Labour and the Green party have voted to undermine democracy:
A bill allowing Ngāi Tahu to appoint two voting councillors to the Canterbury Regional Council was passed tonight with fractious debate in Parliament about whether it will diminish or enhance democracy and whether other councils will follow suit. . .
If other councils stand up for the principle of equal representation with one person, one vote they won’t follow suit. But now a precedent has been set, they might not care about that, at least until there’s a change of government.
National’s Paul Goldsmith said National would repeal the law if it became the Government because it did not uphold equal voting rights for all New Zealanders and did not provide electoral accountability. He questioned the mandate for the bill.
“It is our view on this side of the House that the Treaty of Waitangi does not trump democracy and the country has not decided that,” he said.
It was a divisive bill that was pitting one group of New Zealanders against others.
“Ngāi Tahu get to appoint those two councillors forever and a day. They cannot be thrown out. There is no direct accountability. It astounds me that I’m having to make this argument.”
Goldsmith rejected a suggestion that the bill had its roots in a similar move National had made in Government in 2010 when it replaced the Canterbury Regional Council with commissioners, including two Ngāi Tahu commissioners.
It was a temporary appointment of commissioners when democratic elections had been halted and was different to permanent unelected councillors.
Ironically Labour and the Greens were very critical of the then-government appointing commissioners.
“It will set a precedent. There is no question about that across local government. I can’t how you could say this is modern expression of the treaty but it only applies to Canterbury.
“I am sure there will be many other councils to which this logic will flow to, and then potentially to central government.” . .
Reading the transcript of the debate and trying to understand the arguments in favour of the Bill and the redefining of democracy brings to mind Through the Looking Glass:
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’ ’
The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
Point of Order quotes some of the speeches in favour of the Bill and concludes:
. . . But if adding two additional representatives strengthens democracy, then it is reasonable to suppose that adding three representatives would strengthen it further – and four would make it even stronger.
Why not 20 more? Or 100?
We don’t have to be too sage to recognise the absurdity of that line of reasoning – or to condemn the outcome of the vote at the end of the debate.
Labour’s reimagining and rewriting of the Treaty to give people of Maori descent and Iwi rights and power not available to other citizens undermines the democratic principles which treat us all as equal under the law, giving us one vote each and the right to vote against those people we don’t want governing us.
New Zealand is a young country but one of the oldest democracies.
This Act replaces democracy by planting the seeds of division and dissent.
Homepaddock 