purged of defeatist people with other agendas, Party members must support the Board as it focuses on the objectives of 1Law4All and being on the ballot paper in 2017.

Although 1Law4All is a one issue party but there is no reason why it can’t take on ancillary matters of equality. Such as equal access to the ocean, beaches, rivers and National Parks. In doing so, it is important to tackle local issues, as well as national. E.g. local government equality and democracy, rather than race-based positions. 1Law4All should oppose the introduction of racist and separatist “Maori wards” to the New Plymouth District Council and any others.

1Law4All should oppose Councils changing the spelling of names without a majority vote in a local referendum. E. g The change of spelling by the Wanganui District Council to Whanganui, despite the opposition of 85% of its ratepayers.

1Law4All should also oppose Ngati Porou’s huge (Marine and Coastal Area Act) foreshore and seabed claim in Poverty Bay. That’s presently being contested in the High Court by the Council of Outdoor Recreational Associations of NZ (CORANZ), led by its secretary, Dr. Hugh Barr.

The Gantt Guy’s letter to John Key:

Reblogged from CrusaderRabbit

‘With an election looming in only a few short weeks, the only question I am compelled to ask of you is, how much longer?

How much longer must people (partly) of Maori heritage labour under the crushing burden of low expectation? How much longer do we treat them as somehow less fully-formed, less human than other citizens, paternalistically excusing their statistically lower education and health outcomes, and higher rates of crime and imprisonment on the basis of their cultural heritage; the very definition of the term “racism”?

How much longer must New Zealanders of all cultural backgrounds apologise and pay for injustices real and (increasingly often) imagined which occurred most recently – when they occurred at all – more than a century ago?

How much longer must we continue under an apartheid electoral system where people (partly) from one racial background have access to preferential electorate seats from which others are excluded?

How much longer must we put up with those disabled parking spaces of the electoral system?

How much longer must New Zealand be held hostage to a corrupt oligarchical structure of tribal supremacy epitomised by your friends the Corporate IWI?

How much longer do we tolerate that tribal hierarchy deliberately keeping their own people in poverty and misery in order to pluck the heartstrings of Liberal White Guilt in order to ensure the treasury remains open to them?

How much longer until we cease to allow Maori-only electorate representation, Maori-only health funding, Maori-only legal representation, Maori-only educational scholarships?

How much longer must we tolerate the (former) paid and trained pet of the Corporate IWI, holding ministerial responsibility for treaty settlements, a conflict of interest so massive it would at minimum raise the eyebrows of the Law Society were it to occur in the private sector?

How much longer does our society suffer under the burden of treating citizens (partly) from one cultural heritage in preference to those from all others?

How much longer before the people of New Zealand break the stranglehold the Corporate IWI and their puppets in your government have on Maori people?

How much longer before Maori people are considered fully-formed adult members of society, and afforded the same freedoms and liberties as every other citizen?

How much longer until you realise the massive leap backwards the relations between races have taken as a direct result of your government’s pandering to the interests of radical and seditious racist elements in our society?
Boomshanka

The Gantt Guy’

 

Comments are now closed

The Maori Party intends using their power base to exploit a loophole

By Dr Muriel Newman NZCPR

The Maori Party intends using their power base to exploit a loophole in the long standing law that provides that Maori representation at local government level is subject to approval by the community.

Section 19Z of the Local Electoral Act 2001 gives local authorities the right to establish Maori seats. Section 19ZB provides a democratic safeguard by enabling electors at large to challenge that decision through a binding poll. No such provisions apply when unelected Maori representatives are appointed onto councils with voting rights, despite the effects being almost the same.

The Auckland Council’s Independent Maori Statutory Board, the brainchild of the Maori Party, was established against the will of the community to give unelected iwi voting rights on council committees. Even though such boards are grossly undemocratic – forcing the council to share their power with unelected race-based representatives who are not accountable to the wider community and cannot be removed from office – MP Pita Sharples wants to establish them throughout the country: “The Maori Party will continue to push for more mechanisms like this to ensure that Maori are participating and having a say at all levels of governance.”

Maori Party leader, Te Ururoa Flavell, agrees: “We’re looking at trying to have more effective Maori representation at the highest level, pretty much along the lines of the Auckland statutory board whereby there is a need that Maori have a space at that council table and all the resources that go with that.”

Mr Flavell has also weighed into the debate in Rotorua, where a faction within the council are working with iwi to appoint representatives with voting rights onto council committees – without even consulting with the wider community, let alone allowing them the right to have a poll. He says that Te Arawa needs a greater say in the running of the Rotorua District Council, including having the power to authorise the flying of the tino rangatiratanga flag on Waitangi Day.

Imposing Maori boards on local councils throughout the country, by denying locals the right to a poll, is likely to be one of the coalition demands of the Maori Party should they hold the balance of power following the 20 September election. Yet, manipulating local government, to the exclusive advantage of iwi – at the cost of equal treatment of all citizens – compromises representative democracy and the principle of one-person one-vote, to such an extent that the legitimacy of government is fundamentally undermined.

The power base created by the Maori seats is also being used to fuel the notion of race-based superiority. Te Ururoa Flavell states that the needs of Maori must be put ahead of the needs of others: “Maori have a unique position in New Zealand and advancing their cultural and social needs must be put ahead of the needs of immigrants”. When asked whether Maori are more important than anyone else, he said, “Possibly. I think that the most important thing is that the people of the country recognise our unique part in the fabric of this nation. As the indigenous people of New Zealand, the government should put the needs of Maori ahead of new migrants.”

According to their submission to the government’s constitutional review, the Maori Party believes their superior status springs from the Maori seats: “the Maori seats embody and enable the principle of partnership between the Treaty partners”.

Using the Maori seats to justify a “partnership”, to promote Maori privilege and undermine democracy, is a significant departure from their original purpose of enabling Maori participation in the democratic process.

Their submission also makes it clear that they want local government to become a “Treaty partner” – no doubt to gain access to the considerable resources held by local authorities, as well as to legitimise their demand for race-based representation on councils: “The Maori Party considers that the constitutional arrangements for local government should recognise that local government is a Treaty partner”, and “Maori representation should be guaranteed on local government bodies”.

These Maori supremacist views were echoed in many other submissions to the constitutional review. In the interest of open democracy (and thanks to the sterling effort of Denis McCarthy of the NZCPR Working Group Project) a summary of the 5,259 submissions published on the Constitutional Advisory Panel’s website is now available. The report on the Analysis of Submissions to the Constitutional Advisory Panel is this week’s NZCPR Guest Commentary – see HERE. It should be read in conjunction with the Official Information Act submission breakdown provided by the Ministry of Justice, which NZCPR Research Associate Mike Butler summarised HERE.

This Working Group Project report outlines the arguments promoted in both group and individual submissions. Many group submissions were the result of hui organised by the Constitutional Advisory Panel – including the Rotorua Regional hui, which recommended: “Local councils have designated Maori seats and councillors should consult with iwi on a regular basis on the marae; compulsory enrolment of Maori on the Maori Electoral Roll; Treaty principles and articles to be protected and entrenched; a written constitution to be based on Treaty principles; education on the Treaty of Waitangi to be compulsory in schools; Bill of Rights Act to include the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.”

Many groups wanted the Maori seats entrenched, the Maori language to be compulsory in schools, and the courts to have power over Parliament. Some of the more radical ideas included the right to bear arms against the government, Maori to have equal representation in Parliament and local government, and the Governor General to be replaced by a College of Hapu.

The majority of individual submissions sought the removal of race-based rights, rejected proposals to give the Treaty of Waitangi legislative authority, and called for the abolition of the Maori seats (our earlier research showed 79 percent of submitters opposed Maori seats in Parliament, and 71 percent opposed Maori representation in local government).

In reality, the Maori seats should have been abolished years ago. Set up as a temporary measure in 1867, they gave Maori men, who didn’t qualify to vote under the private property requirements of the day, voting rights – 12 years ahead of non-Maori men, who didn’t gain voting rights until the adoption of male suffrage in 1879. The Maori seats should have been abolished at that time – or in 1893, when universal suffrage was introduced.

The 1986 Royal Commission on the Electoral System recommended the Maori seats should be abolished if MMP was introduced – to avoid a disproportionate representation of Maori in Parliament. When the MMP legislation was tabled, there were no provisions for Maori seats, but as a result of strong advocacy and weak politicians, the Maori seats were reintroduced – this time, tied to the Maori electoral option, which resulted in the number of seats increasing from four to 7, leading to the predicted over-representation of Maori in Parliament.

With every public opinion poll showing voters want an end to race-based representation, there is an expectation that when the Treaty settlements are completed, the Maori seats will go. Since South Island settlements have now been completed, with the balance expected to be finalised over the next three years, Election 2017 should be the first election in almost 150 years where all New Zealanders are on the same electoral roll.

With the Maori seats now being used to blatantly manipulate democracy, pressure needs to be brought to bear on politicians and parties in the run up to the election to support their abolition.

And before you think that contacting politicians is a pointless exercise, you should reflect on a recent comment by MP Jamie Lee Ross, who described how the National Party had put in a submission on Auckland’s Proposed Unitary Plan opposing iwi consultation because “more than two dozen Botany residents have approached him concerned about the issue and ‘any more than about 10 people who contact me on a particular issue is quite a number’.”

In other words, the advocacy of concerned citizens had an effect. Elected representatives do listen – and more attentively in election year.

 

Comments are now closed

Submissions Reveal The Constitutional Advisory Panel’s Duplicity & Spin

Posted on March 30, 2014 by Mike Butler on NZCPR
Mike Butler
An analysis of submissions to the Constitutional Advisory Panel obtained under the Official Information Act reveals an overwhelming and deep opposition to treaty politics. A fact that was obscured in the panel’s report to government. The Constitutional Advisory Panel always said its purpose was to take the nation’s pulse on constitutional matters. If the panel had reflected the wishes expressed in the 5259 written submissions, the recommendations would have been very different to the ‘massaged’ report published before Christmas 2013. I.e.

  • Maori seats in parliament should be abolished, according to 79% of respondents. 8% wanted to retain current system, 5% thought it should be decided by Maori, and 3% wanted Maori seats entrenched.
  • 70% said there should be no separate part-Maori representation in local government. 9% wanted Maori wards.
  • The Treaty of Waitangi should have no future role within New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements, according to 63%, while 16% thought it had a role.
  • Moreover, 72% did not want the treaty to be made a formal part of the constitution. 23% thought it should.
  • Part-Maori electoral participation could be improved in the same way electoral participation is encouraged for all, according to 83%.
  • A total of 66% said that New Zealand should not have a written constitution. 28% wanted a single written document.

(Abridged. Percentages have been rounded to whole numbers)
Click here to read Mike’s full article

 

Comments are now closed

The Maori Seats

THE MAORI SEATS

By Reuben P. Chapple

The public debate New Zealand needs to have about the future of the Maori Seats can only happen when the mainstream media does its job and explains to New Zealanders why there are separate Maori seats in the first place. Only then can the country decide whether there is a valid argument for their retention. If not, they must be abolished.

When the Maori Representation Act was introduced in 1867, the right to vote rested on a property qualification, and was restricted to property-owning males.

It is now widely held that the Act was introduced because Maori were disenfranchised by their multiple ownership of land. This is incorrect.

Maori in possession of a freehold estate to the value of twenty-five pounds – even if “held in severalty” – were entitled to vote.

The real problem was the disputed ownership of customary Maori land which had not yet become subject to a registrable proprietary title, the proof of the then prevailing electoral requirement.

When the 1867 Act was still at the Bill stage, the view was expressed in Parliament that the Maori Land Court (established in 1865) would have resolved all these questions within five years.

The Maori Seats created by the Act were thus intended as an interim measure for five years only. It was hoped that by this time enough Maori would hold land under freehold title to remove the need for separate representation.

However, in 1872, the temporary provision was extended for a further five years. Before that period expired, the Maori Representation Continuance Act 1876 decreed that separate representation would continue “until expressly repealed by an Act of the General Assembly.”

In effect, the 1867 Act gave Maori the manhood franchise 12 years before European males were accorded the same right. It was not until 1879 that the Qualification of Electors Act introduced European male suffrage as an alternative to the property qualification.

Universal suffrage in 1893 removed the property qualification. It extended voting rights to all New Zealanders, subject only to an age qualification. Any practical reason for separate Maori seats had entirely disappeared.

However, “politics as usual” has kept the Maori seats in place for 120 years past their use-by date. The bottom line: politicians have always liked the fact that a separate Maori constituency could be pork barrelled in return for political support.

When Parliament finally reviewed the Maori seats in 1953 along with a major re-alignment of Maori electoral boundaries, the vested interests of both Labour and National meant the issue was yet again quietly shelved.

In the 1946 General Election, the two parties were tied for general seats. It was only Labour’s hold on the four Maori seats that enabled it to remain the government.  National, for its part, feared that cutting the Maori seats would bring thousands of Labour-voting Maori flooding onto the general roll in its marginal rural electorates.

In the 1980s, the Maori seats were increasingly linked with the independence aspirations of Maori nationalists, and turned into a political hot potato.  Pressure exerted by these groups meant that after the MMP electoral system was introduced in 1993, the number of Maori seats became tied to the number of New Zealanders electing to register on the Maori roll.

Several well-publicised taxpayer-funded enrolment drives meant these seats have increased in number from four to seven. Yet in the last two general elections, just over 50 percent of those registered on the Maori roll even bothered to vote, suggesting non-voters probably only signed up as a throwaway statement of cultural identity after being bailed up in a shopping mall by someone with a clipboard.

If the number of Maori seats depended not upon the number of people on the Maori roll but upon those who actually voted in the last election, there would be just four Maori seats.

Under MMP, the existence of the Maori seats gives rise to parliamentary ‘overhang.’ This occurs when a party wins more electorate seats than their party vote entitles them to.

In the 2008 election, the Maori Party gained 2.24 percent of the party vote, which entitled them to three Members of Parliament, but won five Maori seats. That meant that the Maori Party created an overhang of two additional seats, giving us 122 MPs in the 2008 Parliament, not 120.

This ‘overhang’ means the number of confidence votes needed to form a government increased from 61 to 62. The inflated representation of the Maori Party through ‘overhang’ thus gives it disproportionate leverage in coalition talks, should the highest polling party find itself unable to form a government in its own right or with other coalition partners.

It is hardly surprising that the Maori Party wants to set in concrete and expand an institution which gives it an easy ride into Parliament, and (because of the ‘overhang’ effect under MMP) excessive influence once it gets there.

The spectre of the racial tail wagging the majority dog gets worse the more Maori seats there are. For this reason, the Maori Party’s demand for the Maori seats to be entrenched in law with all 18 year olds of Maori descent placed automatically onto the Maori roll poses a serious threat to our representative democracy.

It is today widely believed that the Maori seats have some kind of quasi-constitutional status and should be retained as long as Maori activists want them. This is arrant nonsense.

The Treaty of Waitangi does not provide for separate Maori political representation. Nor is there any constitutional basis for its existence.

What the Treaty does provide for is that all New Zealanders, irrespective of cultural affiliation, ethnicity, religious belief, or indeed any other distinguishing characteristic, will enjoy equality in citizenship. This means the universal suffrage subject only to an age qualification that has been in place since 1893.

In Preferential Policies: An International Perspective, Black American academic, Thomas Sowell records the downstream effect of government policies promoting group rights. Sold to the public as promoting inter-group harmony, Sowell found that wherever such policies have been tried, they invariably expanded over time in scale and scope; benefited already advantaged members of the preference group (those with the smarts to work the system); and led to increased rather than decreased inter-group polarisation. In many places they have brought about decades-long civil wars killing and maiming thousands of people.

David Round, a law lecturer at the University of Canterbury, is the latest in a long line of commentators to have preached the danger of identity politics:

“Are we to be a nation, or merely a collection of disparate tribes and cultures all fighting for our own self-interest, heedless of the greater good? Every society has different elements and interests, but for the greater good these interest groups should be encouraged to sink their differences as much as possible and join in the same great common enterprise. The unthinking celebration of diversity which has recently begun to darken our national life carries a very dangerous potential to tear our country apart.”

Entrenching separate Maori political representation permanently embeds a self-anointed racial aristocracy into the fabric of our nation. Whether we should retain the Maori seats is therefore not a matter to be decided on our behalf by politicians. The New Zealand public should be given the opportunity to make a call on this matter by way of binding referendum after hearing both sides of the argument.

1 2
%d bloggers like this: