New Zealand politics in 2024

2023 was a year when New Zealand voters most adamantly said they wanted change. The near personality-cult around Jacinda Ardern had well and truly eroded, as the rhetoric around the government of “kindness” (implemented using the monopoly of legitimised violence of the state) and the budget of “wellbeing” (implemented by taking money from current and future generations) seemed increasingly empty. The government so committed to ending poverty had presided over the fastest increase in personal wealth by homeowners in modern history and its primary response was to tax landlords who didn’t want to rent out their properties for fewer than ten years without selling them.  It presented itself as a victim of external forces, whether it be Covid or inflation which NZ was constantly told was due to the war in Ukraine, even though many of NZ’s trading partners had lower inflation.

Although there was a brief flurry of excitement about Chris Hipkins, appearing to recalibrate Labour on “what matters”, voters were largely unconvinced. Hipkins follows Mike Moore and Bill Rowling in leading Labour to landslide defeats, albeit for different reasons. Jacinda Ardern is nearly invisible in the country that was hailed internationally for keeping Covid out, and she is now hailed internationally by those who never visited NZ, and she is now at Harvard, whose President Claudine Gay is surrounded by scandal around claiming that if a student of Harvard advocated for genocide against Jews, it would “depend on the context” as to whether it breached its policy on harassment and bullying. Claudine Gay is also now facing accusations of plagiarism in her earlier work.

The former Prime Minister of kindness hasn’t been approached for comment on what she thinks about the head of her new gig’s ambivalence about anti-semitism, but then again why would she abandon her career of highly-paid talkfests?

Meanwhile the 2023 election saw a threeway split in positions. While 27% were willing to give Chippy a go, 15% thought Labour had been far too timid and voted for the Greens and Te Pati Maori to advance a much more radical socialist, intersectionist, ethno-nationalist set of reforms including more tax, more spending, much more transfer of power from the state and Parliament to Iwi, and radical central planning around provision of health, education and the economy, let alone expansion of the welfare state to a universal benefit. 

The Greens and Te Pati Maori saw the changes as being that Labour didn’t do enough to address what it said it was doing about key issues such as climate change, poverty and Tino Rangitiratanga.  He Puapua was seen as a step along a journey of major constitutional change that would see Iwi standing side-by-side with Parliament and the “colonising” Government sharing power. Te Pati Maori successfully sold this vision to voters in almost all of the Maori seats, but Labour couldn’t sell the path of radical change to the general population, especially when questioning or criticising the path of more co-governance was simply labelled as racist and ignored.  

Fortunately around 55% (including some of the minor parties) voted in the other direction, with a mix of centre-right incrementalism (National), classical liberalism (ACT) and a touch of conservatism and nationalism (NZ First), with a couple of bones thrown at traditionalists.  It’s a historic switch in electoral support for Labour to lose 46% of the votes it gained in 2020 as a proportion of votes cast.  

The 2020 election was extraordinary, Labour got an unprecedented majority based almost entirely on having kept Covid 19 out of the country and life being relatively normal (albeit with foreign travel restricted for all but select politicians, officials and others chosen by the Government) compared to countries enduring extended lockdowns. Labour took that as a chance to embark on a series of radical reforms that ultimately saw its undoing. As it borrowed and spent to at first save businesses from collapse during the pandemic and then stimulate the economy, it went on to literally pay people money for nothing, and then blame inflation entirely on outside factors. As it increased benefits in order to address poverty (due in no small part due to a persistent housing shortage that can be blamed on governments of all stripes over the previous 25 years). it was no surprise that as baby boomers reached retirement age, a shortage of staff would emerge, as a generation withdrew from the labour force (bolstered by National Superannuation and inflated housing prices) and a growing number simply opted out of paid work altogether. Since 2017 the statutory minimum wage had been increased by just over 44%, even though prices in that same time had increased 25%. 

Reports of increasingly aggressive crime including ramraids were far too often dismissed or minimised, at least for those who were the victims of it, as it appeared that crime increasingly did pay.  Meanwhile, much needed reforms to the water sector had layered over them a complex governance structure that was to see Iwi, in four groups, deciding half of the members of boards, who would determine the members of another set of board, that would govern fresh, waste and stormwater infrastructure across the country.  This was all apparently because Te Tiriti now meant Iwi would have governance rights over whatever sectors the Government said it should – and infrastructure was now part of that.  It wasn’t enough for territorial authorities that own the infrastructure to consult with Iwi, not enough for there to be Iwi representatives on councils through exclusively Maori wards (which are democratically elected), but that Iwi would have equivalent powers to local government. Although some of the backlash against Three Waters was ill-directed mindless racism, the core issue – why should the future management of ratepayer owned assets be half governed by Iwi (who were already at the table of local government)?

Other completely unnecessary measures also gave the impression of a government less concerned about inflation and crime, than it was on social engineering and seeking to look as if it was addressing what it thought was important, when much of the public were concerned about the cost of living and threats to their families.

The aftermath of the Christchurch Mosque attack generated calls, particularly from parts of the Muslim community, to toughen laws on hate speech, primarily around religion. This raised concern that proposals advanced by the Ardern Government would constrain speech around ridiculing religions as “hate speech”.  Ultimately this was suspended, but it helped fuel a mix of genuine concerns around freedom of speech and conspiratorial concerns about a much more sinister intent.  Jacinda Ardern’s tone-deaf but well-meaning claim during the pandemic that if information “doesn’t come from us, then you can’t believe it” sounded straight out of the playbook of a dictatorship. No liberal democracy can or should claim it has the monopoly of truth, because it simply does not and cannot. 

The Public Interest Journalism Fund came from criticism that it was funding journalism that supported the Government’s policies, which although in some ways unfair, did include funding that specifically indicated a philosophical approach to some issues that was controversial, particularly around Te Tiriti. The lines between government and activism became blurred, including by the “Disinformation Project” which was clearly endorsed by the government, but which itself had its own ideological line.

The Disinformation Project of course has its own blind spots. It’s regular reporting of research by Byron Clark, former supporter of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (a breakaway communist led terrorist faction of the PLO) and the communist Workers Party of New Zealand, who was particularly focused on what he called the “far-right” didn’t ever reflect on the perspective someone clearly from the far-left would have on what is “extremist”. 

The 2021 controversy over the so-called “Listener 7” who claimed Matauranga isn’t science, and the long list of academics who sought to humiliate and denigrate them was also part of this dominant discourse in academia, media and politics. It was seen as an attempt to “cancel” and “close” debate on the topic, which extended to Dr Richard Dawkins in the UK, and responses claiming racism and colonialism emerged.  The debate around transgender rights, and the visit by “Posie Parker” supported by a coalition of womens’ rights activists and social conservatives saw similar discourse emerge, with a vehemence of anger and hatred.  All of this rubbed of on Labour, with a strong indication that there were opinions that brought “consequences” around employment and being accepted by academia, media and even business as having “correct” views on controversial topics. 

It's a side point that many of the same people who wanted “consequences” for challenging trans and Te Tiriti discourse run frightened when supporters of the Jewish community and opponents of Hamas condemn their Hamas-inspired rhetoric and slogans.

The majority of the voting public took in a mix of the narrative around the government, the cost of living crisis and concern about a lack of delivery (and performance personally about a growing list of Ministers who simply failed to meet standards of behaviour that should be expected of them).  ACT voters were dominated by those who had had enough of the growth in spending and taxation, and the politics of intersectionality and identity. National voters were primarily concerned about performance and lack of delivery, including the money wasted on expensive schemes seen as “out of touch” with what voters cared about. NZ First happily hoovered up the Covid 19 vaccine sceptics and opponents, but also returned to opposition to Maori nationalism and separatism and hitching onto other culture wars for convenience (see trans-rights).

There is now a National-led government that appears to clearly want to stem the growth in the state and, at the very least, return its size to that seen in 2017. It has clearly reversed some policies and is winding back reforms such as the centralisation of tertiary vocational training, the separate Maori health authority and Three Waters. Although some of the discourse around the government is catastrophism and projection of deranged phobia around its objectives (claims it wants to “erase” Maori or trans-people are unhinged nonsense), it is promising as a National-led government that actually is changing direction, which seems in part driven by ACT and NZ First both wanting to make their mark on the government. This should not be a surprise, as National did not win 40% of the vote, and is more dependent on both minor parties than it had been in the Key/English era.  There is also a generation of younger National, ACT and NZ First politicians who are fed up with a centre-right government simply pausing the advance towards more government and more compulsory collectivism.  

So far so good with most measures taken. It is obvious that Fair Pay Agreements had to go, along with the labyrinthine replacement to the RMA.  It’s particularly encouraging from an individual freedom perspective to see the removal of the tobacco prohibition measures, with much wailing and gnashing of teeth of neo-puritans on the left some who rightfully campaign to legalise cannabis but can’t see the inconsistency of prohibiting sales of tobacco to a growing number of adults.  We will wait to see what will come to replace the RMA.  

What I really want to see is for charter schools to flourish, to expand in number and for the thumping fist of the bureaucratic and professional union monopolies weakened in the control of the education system. I want the RMA replaced with private property rights. Nicola Willis has promisingly indicated willingness to cut core spending of many departments to 2017 levels, and for tax cuts.  

Of course, it wont be a libertarian government, but it looks like being a government that will turn back at least some of the spending and some of the regulation, and even some of the philosophical culture of the previous government. A government that is more interested in productivity and growth of private enterprise, rather than confiscation and distribution of the proceeds of production, and regulation and control of private individuals and their property. 

I can only hope that the calibre of Ministers will be on a significantly higher level than that of the Ardern/Hipkins era, and to be honest it wont be that hard. Nobody should pretend that it is easy to address crime or healthcare, because the fundamental reasons for both of this are long-standing and difficult to confront, but this government ought to focus on some key issues that it can start to turn around.  Educational choice and performance, and the barriers to enabling more housing.  If only it can adeptly take on the inevitable barrage of criticism from academia, media and the Opposition, who are eager to call it out as racist, misogynist, transphobic, white supremacist, neo-colonialist, neo-imperialist and every other blanket collectivist pejorative that can be lazily thrown around. Hopefully the front bench will have the testicular fortitude to respond intelligently and confidently to critiques, but more importantly give minimal reasons for criticism based on performance.

So in 2024 the National Party appears revitalised, and despite the critics, Christopher Luxon has emerged as Prime Minister, it is too early to tell whether the man as PM can prove to be greater than as Opposition Leader.  However, National might actually look like a government that isn’t conservative (in the sense of not changing) about Labour policies.

Labour is scarred, having few seats outside the main centres (Palmerston North and Nelson hanging on), and about to embark on a battle between the hardliners who think it lost for not being socialist enough (although if that were true, then those voters would have gone to the Greens and Te Pati Maori in sufficient numbers to give Labour a chance at government), and those who wonder how it could moderate its image and gain the confidence of voters again. For now, it looks like Labour will spend some time in the wilderness.

The Greens are buoyant because they have done very well indeed, winning two more electorates in Wellington, demonstrating very clearly the yawning gap between many Wellingtonians (including public servants, students and those working for industries supporting government) and the rest of the country, but maybe also the arrogance of Labour which thought it could parachute whoever it chose into two relatively safe seats, and win.  

ACT has a right to be pleased, because it will now have a more influential role in government than ever before. Hopefully it will be a greater success than Rodney Hide implementing Helen Clark’s vision for a greater Auckland Council, and it should enable ACT to stamp its mark on key issues such as education, gun regulation and freedom of speech.

Nobody rules out Winston anymore, as he pivoted and succeeded in being the voice for those who felt like their views, whether on Covid or Te Tiriti or on trans-issues, NZ First became the new conservatives, and a voice for those who felt unheard. The test for Winston Peters is whether he is seen as putting enough of a mark on this government to keep support for the following election. 

Finally Te Pati Maori will feel vindicated in reviving radical nationalist socialism with its support for the destruction of Israel and indifference to Russian irredentism. At best it showed Labour’s arrogance in assuming it still could own Maori voters, but at worst in indicates the outcome of many years of the promotion of intersectionality and structuralist theories in parts of Maoridom and by the state more directly. Labour funded and supported this philosophy while in government, and those who support it have found an authentic voice in favour of it – but it is not a position a majority of Maori, let alone voters in NZ, share.

Have a Happy 2024.

What does the future of co-governance look like?

Power without being elected

With the impending passage of the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill, New Zealand will have taken a giant leap in the direction of reducing democracy in local government. It's important to be very clear about what this means:

1. Ngai Tahu will appoint two members of the Canterbury Regional Council (known as Environment Canterbury), they will sit alongside and have identical powers to elected members. 
2. Ngai Tahu members will be selected by Ngai Tahu by whatever means Ngai Tahu deems appropriate
3. Those councillors will have full powers to vote on spending, on taxes (rates), on buying and selling assets and on bylaws.
4. No electors in Canterbury region will be able to remove Ngai Tahu representatives (except of course, those with authority in Ngai Tahu), includes those affiliated with Ngai Tahu who do not have influence with the iwi.

It's very important to recognise what government, including local government actually is. 

Government is an institution with the monopoly of legalised use of initiated force against people and their property, and it devolves some of that power to local government. 

Environment Canterbury has such powers, powers to forcibly take money in the form of rates and to levy the public for services, it has powers to make bylaws and has powers to constrain the use of property. 

In a liberal democracy the constraints on that power come in two forms:

• Legislative constraints (as local government is constrained by legislation and regulation);
• Local democracy (the ability to vote out and replace Councillors who exercise these powers).

Parliament has chosen to weaken the ability of Canterbury electors to do the latter.  The key element in a free liberal democracy is more the ability to peacefully remove people from power than to select those that exercise power, but this legislation removes the right of Canterbury electors to remove two councillors.  Indeed, those councillors are only accountable to those with power in Ngai Tahu, not electors at large.

This is literal corporatism, in which a corporate private entity exercises direct political power, with there being no effective means of removing them (except of course if Parliament changes the law to abolish their position).

Bear in mind there is nothing stopping Ngai Tahu proposing candidates for election now, or funding and supporting the campaign of candidates it approves of, but it doesn't believe that would be successful.  

Bear in mind also that members of Ngai Tahu who are Canterbury electors retain the power to vote for Councillors, they have that power now, but they will also have some influence (it could be a lot or it could be negligible) in the selection of unelected councillors.  Members of Ngai Tahu who are Canterbury electors get two chances at selecting councillors.

Some may say sure but non-resident ratepayers get a vote too. Yes they do, but it is a vote and if they were residents as well, there would still only be one vote. There are sound arguments either way about non-resident ratepayer voting rights, but that is a separate issue.  Note that there are plenty of people affiliated to Ngai Tahu who are not electors in Canterbury too.

Where next?

There are  other examples that have parallels to Canterbury.  The Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill, would have generated higher Maori representation on that Council than their proportion of the population.  David Farrar ably demonstrated how unjust that would have been, as each Maori ward councillor would have represented far fewer people than a non-Maori ward councillor.  The Bill was dropped  in part because the Bill of Rights assessment said Maori wards would have disproportionately higher representation. 

Wellington City Council took it upon itself to include two mana whenua representatives on Council Committees (not full Council). One each from Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika and Ngāti Toa Rangatira sit on all Council Committee with FULL voting rights. It justified the idea as contributing towards decision making, but this is frankly absurd.  Having voting rights for unelected councillors (which is effectively what it is) is more than "contributing" it is exercising power.  The representatives also get reimbursed by ratepayers, "by paying each iwi an annual fee, equivalent to the remuneration of a full time elected member, which is currently $111,225".  So ratepayers get to pay for representatives they cannot vote for or against, that exercise power over them.  6 Councillors voted against this nonsense, namely Mayor Foster, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Rush, Councillor Sparrow, Councillor Woolf, and Councillor Young. However, the majority prevailed (Councillor Condie, Councillor Day, Councillor Fitzsimons, Councillor Foon, Councillor Matthews, Councillor O'Neill, Councillor Pannett, and Councillor Paul).

Noting this already happens for Rotorua Lakes District Council, it has iwi representatives with voting rights on Council Committees.

What would need legislation is to enable full Councillors to be appointed by iwi rather than be elected by electors. 

It seems highly likely that the Labour Government, with full support from the Greens and Te Pati Maori, would endorse local government having appointed (not elected) City, District and Regional Councillors, with the rights to vote on your rates, bylaws, spending, sale and purchase of assets and planning rules.

Let's be clear this is NOT the same as Maori wards. In principle, if a Council wants those on the Maori electoral roll to have Maori ward councillors, as it is for Parliament, it does not undermine democratic accountability. Maori electors shifting from general wards to Maori wards changes their representation, but they are still elected and accountable to electors.

Having iwi choose representatives is the same as having any large private interest choose representatives on Council. Councils exist to provide certain public goods and services, but also to regulate activity including planning activity.  Iwi themselves have substantial commercial and property interests.  Consider if Councillors (as some do) have large property or business interests in a district, they are at least accountable to electors, but the iwi representatives are not.  

So could Labour, the Greens and Te Pati Maori require all Councils to have unelected Mana Whenua councillors? Of course.... but could it go beyond that?

Iwi selected MPs?

Te Pati Maori Co-Leader Rawiri Waititi has already expressed his contempt for democracy as being the tyranny of the majority. Now I SHARE this concern, which is why I want the power of government limited, but I don't share his objectives or solution, or his perception of the problem. He wants a separate Maori Parliament which would decide on matters for Maori, although does not explain how that would work in practice.  

Applying the principles of the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill to Parliament would mean that all iwi would be able to appoint MPs to Parliament (perhaps with some proportionality? or perhaps each being equal?) to have the same voting rights as elected MPs (which Maori would continue to be able to vote for).  

That would make Aotearoa/New Zealand far from being a liberal democracy, as Parliament would be dominated by entities that themselves determine how to select people to exercise legislative power over people and their property. 

This isn't about race, this is about the exercise of powers of coercion and the primary means of constraining that, which is the ability of the subjects of that coercion to exercise a vote to change those exercising that power.

If Iwi Representation were required to enlist electors that are iwi affiliated, removing them from being able to vote for other Councillors (and indeed with numbers of Iwi Representatives proportionate to population of iwi affiliated electors), it would be completely different. It would simply be redesigning Maori wards to fit that model. The same in Parliament. 

If Maori seats were simply redesigned to be selected by Maori voters voting for representatives by iwi (and then there being some system to elect the appropriate representatives across multiple smaller iwi), it would also not be a problematic in applying liberal democracy.  However, if some MPs were just appointed, it would be undemocratic. 

Consider that Myanmar adopts this model, except it is the army that appoints MPs. 

Why do this?

Supporters of the legislation see it as implementing the Treaty of Waitangi, under the interpretation that the Treaty is not just about granting sovereignty over taonga and governorship to the Crown, but about a power-sharing relationship between the Crown and iwi (an interpretation that was largely confined to academic and radical political circles until the 2000s). 

If the Crown, represented by the liberal democracy of the New Zealand Parliament were separate and excluded Maori (as repulsive and Rhodesia like that would be) then this interpretation may have merit. Yet it does not exclude Maori, Maori have the same voting rights as everyone else, and both Maori and non-Maori vote for MPs who are Maori (and non-Maori).  In other words, Maori are represented in Parliament, their views are heard, and communicated by the MPs they elect, both from the Maori roll and the General roll. They are equal in their exercise of power to everyone else. 

Beyond that, consultation and engagement over public policy is extensive and is entirely within the role of a liberal democracy and for consultation with iwi to be treated as being part of implementing the Treaty.  Consulting Mana Whenua is entirely right and correct for local and central government, but when it comes to choosing who gets to exercise the monopoly of the use of legitimised force - through government- it should NOT be determined by unelected people.

For better or for worse, every single MP in Parliament, and up till now, every single Councillor in regional councils, territorial authorities and unitary authorities (et al) have their authority through public endorsement at the ballot box. The worst form of government every devised, except for all of the others tried throughout history, as Churchill was purported to have said.

Sure, I think most central and local politicians are utterly hopeless at defending the rights and freedoms of the public and private property rights, but their power is constrained by the ability of sufficiently outraged electors to throw them out of office.

Unelected politicians do not have such constraints. Be suspicious of anyone who is appointed to exercise legislative and tax raising powers.  

Environment Canterbury disgraces itself by actively seeking to weaken the power of its elected Councillors in this way, and Labour, the Greens and Te Pati Maori have all shown themselves to be parties in enabling this to come to pass. Imagine if Federated Farmers had appointed representatives on rural councils, or Chambers of Commerce on urban councils etc. 

Any future government should explicitly prohibit any local authority from appointing anyone to have voting rights in Councils or Council Committees without having been elected in local body elections, at a bare minimum.  

What's the alternative?

The role of liberal democracy in New Zealand needs to be able to be debated without the kneejerk reaction of "racist" from unreconstructed leftists and ethno-nationalists who want to shut down debate using pejoratives. 

Those who think mana whenua do not have a role in being consulted on local and central government matters are not helpful, because if the Treaty is to work in the context of a liberal democracy, then engagement and consultation is essential. However, mana whenua should not expect to exercise direct political power to erode or undermine the wishes of directly elected representatives of all electors in New Zealand (especially since they too get to choose those representatives).

Those on the radical left who think this is "white supremacy" and "neo-colonialism" ought to put up their models for a form of government, and have them subjected to scrutiny as to whether or not they can protect the rights of all individuals from unbridled power and the corruption of power which is much more likely under systems of those appointing people with power.  After all, the UK retains the House of Lords, with appointed politicians, who scrutinise and delay legislation (although they cannot stop it), as a hangover from a very much class supremacist view of government.  New Zealand should not replicate this sort of political structure.

After all, liberal democracy is now the dominant form of government in most of Asia, Africa and the Americas, and frankly it is only autocracies like the People's Republic of China, the Islamic Republic of Iran and Turkmenistan that question the validity of governments that are constrained by secret ballots and the essential, concurrent freedom of speech and the press. 

Have mana whenua consulted, include them on informal committees and boards used to advise Councils and Government.  Government and Councils can also include them in co-governance of assets or systems if they wish - the whole debate on Three Waters co-governance is entirely legitimate (sure I don't agree with the proposal, but everything local government does is entirely at the behest of Parliament, which grants local government its power, it is still fundamentally accountable to electors).

The co-governance of Urewera National Park and the Waikato River are enshrined in Treaty settlements, and there is no conflict between any of this and a liberal democracy, because elected MPs agreed to it.  

In liberal democracy power IS shared, between representatives by geography and representatives by political ideology and philosophy, and when enough electors tire of one lot, they replace them with a new bunch. Does it achieve much? Often it doesn't, but it does achieve one thing - it means that all of them fear causing so much disenchantment that they lose government or worse of all, lose their seat in power.  Ngai Tahu and all Iwi ought to value that, and ought not to be immune from it.

UPDATE: So Tamati Coffey is inviting other iwi to consider "this path" to better representation.  He introduced the Rotorua rorting local elections District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill, so he's showing his colours around corporatist government. Maybe it would be better if the former TV presenter simply abandoned representative democracy altogether if he doesn't believe in it?

Submit today on the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill

David Farrar's Kiwiblog has an excellent submission on this absolute travesty of basic individual rights and liberal democracy.

This debate about this issue has been muted. Stuff reports it, with taxpayer funding from NZ On Air, without ANY discussion about the implications for liberal democracy.

What is proposes is a form of racial gerrymandering that means that Māori Ward Councillors on Rotorua District Council will represent fewer people, but with the same amount of power as General Ward Councillors. 

As Farrar says:

This bill would give the Māori ward three Councillors for an electoral population of 21,700 and the General ward three Councillors for an electoral population of 55,600. This means the vote of someone on the general roll will be worth only 39% of the vote of someone on the Māori roll in terms of Ward Councillors, and 58% in terms of the whole Council. 

It debases the votes of non-Māori ward voters, and for what? To seek to equalise representation not on the basis of counting heads, but by valuing the votes of Māori ward voters 2.5x more than non-Māori ward voters.

Let's apply this to Parliament?

Extend this to Parliament (assuming no change in the number of seats) and the result would be this:

General Electorates: 36. 1 MP for every 89958 voters

Māori Electorates: 36. 1 MP for every 7591 voters

In essence it multiplies Māori roll votes 11 fold compared to non-Māori. The exact impact on Parliament is difficult to forecast for multiple reasons, as no doubt there would be more candidates, but also the impact on emigration (let alone immigration) would change the demographic as well (some advancing this policy would like that). 

It could be assumed that the majority of Māori Electorates would vote Labour, and some would vote Te Pāti Māori, maybe one or two could go Green or even NZ First.  

How would that affect the list seats? It is entirely possible to leave them as is, with one person one vote and let proportionality come to play, but that is likely to create an overhang. Let's say based on the current Parliament, that one in seven of the Māori electorates go to Te Pāti Māori, which would mean it gets 5-6 seats. Even if it got double the party vote of 2020 (which would be 2.34%) it would only be entitled to around 3 seats in Parliament, so Parliament would grow by 2-3 more seats in total.  Advocates of such a change might say the overall impact would not be significant, because ultimately National would get most of its MPs from the list, so proportionality might be retained overall, but the effect would be dramatic.

Moreover, if you can argue for electorates that require 11 general roll voters to elect an MP, but 1 Māori roll voter, then you can argue that Māori party voters get the same magnification of impact.

and that would truly be the end of liberal democracy as we know it, and is internationally recognised on the basis of one person one vote.

This sort of gerrymandering is seen in corrupt democracies, which try to construct constituencies that have small numbers of politicians representing large numbers of people who politicians want to reduce the franchise for, with higher numbers for the preferred group.  During the dying days of apartheid, the South African Government argued for its democracy to enable white South Africans to have a veto of decision making over the black majority.  This was rightly decried as racist and unacceptable. Going from total white minority rule to white minority veto was not advancing the rights of all South Africans.

However, there is a movement in Māori politics that is antithetical to liberal democracy and individual rights. Te Pāti Māori MP Rawiri Waititi said it clearly when he thought Aotearoa had a great future "but not necessarily as a democracy". 

It isn't exactly rude to ask if the Green Party of Aotearoa or the New Zealand Labour Party share his view. 

Now I'm highly sceptical of liberal democracy as a tool to protect individual rights, and Waititi is dead right when he raises concern about majority rule. Unfettered democracy does enable mob rule and does enable injustice, but the contraints on this should be constitutional to ensure basic rights are not overriden. I have a lot of sympathy for calls for tino rangatiratanga for everyone.

However, nobody advancing this change is caring remotely for the rights of individuals to peacefully go about their lives, this is about advancing power, albeit at the local government level, to regulate and tax people's property and businesses.

You have only a few hours to express your opposition to this racist travesty of a Bill, that has NOT been advanced by the local MP Todd McClay but rather Labour list MP Tāmati Coffey.  Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori are all advancing it.

It deserves to be voted down in flames, and it deserves your submission in ardent opposition to it.

Either go here:

https://www.parliament.nz/en/ECommitteeSubmission/53SCMA_SCF_BILL_121327/CreateSubmission 

or here:

https://www.protectyourvote.nz/

now.

So Te Pāti Māori opposes one-person one vote liberal democracy?

 What to make of this?

and

The MP of Waiariki, thinks that to implement the Treaty of Waitangi, Parliament should have 50% representation from Tangata Whenua and 50% representation from Tangata Tiriti. Presumably his reason for doing this is because it "isn't fair" that a majority, in a liberal democracy, without constitutional limits on power, effectively mean the tyranny of numbers. This is a view that on the face of it, I sympathise with.  

Anyone who thinks a democracy can protect the rights of people under any jurisdiction, in itself, is a fool. So he has a point... perhaps if liberal democracy in New Zealand actually protected individual rights (which include the right of any group of individuals, such as Iwi, Hapū or Māori in general to organise on voluntary grounds), including property rights, then Waititi and his supporters could avoid fearing some sort of backlash, racist or otherwise, against living your life peacefully.

However my fear is that he doesn't really just want to be left alone, but actually wants to wield power much more widely, (although I am open to being proven otherwise, as he is far from being a conventional politician).

It's important to know what it means to want a 50/50 Parliament with half of the representation being Māori and the other half Tangata Tiriti, because according to his colleague, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, it isn't the population being split in two, it's the population being split in three.

Before you jump to the conclusion that this is simply a nationalist grab of power that has nothing to do with liberal democracy, you need to understand it isn't just about race, it's actually about political belief as well. You might assume Tangata Tiriti are the people who are entitled to live in Aotearoa because the Treaty of Waitangi established a framework to enable peaceful co-existence between Māori and settlers, but apparently not.

Writing in the NZ Herald, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer (list MP), claims the population of New Zealand is classified into not two (!), but three types of people:

• Tangata Whenua (people of the land. Māori);
• Tangata Tiriti (people of the treaty); and
• Everyone else.

Ngarewa-Packer wrote rather obliquely what she meant by all three groups in that same article.  It's worth quoting to get the gist of her meaning:

Tangata tiriti are people who don't argue the existence of Te Tiriti o Waitangi as our founding document. They promote the partnerships it intended, moving away from transactional engagements, preferring lifelong relationships.

They are secure in themselves and know we are equals, one as tangata of the whenua (people of the land) and one as tangata of the tiriti (people of the treaty). ...

Tangata tiriti understand te tiriti didn't create special rights for Māori - we already had Māori social structures and systems of lore in place....

They're comfortable loudly declaring they're recovering racists, and they teach anti-racism, extremely secure in knowing their place side by side with tangata whenua ushering in a new Aotearoa.

Tangata tiriti accept and appreciate the reason they live in Aotearoa is because te tiriti gives them citizenship and mana equal to tangata whenua. This doesn't denounce their own culture, it strengthens their stand on the whenua they've chosen to live on. 

So it's not just about not being Māori, you have to buy into a whole ideological set of beliefs and views to earn the status of Tangata Tiriti. This includes accepting the reason you get to live in NZ is because the Treaty gives you citizenship on the land you've "chosen" to live on. 

The fact you may have been born here (or indeed your parents were as well) and may be born of any mix of ethnic or migrant origin is irrelevant to her. Identify as Māori, and you have an automatic right to live in Aotearoa, but if not, you have "permission". It's not "blood and soil" nationalism, but it certainly isn't "equal".

It is akin to granting someone a residency visa,  you should be grateful "we" let you stay, but your entitlement to stay depends on you behaving.

Part of it is that you need to embrace the Māori nationalist version of "original sin". No matter your background or your thoughts or deeds, or being English, Pasifika, Chinese, Jewish, Indian in descent you are a "recovering racist". You must admit it, and preferably evangelise to others about your and their racism, and of course your "privilege". Although it's unclear if being distantly descended from settlers in the 19th century who occupied land taken from Māori is more privilege than having fled Vietnam on a boat in 1976.

So that's your path to being Tangata Tiriti, although it's far from clear how that could be policed.

Of course, like mild nationalists, the definition of the "other" group is more by inference. It's everyone who doesn't support this view of the New Zealand constitution or the rights of citizens or politics. If you don't think you are racist, don't think you have NZ citizenship as of right, rather than permission, and don't buy into Māori-only seats at local government, then you're the others. You're not Tangata Tiriti, you are racists and possibly white supremacists ("white" being quite a wide definition presumably). There isn't much tolerance in the Ngarewa-Packer world for debate and discussion about the role of the state and individuals.

The whole ideological foundation of this is not one that treats the smallest minority as the individual, and individuals each with indivisible rights and freedoms, but one that collectivises everyone into groups, each with different rights.

Now I have quite some support for Māori wanting control over their own affairs, including their property and to run their own institutions, as long as it shrinks the central government role (and taxation alongside it), it's all consistent with my philosophy. I really don't care if Waititi or Ngarewa-Packer and others want to live their lives in peace with businesses, schools, hospitals etc. I don't care about your race or background if you want to do that, I want a state that simply protects us from each other.

but I do care if the purpose of this is to create an ethno-nationalist defined autocracy, where some citizens are more equal than others. Even if the Tangata Tiriti category is magnanimously expanded to just mean everyone who isn't Tangata Whenua, it still destroys equality before the law and government. A government which gives more weight to your votes because of your ancestry is a racist government, it doesn't treat people as individuals, it treats them as members of collectives, and that's a path that leads to tyranny.

It's certainly not a view held by any other political party in Parliament, I should hope.

Fighting racism in all of its forms?

Racism is “growing in temerity” says Race Relations Conciliator Meng Foon in Stuff and it should be dealt with in “all its forms”.  Pardon me if I think he doesn’t really mean that.

He cites the colonial history of racism that diminished the status of Maori, which is all very well, but in that he infers that this predominantly remains in the minds of many.  I’m not so sure that’s true. There are certainly some who cling to ideas of racial superiority and inferiority, even if it is subtle rather than explicit, but to consider that the thinking in the 19th century of settler is akin to the thinking in the 21st century of their descendants (and the millions of others who are not descended from settlers) seems a stretch.  He’s right to point out historic discrimination against Chinese New Zealanders and of course the Dawn Raids on Pasifika communities came from racist fear, which both main political parties took advantage of at the time.  In all cases this was actions by a state that believed it was right to treat citizens not as individuals, but members of a group deemed to be below that of others.  

Foon points to threats towards some academics, all of which is completely unacceptable.  Speech threatening violence is not protected, as it is a direct violation of the rights of those threatened. However, speech that is abusive and angry is not, and indeed anyone entering the public domain to express their views should not be protected under the law from people responding with anger.  There is nothing wrong with people expressing anger in debating issues, indeed it seems almost de riguer for MPs from Te Pati Maori to do so.

Any cranks promoting violence should be dealt with firmly, but Foon’s commitment to addressing racism “in all its forms” has a blind spot. He accepts on face value the claims of academics who take a post-modernist structuralist view of racism, in that racism doesn’t even need to be expressed in actions but is inferred through outcomes. His citing of AUT lecturer Dr Heather Came who claims there is structural racism “everywhere” is indicative of his view.  The same Dr Heather Came blames “libertarian discourse” for distracting people from the privileges of Pakeha (this is the radical idea that people have some agency for their lives, and that one reason why crime occurs is poor parenting).

This belief system means he wont see the rhetoric of Te Maori Pati MP Debbie Ngarewa-Packer as what it is. Ngarewa-Packer isn’t a traditional ethno-nationalist, she bases her world view on classifying people based on links to land, not land and blood (like ethno-nationalists do), and their belief system.  You’re one of three groups depending on whether:

• You are THE people of the land (or not); and

• If you have redeemed yourself in your belief system (or not).

Note if you are tangata whenua, you don’t need to redeem yourself.  Ngarewa-Packer wrote in the New Zealand Herald on 26 May 2021 that New Zealanders consists of three groups, Tangata Whenua (she includes herself in this, and presumably encapsulates all who identify as Maori), Tangata Tiriti who she calls “reformed racists” (those she deems as allies, basically those who agree with her view as to the constitutional, legal, policy and social structure of New Zealand as a nation-state and society) and racists (everyone else).  

So instead of treating over 5 million diverse individuals with distinct backgrounds, characteristics, abilities, knowledge, perspectives, beliefs and ideas, she pigeon holes them first and foremost into two groups. Maori and others. She declares Tangata Tiriti as equals, although they have sinned, they have redeemed themselves.  As far as everyone else is, they are still sinner, they may yet be able to redeem themselves (and become Tangata Tiriti), but they need to be “left in the past”.  

What is this view if it is not racist? Place these comments in the hands of any ethno-nationalist and they wouldn’t be unfamiliar. There are the best people, there are the people they let become their allies and then there are those that are against them.  Who knows what Ngarewa-Packer thinks should happen to the third group? Given someone who had responsibility for Rawiri Waititi’s Twitter account claimed Caucasians are an “archaic species” and she cites several demographics, she seems to think that eventually Tangata whenua and Tangata Tiriti will be the majority and so the “racists” can be ignored. What if she is wrong and a majority don’t share her little Aotearoa view of humanity?

If she were from another ethnic background, it would be called out for what it is, simple racism. Her view is that unless you are Maori there is something wrong with you that can be fixed, and the way you fix it is by agreeing with her world view and by actively promoting it.  You then gain mana equal to tangata whenua. You should feel lucky then, perhaps that you can be reformed through compliance.  What happens if you don’t agree with it all though? Are you racist if you think there should remain a liberal democracy with majority rule, and that the principles of a common law criminal justice system should remain over an undefined traditional Maori system of lore (which, as with all matauranga, was passed down by word of mouth and observation/tradition, and was not recorded with a written language)?

One indication of what she thinks is her belief that if you are not Tangata Whenua, your right to live in Aotearoa is conditional.

She wrote:

Tangata tiriti accept and appreciate the reason they live in Aotearoa is because te tiriti gives them citizenship and mana equal to tangata whenua. This doesn't denounce their own culture, it strengthens their stand on the whenua they've chosen to live on.

Hang on a moment. Chosen to live on? So, you may be BORN in Aotearoa, you may have no other citizenship, but you’ve chosen to live there. A choice that is not a right because you apparently had another “choice”, which will be news to millions who don’t have dual citizenship.

This is all a bit chilling.  You’re not equal after all.

Ngarewa-Packer in her maiden speech said Maori suffered a “holocaust”, which is demonstrable nonsense. Injustice, killings and discrimination is not industrial-scale extermination, and indeed to compare the violence of the colonial era (an era that Te Pati Maori thinks hasn’t ended) to the Holocaust might be seen as racist by members of those groups that suffered under the Holocaust. However, I doubt Meng Foon will be calling that out and to be fair, Ngarewa-Packer is not the first to make such a ludicrous comparison. 

Imagine for a moment if the Caucasians are an archaic species” comment from Rawiri Waititi’s account had been uttered from the Twitter account of a National or ACT MP, in describing Maori as “a species”. No apologies would have been accepted, the staff member would have had to resign and the mea culpa from the MP would never had been enough.  

So no, Meng Foon is not interested in racism in “all of its forms”. His is a narrow, post-modernist, structuralist view that racism can't be expressed by people who identify with groups he deems as not having power,  although it is difficult to see Members of Parliament as people who are lacking in power.  Is racism increasing in New Zealand? Foon gives no useful evidence, but rather cites a series of anecdotes, all from academics or politicians which universally share one political perspective. It would be better if he were to spend some of the taxpayer money his office gets undertaking balanced surveys of people's attitudes to other races, including testing various stereotypes. 

However, would Foon simply think I am the third category of the Ngarewa-Packer hierarchy of Aotearoa? I am not Tangata Whenua (I think), I am not Tangata Tiriti (I'm not keen on any state that believes power should be shared, rather than fully devolved to individuals as much as feasible), so does that just mean I am racist?

NZ election result: winners, losers

First the biggest loser:  

You, that's assuming you're not seeking to extract other people's money from the state.  

You, if you believe that freedom of speech matters, and that there shouldn't be a Harmful Digital Communications Act.

You, if you believe that you own your body and shouldn't be criminalised for what you put in it.

You, if you believe that government should stick to justice, law and order and defence, and should not be involved in the delivery of health and education, that it should not seek to be parent to everyone and should not respond to all of the calls to impose "social justice" (a euphemism for "take money from people we don't like and give it to people we do").

The news from overseas sources makes New Zealand seem like it still basks in the age of the reforms of Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson.  However, that's only because if you look at subsidies, protectionism and regulatory rent-seeking, NZ looks better than Australia and the US.  If you look at taxation, NZ is much simpler than most economies.  Yet, that relative position doesn't make NZ a free-market haven, and certainly not on personal freedoms.  

So what about the parties?

National, optimistic but too soon to tell will think it won, and to be fair Bill English did shake off his reputation as the biggest loser as a party leader in generations.  He did it by being evasive, by focusing attention on his rival's spending plans, even though his own plans are not fundamentally different.  It is on form, as a party that doesn't really reform anything.  Riding on the back of an economy that gains from the reforms of the 80s and 90s, on high commodity food prices and the spending power of new migrants, its approach to most issues is not to change much.   At best it does seek to cut taxes, but at worst it rolls back virtually nothing Labour does.  The middle class welfare package instituted by the previous Labour Government was kept.  Yet, in an MMP environment the Nats did successfully frighten people into turning out and voting for it.  It deterred ACT supporters from voting ACT (and indeed some NZF supporters too).  Being in a position to get a fourth term is an achievement historically, but you have to ask for what?  Does National exist primarily to stop Labour et al from doing stuff?  The number of National supporters keen on governing with the Greens tells you exactly that.  Principles don't matter, the role of the state doesn't matter, nor is there interest in pushing back against a culture of dependency and statism.  National exists to stop Labour, this time we'll see if it worked.

Labour disappointed but too soon to tell  thinks it has won, because it could conceivably lead government with the Greens and Winston Peters.  Yet it did so mainly by consolidating the vote on the left.  It decimated the Maori Party strategically, it presented a leftwing manifesto and took the Greens back to its core.  Yet the widespread "Jacinda-mania" star status proved to be for little effect.  Few National voters were convinced that a young woman who has never had a job in the private sector, and has never even been a Cabinet Minister could be Prime Minister.  Labour did win the media narrative (along with the Greens) about relative child poverty and river pollution, all without much scrutiny about the statistics (or the causes or better yet, the solutions).  It has a chance at power, but has a long way to go to attract votes from groups other than public servants, beneficiaries, students,  Maori and Pacific Island voters and unionised workers.  It hasn't broken through in most regional towns and cities, nor significant parts of Auckland.  Yes Jacinda has almost done it, but if she does become PM, she'll be getting wagged by the tail of James Shaw and Winston Peters, and that is NOT a winning position to be in.  

Winston Peters won (I mean really, he runs it, it is his) lost seats, but is the master of political positioning.   Seriously, he has won, whilst Bill and Jacinda slut around him for the next few weeks.

 He puts himself in the centre, whilst being a populist who embraces the left (more money for pensioners and opposition to privatisation) and the right (sceptical about immigration, sceptical about higher taxes and opposition to identity politics by race if not nationality).   He leads the only truly fungible MMP party, in that he could support either main party and no longer would he really upset his base of supporters (like he did in 1996, but only because he broke up from the Nats to oppose them, and misjudged that his supporters cared about policy - when they are largely driven by gut emotion).  He'll get a good job and do little with it, he'll give a bunch of ne'er do wells (most of whom couldn't hope to get a job as "highly paid" as an MP) employment, and he'll one or two totemic legacies.  One might be the economically ridiculous idea of relocating the Ports of Auckland to Marsden Point, better would be a referendum on the Maori seats.   Winston won and why are you surprised?  He knows MMP better than anyone else, and no other politician is willing or able to replicate him.

Greens never really lose and were hit fairly hard, not least because it showed itself to be the party of welfare cheats.  Jacinda-mania attracted the airheads back to Labour, but it showed itself to still be a ginger-group of hard-left finger-waggers whose main instincts are to tell people off, tax what they don't like, subsidise what they like and virtue signal.  The good news for the Greens is that they still get an easy ride on most of their policy positions, particularly the constant false claims that "action on climate change" will save lives, the war on fossil fuels and their obsession with identity politics.  The media still loves them, even given the Metiria scandal (which actually exposed their fundamental belief that everyone owes everyone else a living).  Yes the Green Party has never actually been in a coalition, but it is very very influential and relies on new cohorts of optimistic state worshippers being recruited year on year.  

ACT lost badly in part due to the Nats successfully scaring voters on the right to voting National, but also because David Seymour moved too far away from having a coherent position on issues.  He was seen as backing National, but whether it was too hard for him to get traction on multiple issues or he lacked ground support to campaign, the only policy that got a lot of publicity was in increasing teacher pay.  ACT once had a coherent less government, lower tax position that promoted more competition in public services, was tough on law and order and rejected identity politics.  Yet Seymour couldn't break through with such a message.  The brand is mixed, he made statements about abortion which would alienate some, but he tried hard.  ACT needs to work out who it is targeting and what message it is giving.   There is a gap on the right, one that will open up large when a certain Maori ex. National MP finally retires.  ACT can't fill much of that gap, but it sure can grab some of it.

Maori Party is nearly finished as Labour branded it as National's patsies, which was unfair.  Maori are smarter than identity politics warriors fighting "colonialism" as Marama Fox implied. It will probably remain for some time, but looks like it is slipping back to be another Mana Motuhake.  It would have a chance if Labour gets power,  with the Greens, as it could position itself as the Opposition for Maori again.  However,  its real future is threatened by a referendum on the Maori seats, which if it includes Maori who choose to be on the general roll, could completely render the Maori Party obsolete.  

TOP did well for being led by a vulgarian.  For all of the rhetoric, TOP had policies based on a philosophical position, not simply "evidence led".  The philosophy was to penalise asset ownership as a solution to a market failure, rather than address the supply side element.  Everything else it stood for was a redistributionist/environmentalist agenda that competed with the Greens and Labour.  Gareth Morgan got the party attention, but also turned off many.  He topped it off by blaming voters for being selfish and stupid.  What more is there to say?

United Future has no future

The youth didn't turn out in the magical numbers to vote for the left, and if they did turn out they were not a single bloc (who is?).  After all the left is the mainstream.  Besides housing (which has become a problem because of the enviro-left approach to planning, through the RMA and the application of new urbanism to city boundaries in Auckland and Wellington), the narrative about child poverty was from the left (Beth Houlbrooke from ACT was hounded down when she suggested people on low incomes should not have children they expect taxpayers to pay for), the narrative around the environment was partially a banal question around "should there be fewer dairy cows" (the sort of nonsense seen in adolescent level policy debate).

What now?

Winston will make his choice, either Bill English will get to have three years of do little, conservative (literally) government.  Otherwise Jacinda Ardern will suddenly find she has gone from MP to PM without even having sat in on a Cabinet meeting, with Winston wagging her dog and the Greens on the sidelines providing confidence and supply.  I am uncomfortable with the latter, primarily because culturally the bent of Jacinda will be to support more identity politics based on race and sex, less freedom of speech and fewer private property rights.  Not that the Nats are practically better, but Labour and the Greens actually believe in state power and collectivising people over individual rights and individual responsibility.

ACT needs to refocus

For those who think government does too much, who think individuals alone or with others should have more power and responsibility to find solutions to the problems of today, there is little to offer.   The best hope might be for ACT to be in Opposition, regardless.  To campaign more clearly on principles, which should be around private property rights, everyone being equal under the law (including the abolition of Maori-only political representation), opening up education to choice and diversity, tackling the culture of welfare dependency, opposing state subsidies for business, more taxation and more state ownership.  ACT should firmly come down on limiting the scope and powers   of local government, on ridding central government of wasteful politically-correct bureaucracies and taking on identity politics.   Yes it should support other parties when it comes to victimless crimes, but there should not be a unified view on abortion.  It should be tough on real crime, tough on parental responsibility, but also take on measures that governments have done that increase the cost of living.  This includes the constraining of housing supply, and immigration policies that mean new migrants utilise the capital of taxpayer funded infrastructure, without actually paying for it.

What Winston does as his possible swan song is of minor interest, what matters is there being a party that stands up for something different.  For now, only ACT can do that.

New Zealand election 2011 electorate voting guide

Ah yes, I've done the hard work for you, it has taken hours, but I've gone through every electorate candidate list.  My test is simple, is there someone to positively endorse who is more freedom loving than the status quo? If so, vote for him or her.  If not, is there someone positively evil and anti-freedom worthy to oppose, if so vote for whoever will remove him or her. Remember, in most seats this is the vote that doesn't count much, but in a few it is critical as it is a lifeline to some minor parties, and it also helps replace someone on the party list

So...

Auckland Central – David Seymour - ACT

Having removed Judith Tizard swiftly, Nikki Kaye gets some serious kudos for lifting the standard of Parliament across several dimensions.  It looks like a two woman race between Kaye and the Labour list MP Jacinda Ardern.  Now given I endorsed Kaye last time, and Ardern is of the Helen Clark school of wanting to tell people what to do, it would seem an easy choice this time.  Yet, last time removing Judith Tizard was a purposeful mission, now Kaye looks more like the wily political operator than any real defender of freedom and property rights.  She’s supportive of the mega city, thinks the environment is the greatest gift given to New Zealand (people should leave then) and she wants to “help progress” the inner city rail loop and a tram line.  None of that helps reduce the size and influence of government.  As such, you can’t really vote for her for positive reasons other than to disappoint Ardern and the Labour Party.  In any case, Ardern is number 13 on the Labour list and Kaye is 33 on the National list, which means both are likely to be elected anyway.  As a result, I much prefer David Seymour, the ACT candidate.  He has a solid background in electrical engineering and pushing for less government through a think tank.  Help David Seymour get his deposit back by voting for him.

Bay of Plenty – abstain/spoil your ballot

Anthony Boyd Williams Ryall still has this seat in the bag. His 17,604 majority is fairly unassailable, but can you really vote for the Minister of Health who has little apparent interest in serious reform? He doesn’t need your vote. The Labour alternative has no chance and appears to be on the left and there is no ACT, ALCP or Libertarianz candidate.  Brian Carter of United Future has no profile on that party’s website.  Ray Dolman of NZ First is phobic about privatisation.  Peter Redman of the Conservatives is an ex. cop who wants to nationalise the foreshore and seabed and raise the drinking age (although abolishing ETS gets a tick).  Sharon Stevens of Mana is a hardened unionist.  Now you might think I’d say hold your nose and vote for Ryall, but really that wont do.  He is a shoo in, he has a high list position.  He doesn’t need your positive endorsement to keep being a senior Cabinet Minister in a government that confiscates property rights.

Forget about the electorate vote here, or spoil your ballot.

Botany – Jami-Lee Ross - National

Botany was Pansy Wong’s, until she misused her Parliamentary travel perks and so it is now Jami-Lee Ross. (I said Kenneth Wang from ACT last time).  I was damning of him for simply having been a professional politician with no private sector achievements.  Yet Motella noted his maiden speech quoted Thatcher and Reagan, and Whale Oil also noted him approvingly.  He did say “the problem with this approach and the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money to spend. The problem with trying to spend your way towards closing the gap between rich and poor is that eventually we all collectively become poorer.” I was wrong about him, and to be fair his name is a little disconcerting.  He’s head and shoulders above most Nat MPs in my book and while ACT’s Lyn Murphy is a perfectly acceptable alternative, I think that given Ross has only been in Parliament for less than a year, it’s worth giving him a tick.

Christchurch Central – Toni Severin - ACT

Brendon Burns is the Labour MP, with a narrow majority.  As I said last time, he was Labour’s chief spin doctor in the Beehive, and was well up the Clark hierarchy.  Burns is once again ranked fairly low on the Labour list (number 29).  It’s easy to vote against him.  Yet the National candidate is, once again, Nicky Wagner, the list MP.  The debacle that has been the government’s handling of the earthquake is an absolute scandal.  No supporter of business and private property rights can vote for a National candidate in Christchurch Central, particularly one who is an MP in any case.   Whilst Burns was an evil spin doctor, what he did is nothing compared to how National has destroyed businesses and harmed the lives of the productive in this city. Luke Chandler, independent, has incoherent policies and has literacy issues, and so while Toni Severin of ACT is unremarkable and has little chance, she is your best option

Christchurch East – Michael Britnell – Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party

Lianne Dalziel still has this one cornered, with National’s Aaron Gilmore having little chance. Although I endorsed him last time, the government’s response to the earthquake should have forced him to resign because of the gross violations of private property rights and as such, the principles of the National Party.  The only candidate you can trust to be pro-freedom, at least on one issue, is Michael Britnell of the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party.

Clutha Southland – Don Nicolson - ACT

Bill English is a shoo in, and really can you think of a good reason to vote for him?  Don Nicolson is number 3 on the ACT list, and has ending the ETS as a priority.  As a former Federated Farmers’ President, he will do nicely to send a message to Bill not to take the locals for granted.  Don’t be seduced by Tony Corbett of the unregistered New Zealand Sovereignty Party, he’s anti-privatisation.  Give Don Nicolson a positive endorsement.

Coromandel – Jay Fitton – Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party

Sandra Goudie is retiring, so it is an open contest, although she had a majority of over 14,000 so it is likely to be Scott Simpson’s to lose.  He is inoffensive, but unimpressive.  Not a good reason to support Labour’s Hugh Kininmouth.  Crazy woman Catherine Delahunty is standing for the Greens, but she isn’t a threat.  Jay Fitton of the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party is at least standing for freedom on one issue.  Give him a tick to remind the Greens and National of the importance of that issue in this electorate at least.

Dunedin North – Guy McCallum - ACT

With Pete Hodgson’s retirement, Labour is putting forward David Clark for a seat that Hodgson won with a majority of just over 7,000.  Clark is a fairly predictable moderate leftwing Labour candidate, who lists “fairness” as his first issue – which actually means promoting wealth transfers, he is proud of helping create the ETS and likes the anti-nuclear policy.  Clark needs to win this seat to get elected, as he has a low list position.  The National candidate is list MP Michael Woodhouse.  Although his maiden speech was unremarkable, his speech on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill was forthright in supporting voluntary student union membership.  However, why vote for Woodhouse when ACT’s Guy McCallum is more convincing.  He is young, keen on reducing the size of government and government spending.   On top of that, Metiria Turei is standing for the Greens and any vote for Guy will annoy her.

Dunedin South – Joanne Hayes - National

Clare Curran is the MP, with nearly 6,500 vote majority.  As I said in 2008, she’s a vile little PR hack who is seeking to portray National as enemies of the people.  She has also played silly politics by campaigning for Auckland’s new trains to be made in Dunedin, even though the new Wellington trains, ordered when Labour was in power, are being made in South Korea.  It’s better to tick Joanne Hayes, the National candidate. Kimberly Hannah, the ACT candidate, doesn’t have enough information on her profile for me to give her a recommendation over Hates.  Hayes is unremarkable, but Curran deals in dirt and deserves to be made to worry a little.

East Coast – John Norvill – ACT (if you must vote)

Censorship enthusiast Anne Tolley holds this seat, with a majority of around 6,400.  She is no friend of freedom, as her support for a major crackdown on any material that discusses sexuality among young people demonstrated.   Moana Mackey, the Labour candidate, isn’t either as she is leftwing, she likes unions, compulsory Maori language and bleats on about the 1990s being a horrible time.  John Norvill, the ACT candidate, is a business owner, although he wears his religion on his sleeve and there is nothing on his profile about reducing the size of the state (he wants to “stop the rot” whatever that means).  On balance, if you have to, you might give him the benefit of the doubt, given a history of owning small businesses, but don’t feel guilty if you don’t vote for any of them.

East Coast Bays – abstain, spoil your ballot

Murray McCully is a shoo in, so doesn’t need your vote and frankly doesn’t deserve it either.  ACT candidate Toby Hutton has a three line profile which is completely uninspiring, so isn't deserving either. Labour candidate Vivienne Goldsmith is a teachers’ unionist so should be avoided.  Conservative Simonne Dyer is, well, conservative, and was once deputy leader of the Kiwi Party, not a friend of freedom.  McCully is not the worst Cabinet Minister, but I can’t positively endorse him.  He wont bring more freedom to government.

Epsom – abstain/spoil your ballot

Rodney Hide had a huge majority, nearly 12,900, when he won it last time, with an absolute majority.  This time you know the score.  National’s Paul Goldsmith at number 39 on the list, will probably get in on the list anyway.  He’s a historian and public affairs consultant, but rather inoffensive.  John Banks, well you all know his record of fiscal imprudence and social conservatism.   Independent candidate Matthew Goode has some merits, but these are cancelled out by his policies to ban mining, introduce some new taxes to replace others, ban guns, pay mothers a living wage and a belief in fighting global warming by penalising car use.   So you can’t avoid the obvious choice.  Do you tick Banks knowing he is the passport to getting Brash and Isaac elected, holding your nose? Or do you tick Goldsmith?  There is no good reason to tick Goldsmith and he doesn’t need it.  The question for you is can you live with yourself having endorsed John Banks for three years, knowing ACT depends on him, and his decidedly authoritarian views on personal freedom?  If you accept that ACT could get 2-3% of the vote and bring in Brash and Isaac, then you could justify voting for Banks, even though you’ll need to shower afterwards.  Yet I couldn’t do it.  I couldn’t vote for the man who as Mayor led an overspending council, who voted to keep criminalising consenting adult homosexuals, who has absolutely no interest in the idea that there are victimless crimes.  Consider this, do you honestly think John Banks, fan of Rob Muldoon, will vote for MORE freedom than John Key?  Really?  Now of course you're being told that the entire Key government depends on John Banks.  Think about this.  


Who fought the reforms of the 1980s? John Banks.  
Who didn't resign in sympathy with Ruth Richardson being demoted?  John Banks
Who pushed for a supercity as long ago as 2001?  John Banks


When National next pushes to increase search and surveillance powers, when National next ramps up the war on drugs, when National next moves to deny Christchurch downtown property owners the rights to enter their property and recover it, do you really think John Banks will be crying out for individual rights and property rights?  Do you really think he wont have the upper hand in the ACT caucus? John Banks and ACT have five days to prove me wrong and change my view.

Hamilton East – Garry Mallett - ACT

David Bennett is the National MP for this seat, with a respectable majority of 8,820, but he is likely to win again and has been unremarkable.  Labour candidate is the former Student Union President, the easy on the eye, but frightfully politically correct Sehai Orgad.  Former ACT President Garry Mallett is a perfectly respectable candidate to endorse, as an entrepreneur and a man who has supported ACT being about less government.  Give Garry a tick.

Hamilton West - Tim Wikiriwhi – Independent

National’s Tim Macindoe narrowly pushed Labour’s Martin Gallagher out of Parliament.   Yet he led Arts Waikato, and seems to be into environmentalism (Sustainable Business Network).   He’s not really worth endorsing, even though he is up against the awful Sue Moroney, who wants a subsidised passenger train service to Auckland (that would be slower than a bus), and wants to force “pay equity” and longer compulsory paid parental leave.  Moroney is number 10 on the Labour list so is a sure thing, Macindoe is 49 on the National list so may not make it if he loses here, but then that isn’t a real loss for those who believe in less government.  Yet there IS a candidate who does passionately believe in freedom and less government.   Although he has chosen not to stand for Libertarianz this time, he is still worthy of my support.  Vote for a man who has turned his life around, and who is passionate about what he does, and works very hard to get across his message.  He is his own man, true to himself through and through, and while you may not always agree with him, he deserves your vote – Vote Tim Wikiriwhi.  If he got in, Parliament wouldn't know what’s hit it.

Hauraki-Waikato - Nanaia Mahuta - Labour

Princess Mahuta won this narrowly last time, against Angeline Greensill for the Maori Party.  The hard leftwing Greensill has slid over to Mana, so Tau Bruce Mataki is representing the Maori Party.  Princess is no hero, but it makes sense to vote for her to keep Maori and Mana from having an overhang, and to keep a Labour list candidate out.

Helensville – Nick Kearney - ACT

John Key doesn’t need your vote, he is in on the list and with a majority of over 20,000 he is at no risk from Jeremy Greenbook-Held from Labour, who himself is quite pathetic (Whaleoil revealed that) and a great believer in more government spending.   I don’t have strong reasons to support Nick Kearney, the ACT candidate, but he deserves your vote more than the others and sends a small sign to John Key that he isn't the bearer of all Helensville votes on the right.

Hunua – Ian Cummings - ACT

The awful patronising prick Paul Hutchison (I am speaking from experience here) is the National MP with a majority of just over 15,800.   Young Labour candidate Richard Hills is predictable demanding higher incomes and hates privatisation, and then implies ACT is sexist, racist and homophobic, so he should just STFU.  Quite a few wacky candidates here, but you could do worse than vote for Ian Cummings from ACT.  He says “I strongly believe that people should be able to keep what they earn and to invest, save and meet their needs as they see fit. So, for the most part, the best thing government can do is to simply extract itself from its citizens’ lives to the fullest possible extent”.  That’s a man you can vote for.

Hutt South – Alex Speirs - ACT

Trevor Mallard doesn’t need your vote here, and why would you give it to him with his majority of 4,000 (and a high list position).  National is throwing up Paul Quinn again, who is a reasonably respectable National list MP, who at 54 may or may not make it through.   ACT candidate Alex Speirs says he “is a passionate advocate of freedom, both social and economic, and individual choice”. Speirs deserves your vote in his own right, but you could do worse than Quinn as a Nat MP.

Ikaroa-Rawhiti - Parekura Horomia - Labour

Parekura should hold this with his 7,540 majority.  The alternatives are Mana candidate Tawhai McClutchie and Maori candidate Na Raihania (no Derek Fox) and the rather odd Maurice Wairau.  Hold your nose and vote for the big man Parekura Horomia – he will be in anyway on the list, but this is about reducing the Maori and Mana Party potential overhangs.

Ilam – John Parsons - Labour

Gerry Brownlee will slide into this easily, with his majority of nearly 11,900.  He does not deserve your vote as he has been the Cabinet Minister responsible for the response to the Christchurch earthquake.  So while it would be easy to support ACT candidate Gareth Veale (number 20 on the list, not 3 as the ACT profile suggests) as he “describes himself as a classical liberal, believing in smaller effective government in all spheres of life - social and economic freedom”, Brownlee has been such a disgrace that it is worth considering voting for Labour candidate John Parsons to deprive Brownlee of his electorate (although he’ll be in on the list), National’s only Christchurch electorate (which is a reason given for his role in the earthquake reconstruction).   So do so, hold your nose and vote John Parsons to shrink Brownlee’s majority – he can’t be any worse, as Parsons has long been a businessman, and was once Dominion/Air New Zealand businessperson of the year

Invercargill - Shane Pleasance - Libertarianz

National MP Eric Roy should manage to keep Labour's Lesley Soper out of Parliament (she’s just another braindead unionist), and Roy is just one of the mediocre middle ground of National. So give Shane Pleasance your electorate vote, he’s the Libertarianz candidate, Director of the Southland Chamber of Commerce and he believes in Invercargill, freedom and personal responsibility.  He definitely deserves it.

Kaikoura – Ian Hayes - Libertarianz

National’s Colin King is comfortable here against Labour’s Liz Collyns with a majority of over 11,000.  However, Libertarianz give you an alternative.  Ian Hayes believes in freedom, so give him your vote in this safe National seat.

Mana - Richard Goode – Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party

Labour’s Kris Faafoi took this in the by-election last year and Whaleoil revealed the rather appalling tactics that were used there.   Yet the awful “Pakeha owe Maori loads” public sector consultant/list MP Hekia Parata of National is simply vile - from personal experience. You wont get a colourblind state sector with her.  Richard Goode, standing for the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party is mild mannered and one of the most rational speakers on liberalising drug laws in New Zealand today.  He has decided not to stand for Libertarianz this year, but he is still libertarian. Vote for Goode.

Mangere – Claudette Hauiti - National

Labour's Sua Sio won this last time and has a fairly unassailable majority of over 7,000, but now Philip Field has been removed, there is no good reason to support Sio – who is singing the usual Labour song of promoting a Capital Gains Tax and more state intervention.   National is putting up Claudette Hauiti, a lesbian Maori businesswoman who used to be Labour affiliated.  Lindsay Mitchell rates her well, as she talks of less government and more personal responsibility.  So give Sio a bit of a wake up, by ticking Hauiti.  Casey Costello of ACT is an ex. Cop and ex. Police unionist, which isn’t enough for me to think she is more deserving.

Manukau East - Kanwal Bakshi – National or Jono MacFarlane ACT

Ross Robertson is one of the Labour MPs I dislike least, and he isn’t on the party list, which means if he wins, it helps keep the likes of Steve Chadwick out of Parliament. However, he is pretty much guaranteed to get elected with his majority of over 12,000. Kanwal Bakshi of National is a businessman who set up a voluntary organisation to help teenagers. Jono MacFarlane of ACT is a Christian Conservative who does not believe government is the solution.  Either man is worthy of your vote, I would lean towards Kanwal because he has a better chance of narrowing Labour’s majority, but don’t let Jono’s Christian background put you off him. 

Manurewa – David Peterson - ACT

With George Hawkins retiring, Labour is putting up Louisa Wall who needs to win here as she has no list position.  Hawkins had a majority of around 6,700, so Wall is likely to win.  She doesn’t deserve to though, she says “A measure of this leadership is how we distribute society's resources”, so your property is everyone’s in her book.  Given last election she talked about how she used to “advance the needs and aspirations of Maori working within public bureaucracies as a Maori specific representative”.  So, as a Maori lesbian, her identity matters for you.    Dr Cam Calder is National’s candidate, and a list MP at number 50 (which on current polling means he is probably ok) but he is no libertarian.  He has a health background, and is a Blue-Green.  He mentioned freedom once in his maiden speech, but has simply been a loyal lieutenant in the government, so really it makes little difference if he keeps Louisa Wall out or not.  ACT’s David Peterson is proudly libertarian, believes in Austrian school economics and says “I support letting peaceful people live their lives how they like, even if they're making personal choices radically different to those I would make as freedom is universally for all not just those I agree with”.  He deserves your vote.

Maungakiekie - Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga - National

This was a surprise win for National after Mark Gosche’s retirement in 2008, and Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga has a majority of nearly 2,000 in a seat Labour believes should be its own.

The vile Carol Beaumont of Labour is vying for this seat. She’s a proud unionist and thinks Labour has benefited democracy, and that asset sales will raise prices.  Although at 22 on the list, she has a good chance of getting in anyway.  Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga has been a good local MP, and has a strong business background, and believes in lower taxes and less bureaucracy.  There are no other candidates that come close to this, so you can vote for him positively to try to keep the Marxist Beaumont out of Parliament.

Mount Albert – Steven Boyle - ACT

Helen Clark won this with a majority of over 10,000, and David Shearer took it for Labour again with a slightly lower majority in the 2009 by-election.  He doesn’t talk about his pro-mercenary background nowadays, preferring to focus on “social justice” (the euphemism for fiscal transfers).  Yet he voted against Voluntary Student Union membership and was sarcastic about it.   National is putting up Melissa Lee, list MP who is number 34 on the list (so is fairly certain to get elected).   She’s notable for being the first Korean woman to be an MP outside Korea, but also for her comments on crime, race and the new motorway.  She’s not exactly a great success, and there is no sign she is a great supporter of less government.  Steven Boyle is ACT’s candidate, he’s a civil engineer and more deserving than Lee.

Mount Roskill – Jasmin Hewlett – Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party

Phil Goff gained a majority of 6,400 last time, and I DID endorse him because I figured he’d pull Labour back from the Helengrad left, and he has – a little.    National list MP Jackie Blue is standing here, and at 46 on the list is reasonably likely to get elected.   However she is keen on the war on drugs, so you can’t give her support.  Pratima Nand is ACT’s candidate, but her profile shows no sign of an interest in less government.  Jasmin Hewlett of the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party shows a passionate belief in addressing the injustice of peaceful people imprisoned for using cannabis.  She deserves your vote, especially to send a message to Jackie Blue.  Goff, after all, will be history in a few months.

Napier – John Ormond - ACT

Chris Tremain is the successful businessman who is now the local MP, a Nat, and his 9,000 vote majority in what was once a safe Labour seat is notable.  Labour list MP Stuart Nash is standing, and at number 27 is fairly comfortably in anyway.  Nash is not one of the worst Labour MPs, but then again Tremain as a local businessman has lots of “plans for Napier” which isn’t exactly consistent with less government.   John Ormond is ACT’s candidate is a strong opponent of ETS, so deserves your vote.  Tremain should be safe in any case at 22 on the list.

Nelson - Maryan Street - Labour

Maryan Street is one of Labour’s best and smartest candidates. Yes she is Labour left through and through, but she isn’t Nick Smith. Nick Smith is the most loathsome of National MPs, a little control freak, who doesn’t believe in private property rights, who embraces the RMA. Nick Smith is a major reason why National looks a lot like Labour.  So vote Street, because for all she is, she is better than Smith.  Smith has a majority of nearly 8,500, and ACT’s Paul Hufflett has no profile.  Smith is number 6 on National’s list and Street is number 7 on Labour’s so both are guaranteed in, but Smith deserves a bloodied nose for simply being completely uninterested in private property rights.  Hold your nose and tick Street, at least she is honest about what she stands for,  but if you can’t handle that, you can vote for the unknown Hufflett knowing it wont make a difference.

New Lynn - Tim Groser - National

Local MP Silent T is a vile nasty character, whose intelligence belies a cold instinct to love power and step on those who get in his way.  He has proven his vileness even more this time with his sexist comment about Judith Collins.  He has the knife out for Phil Goff assuming Labour loses in this election.  Silent T has a 4,000 vote majority, which isn’t unbeatable. National’s Tim Groser is a list MP at number 12, so is a shoo in, silent T at number 3 is as well.  Barbara Steinijans is the ACT candidate who strongly supports free markets and is critical of the welfare state.  You may choose to vote for her, but I’d prefer a vote for Groser, to give Silent T a kick where it hurts.  He is, after all, one of those vying to be a future leader, and his political career is worthy of cauterising.

New Plymouth – Jamie Dombroski – Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party

Jonathan Young of National slipped past Harry Duynhoven in 2008, with a razor thin majority of 105.  Jonathan Young opposed allowing Easter shop trading, and as Venn Young’s son, he isn’t exactly a great friend of freedom.  ACT has stepped to one side to ensure Young fights Labour’s Andrew Little, a long standing unionist, but that's hardly consistent with more freedom and less government.  Little is number 15 on the Labour list, so is in anyway, Young is number 45 on National’s so is probably in too.  The only candidate supporting freedom is Jamie Dombroski of the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party, so give him a tick. 

North Shore – Don Brash - ACT

With Wayne Mapp’s retirement, National is putting forward Maggie Barry, who is unlikely to get elected on the list at number 57.  Barry has nothing serious to offer in terms of fighting for less government.  She doesn’t deserve your vote and is an insult to thinking voters who believe in less government.  Labour's Ben Clark writes on The Standard, which demonstrates a love of gutter politics, so should be ignored.   However, there is one candidate who deserves your vote above all other.  Don Brash winning North Shore would do two things, it would shake National from its complacency in selecting a celebrity over an achiever, but it would also mean ACT would have a presence in Parliament that is NOT reliant on Banks.   As much as Michael Murphy, the Libertarianz candidate is a fine chap and unrelenting defender of freedom, Brash deserves your vote here.  This is ACT’s last chance to be the party committed to individual freedom, and so is by far the most important electorate vote for freedom lovers.   Most of all, it would free ACT from being dependent on Epsom and indeed is a natural constituency for that party.  Vote Brash, remembering that many of you did in 2005 anyway.

Northcote - Peter Linton - Libertarianz

Dr Jonathan Coleman is the Nat MP. He’s a clever chap but at 16 on the list he’s in anyway and has a 9,300 or so majority, so is at no real risk. Pick Peter Linton of Libertarianz because he'll send a signal about belief in small government.  He’ll stir them up and be a strong advocate for your self defence and your right to decide on your health care and education.  You can vote for Peter positively.

Northland – Lynette Stewart - Labour

Hone Carter’s retired so Mike Sabin is National’s candidate.  Carter held the seat with a 10,000 vote majority, so Sabin should be in, but does he deserve it?  Well no.  His profile is impressive, but his big thing is drugs.  He has a long history in drug law enforcement and in reducing drug use.  Now I can empathise with wanting to reduce drug use, but none of what I saw indicated an interest in considering an alternative approach to criminalisation.  Sabin is no friend of freedom.  

Labour’s Lynette Stewart believes in the government “resetting the economic environment” to increase wages and jobs, without really knowing how, so she wont be any help.  At number 39 on the Labour list, she might make it anyway.  Sabin is 60 on the National list, so he needs to win Northland.  Barry Brill of ACT has a long history in politics, having once been a solid National MP, and is now an opponent of ETS.   Now Stewart may not be any help, but she is better than Sabin.  Parliament has enough people who are narrow minded about drug laws and who don’t have any time for hating drugs, but respecting the right of adults to choose what they put into their own bodies.  So, I’d advise a vote for Lynette Stewart purely to stop Sabin getting elected.  If you can’t stomach that, then Brill is certainly deserving of your vote.

Ohariu – Sean Fitzpatrick - Libertarianz

Ahh yes a very important seat. It’s simple. Dunne has to go. This man has voted to keep Labour in power for two terms and to grow bureaucracy, and now he is Minister of Revenue.  The one thing you can be sure of is he will support whatever government is in power.  He lost his socially liberal credentials years ago when he merged with the Christian Democrats, and how can you back the man whose greatest recent achievement is creating the Family Commission - a new bureaucracy?  Dunne’s majority last time was only 1,000, with Labour’s Charles Chauvel and National’s Katrina Shanks closely behind.   Yet you can't back Chauvel.    Chauvel is 11 on the Labour list and is a fairly typical centre-left MP, he isn't going to help shrink the state.  Shanks is ok, but been an uneventful Nat MP.  However, Libertarianz Deputy Leader Sean Fitzpatrick is far more interesting.  He runs a successful martial arts school in Wellington, and a more honest candidate you couldn’t find.  Eschew mediocrity and focus group driven candidates, and proudly give Fitzpatrick your vote.   Bear in mind a few will confuse him with someone else!

Otaki - Peter McCaffrey - ACT

National MP Nathan Guy won this off of Darren Hughes, but he is into Transmission Gully, his maiden speech used the word “free” once and he talked favourably about how important Nandor’s “Waste Minimisation Bill” is. You can’t seriously vote for this guy, and his 1354 majority makes him vulnerable.  Labour’s Peter Foster talks about people paying a `’fair share of tax” and “core state assets”, so is far too leftwing to deserve a tick.  Nathan Guy may be a bit vacant, but he’s not so evil to remove with such a character.  Peter McCaffrey of ACT led ACT on Campus Wellington, and was instrumental behind pushing for voluntary student union membership.  He soundly deserves your support.

Pakuranga – Chris Simmons - ACT

Maurice Williamson’s seat. Maurice is one of National’s better MPs, being an opponent of the awful move to the left of English in 2002, and supporting Brash in 2005. Key had stomped on Maurice, but then he found the “leaky homes” issue a bit of a challenge.  Maurice’s majority is nearly 14,000 and he is 19 on the list, so he will be in anyway and having been emasculated why bother? Vote Chris Simmons of ACT, just to put ACT ahead of the Greens, again.

Palmerston North – Leonie Hapeta - National

Labour candidate Iain Lees-Galloway holds this seat with a thin 1117 majority. This man is just vile, being anti-individualism and a unionist. Vote to keep him out, he is 37 on the list so may not make it if Labour does badly.  Leonie Hapeta is National’s candidate, she is unremarkable (mispelt “safety” on her website), but Lees-Galloway would be good to remove and one can always hope that any new talent for National will help, at 65 on the list she needs to win this seat to get elected.

Papakura – John Thompson - ACT

Judith Collins holds the seat with a majority of over 10,000.  Labour’s Jerome Mika is a unionist and not deserving.  Give John Thompson of ACT your vote, as Collins is number 7 on the list, and is at no risk of being removed, it will remind her a little that some people want less government than John Key offers.

Port Hills - Geoff Russell - ACT

Dyson is awful, and National is putting up David Carter, list MP to challenge her. Dyson is number 5 on the list anyway, Carter is 10, so both will be in anyway.  Dyson’s 3452 majority is likely to keep her safe, but this seat deserves a shake up.  Vote ACT’s Geoff Russell to make Carter think about those who want less government.

Rangitata – Tom Corbett - ACT

Jo Goodhew is the Nat MP, she has a majority of just over 8,000 and at 23 on the list is safe.  She described herself in her maiden speech as one who “juggle work and family, who scorn political correctness, who value self-reliance and believe that working hard should bring personal benefits, not increased taxation”. Not great, but not bad, yet of course she is part of the government.  I backed her last time, but this time give her a little clip around the ears, vote Tom Corbett of ACT.

Rangitikei – Hayden Fitzgerald - ACT

Simon Power is standing down, so National has put forward Ian McKelvie.  He ought to win easily, as he has been Mayor of Manawatu and has a 12,000 vote majority to inherit.  ACT’s Hayden Fitzgerald says he is a libertarian, so is a far better bet for freedom than the unremarkable McKelvie.

Rimutaka – Alwyn Courtenay - ACT

Labour’s Chris Hipkins barely won this seat in 2008 with a majority of only 753.  National has chosen Jonathan Fletcher as candidate, with no list position, so he needs to be considered.  He says “At the age of 20, a visit to the United Nations inspired me with the vision that I could contribute to our country through politics.”  Hmm, not promising, especially since he has absolutely nothing on his campaign website saying what he stands for and what he wants to achieve.  I can’t endorse an open book, because someone else will write what he will do and think.  Especially given Hipkins is 30 on the Labour list so likely to get in anyway.  Annoy Fletcher by voting for Alwyn Courtenay of ACT.

Rodney – Beth Houlbrooke - ACT

Lockwood Smith is retiring, but he leaves a 15635 majority for National candidate Mark Mitchell who has a long career in the Police, as a hostage negotiator and built a business from scratch.  He will almost certainly win, but a better bet for freedom is Beth Houlbrooke from ACT.

Rongotai – Joel Latimer - ACT

Annette King is hardly threatened by Chris Finlayson, with a 9,000 vote majority and being number 2 on the list, although he is one of the better Nat candidates, that isn’t a high threshold to cross.  Vote ACT’s Joel Latimer, as the best option to make a small stand for less government.

Rotorua – Abstain, spoil your ballot

Todd McClay is the National MP with a 5,000 vote majority and he is no friend of free markets and small government.  The empty headed Steve Chadwick is running for Labour so no better.   You really can’t do anything here, so abstain or spoil your ballot.  McClay isn’t worth saving.

Selwyn – Jo McLean - Labour

Amy Adams of National is the MP with a majority of around 11,000.   However, she has been supportive of the response to the Christchurch earthquake.  Labour’s Jo McLean has no chance of being elected, she is not on the list, Adams is 28 on the Nat list so is likely to be elected anyway.  Tick McLean to give Adams a bit of a fright, but if you can’t, just abstain or spoil your ballot.

Tamaki – Stephen Berry -  Independent

Sadly Allan Peachey passed away recently, so National selected Simon O’Connor to succeed him.  However, one candidate stands out above the others.  Stephen Berry is a libertarian and fighting tooth and nail for freedom in this electorate. This is one candidate you can soundly tick for and know he believes in less government.

Tamaki-Makaurau - Pita Sharples - Maori Party

Pita Sharples is the MP with a majority of nearly 8,000.  Shane Jones is Labour’s challenge, and although he is a list MP who will be in at number 18, he is really just a professional bureaucrat.  For all his faults, Sharples is the only Maori Party MP worth supporting.   It’s a tough call.  After all, eliminating the Maori Party removes a barrier to eliminating the Maori seats, but Sharples will probably make this his last term.  He’s a better man than Shane Jones, so he should – just, deserve support.

Taranaki-King Country – Shane Ardern - National

Shane Ardern, yawn. Yep, what a star.  A majority of over 15,000 so he is a sure thing, and is 27 on the list.   Labour’s Rick Barker is having a shot, but doesn’t deserve your vote, as he is number 25 on the list so fairly secure.  You could vote Victoria Rogers of United Future, but there is no good reason to do so.  Tick Ardern because he is inoffensive and because he will be in anyway, and is likely to question ETS at caucus.

Taupo – Roseanne Jollands - ACT

Louise Upston is the MP, with a majority of around 6,400.  The quote attributed to her “The police are good. The criminals are bad. It's that simple” doesn’t bode well for freedom.  Labour’s Frances Campbell isn’t worth your vote on freedom grounds.  ACT’s Roseanne Jollands would give Upston a small message, but her profile is hardly inspiring either.

Tauranga - Simon Bridges - National

Simon Bridges helped keep Winston out in 2008 and gained a majority of over 11,000.  You could consider Kath McCabe from ACT, but she is an environmental lawyer.  Could you trust her to replace the RMA with private property rights?  I’d give Bridges another go, just because he deserves it for having helped keep out Winston.

Te Atatu - Tau Henare - National

Labour is putting Phil Twyford up to replace Chris Carter.  Twyford is a scaremongering socialist who reminds me somewhat of Sue Kedgley.   At 33 on the Labour list he is likely to get in anyway.  I’m going to endorse Tau Henare, if only because Twyford needs to be avoided.  Henare gives the Nats a bit of a shake up, which is actually worth something.

Te Tai Hauauru – Soraya Peke Mason - Labour

You can’t vote for Tariana Turia, she’s mad as can be. Tick Soraya Peke Mason of Labour, to remove her, and replace a Labour list candidate whilst reducing the overhang caused by the Maori Party winning more seats than it is entitled to get with party votes.

Te Tai Tokerau – Kelvin Davis - Labour

The loathsome Marxist Hone Harawira doesn’t deserve your vote.  Tick Kelvin Davis of Labour, he is the best bet to remove him, and at 23 on Labour’s list, you wont feel guilty about voting for him, as he is in anyway.  However, removing the Mana Party is a worthy mission like removing a cancerous growth on liberty.

Te Tai Tonga – Rino Tirikatene - Labour

Removing Maori Party MPs will remove the overhang and reduce a barrier to eliminating the Maori seats.  Vote Rino Tirikatene for a Labour MP who replaces someone from the list (who is typically worse) and to send these seats back to a party that thinks wider than race based policies.

Tukituki – Romana Manning – Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party

Yes well Craig Foss is the Nat MP, with a majority of 7800.  He is also unremarkable. ACT’s Robert Burnside doesn’t have a profile that mentions freedom in any form, so how can he be endorsed.  Vote Romana Manning of ALCP, as you know what she thinks on one issue, and she wears a Police outfit on her profile - which is intriguing.

Waiariki – Louis Te Kani - Labour

Remove the Maori Party’s Te Ururoa Flavell by voting Louis Te Kani of Labour.  Bear in mind that this is also about rejecting the evil cheerleader of 9/11, Annette Sykes.  Again, returning this to Labour replaces a Labour list MP and helps eliminate the overhang.

Waikato – Robin Boom - ACT

Lindsay Tisch hasn’t been a star but with a majority of nearly 13,000 has this covered.  Kate Sutton isn’t the worst Labour candidate, but at number 35, she might be in on the list, so don’t give her a second thought. Robin Boom of ACT rejects the ETS and Tisch needs that message, so give him a tick for that, though not much else.

Waimakariri - Clayton Cosgrove - Labour

Keeping Clayton Cosgrove around will annoy the Labour left and Kate Wilkinson of National doesn’t deserve to win because of National’s performance over the earthquake (and is number 19 on the list so will be in anyway).  Tick Cosgrove as a protest against National in Christchurch and because he is a moderating influence in the Labour caucus.

Wairarapa - Richard McGrath - Libertarianz

Vote for NZ’s most freedom loving GP – Dr Richard McGrath for Libertarianz. He’s a fine man, and has a good profile in the electorate.  You don’t need to think twice about this.   National’s John Hayes will probably win given his comfortable majority of around 6,700, but I strongly endorse McGrath politically and personally as the one candidate of all I most would like to see elected, across the country.  He would shake up healthcare, the war on drugs and would always take a balanced and measured approach, that adds up to whether any government measure reduces freedom and individual rights or increases it.  Vote McGrath with pride.

Waitakere – Peter Osborne - Libertarianz

Paula Bennett of National has a tiny majority here of 632, and faces a real challenge from Carmel Sepuloni of Labour.  Bennett is number 14 on the list though, so she isn’t going to be out.  Sepuloni is 24 on the Labour list, so is also likely to be in as well.  However, you have a real freedom loving candidate here, Peter Osborne of Libertarianz deserves your vote more than Bennett.  After all, it’s not like either the major candidates face getting ejected.

Waitaki – Colin Nicholls - ACT

Jacqui Dean is the current MP and an enemy of freedom, voting against her is like voting against Jim Anderton.  She wanted to ban party pills and is a Blue Green.  Labour’s Barry Monks has NO profile on the party website, so I can't even start to consider him.  Jacqui Dean’s 11000 majority is unassailable, even with her number 41 list placing which is likely to be good enough.  ACT’s Colin Nicholls supports lower taxes, abolishing ETS, one law for all and privatisation.  That is the best deal you can get here, and better than Dean.

Wellington Central – Reagan Cutting - Libertarianz

Labour’s Grant Robertson has a majority of 1904 here, so National has a chance here with Paul Foster-Bell (his number 56 list placing is too low to be likely).  Yet while he claims to be classically liberal, he also claims to be a Blue Green.  Stephen Whittington of ACT is quite the libertarian candidate, but why vote for him when you can choose the real thing with Reagan Cutting.   After all it is better for him to beat the Alliance, Conservative Party and NZ First and show that Wellington Central isn't just bureaucrats voting to feather their nests.

West Coast-Tasman – Steven Wilkinson – Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party

Chris Auchinvole is the Nat MP who ousted Damien O’Connor and gained a narrow 971 majority.  O’Connor is standing for the seat only, not the list.  He is better than any on the Labour list.  However, O’Connor is not exactly a freedom fighter, so no point ousting Auchinvole for O’Connor.  Auchinvole has list position 43 so is probably safe anyway.  You might consider Allan Birchfield of ACT, who is anti RMA but he thinks there is a carbon tax.  So on that basis, better choosing Steven Wilkinson of the ALCP for the obvious reason.

Whanganui - Alan Davidson - ACT

Chester Borrows is the Nat MP here, he thinks all children are ours and like Sue Bradford says “I want to live in a country that claims all children as their own and accepts the glory and the responsibility of that”. The Labour candidate isn’t worth ticking, as he was grateful for the welfare state even though he is decidedly middle class.  He also volunteered for John Kerry’s Presidential campaign!  ACT is standing Alan Davidson again, a man who strongly believes in personal freedom, so give him a tick.

Whangarei - Helen Hughes - Libertarianz

Phil Heatley is another shoo in here, so you can safely vote for someone who does passionately believe in individual freedom. Vote Helen Hughes for Libertarianz, with pride. She’s more charismatic and better looking than Heatley any day, and she'll mean more for freedom than he ever will.

Wigram – Geoff McTague – Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party

Jim Anderton is retiring and his party is gone, so Labour expects to win this with Megan Woods, a former Andertonian.  It might be tempting to vote for National’s Sam Collins, but this is Christchurch and he is supportive of what the government has done.  You can’t endorse this.  Geoff McTague of the ALCP is your only choice for freedom.

It total this adds up to:


26 ACT
8 Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party
2 Independents
11 Labour
8 Libertarianz
9 National 
1 Maori Party
4 Abstain

P.S.  If any candidate thinks I have unfairly ignored her or him, then feel free to plead your case for being a positive vote for more freedom and less government.  Social creditors, xenophobes and believers in theocracy need not apply.