Greg Dixon's Another Kind of Politics: David Seymour denies playing ‘race card' in UN stoush is ‘identity politics'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
5 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Te Pāti Māori announces Ikaroa-Rāwhiti candidate Hayley Maxwell
Listening to articles is free for open-access content—explore other articles or learn more about text-to-speech. Haley Maxwell co-ordinated the Toitu Te Tiriti hīkoi in Gisborne. By Russell Palmer of RNZ Te Pāti Māori has announced Haley Maxwell will stand for next year's general election - for the one Māori seat currently held by Labour. Maxwell helped organise the Hīkoi mō te Tiriti in the region last year. 'Haley Maxwell spearheaded the historic Hīkoi mō Te Tiriti from Te Tairāwhiti right through to Kahungunu. Haley embodies the fierce compassion and courage that Ikaroa-Rāwhiti is famous for,' Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi said in a written statement. 'She has stood on the marae, in the courts and on the streets for our people. Parliament will be a stronger house with her voice echoing the roar of Te Tairāwhiti.'
Newsroom
8 hours ago
- Newsroom
Attorney-General rules her own Govt's voting crackdown breaches human rights
Electoral law restrictions announced last week are in breach of the Bill of Rights Act, Attorney-General Judith Collins KC says in a report belatedly disclosed to Parliament. She indicates more than 100,000 people may be directly or indirectly disenfranchised by rules banning enrolment in the final 13 days before an elections. Young people, and areas with larger Māori, Asian and Pasifika communities, are likely to be worst affected. Denying voters the political franchise is a heavy price to pay, she says, when there are alternative, less restrictive measures that could have addressed the same problem of speeding up the vote count. But Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith has hit back. 'Allowing late enrolments, however well intentioned, has placed too much strain on the system,' he tells Newsroom. 'I don't accept that we are disenfranchising people by requiring that they are first enrolled. Many countries do this, such as Australia.' Professor Andrew Geddis, at the University of Otago, says the Bill of Rights notice ought to have been attached to the bill when it was presented, according to the wording of section 7 of the Bill of Rights Act. This would have allowed ministers to be asked about it, when the proposal first came out. 'However, it doesn't seem to have been,' he says. 'Instead, it quietly went up on the Ministry of Justice website just in time for the weekend.' 'Heavy price' for administrative convenience In its Regulatory Impact Statement, the Ministry of Justice did not recommend the option of closing enrolment earlier. 'Its impact on reducing special votes is uncertain, while its impact on democratic participation could be significant,' officials said. The Attorney-General's Bill of Rights inconsistency notice goes further, concluding the proposal for a 13-day registration deadline appears to constitute an unjustified limit on section 12 of the Bill of Rights Act, which says every New Zealand citizen aged 18-plus has the right to vote in Parliamentary elections. 'The accepted starting-point is the fundamental importance of the right to vote within a liberal democracy,' she says. 'A compelling justification is required to limit that right.' Citing Electoral Commission and Ministry of Justice data, she says about 3400 people would have their eligibility to vote directly affected by the law change. These include people returning from overseas after being away for an extended time, and people who become New Zealand residents or are released from prison during the registration period. But many more will have their right to vote indirectly affected, by being in effect excluded from the franchise by the practicalities of the operation of a 13-day pre-election registration deadline. There has been an expectation, since 1993, that electors can register as late as the day before polling day, or more recently, on polling day. Indeed, the trend (with accompanying publicity campaigns) has been towards greater flexibility as to when people may register to vote. In the 2023 general election, the special votes included more than 97,000 people who registered for the first time during the voting period, and nearly 134,000 people who changed electoral districts during the voting period. 'This gives some indication of the number of people who may be affected, and the farther out the registration deadline from polling day, the greater the disenfranchising impact is likely to be.' There were other options the Government could have embraced, Collins says, that would impose 'less onerous limits on the right to vote'. For instance, it could have reverted to a deadline of the day before election day (which was the rule from 1993 to 2020) or a deadline of three, five or seven days before polling day. The notice to Parliament also finds the announced law changes breach the rights of sentenced prisoners, by reinstating a ban on them voting. For most of New Zealand's history, sentenced prisoners have been denied the right to vote. In 1975, the Rowling Labour government gave them the vote but that enfranchisement was brief – the National government repealed it two years later. The Electoral Act 1993 allowed for a limited prisoner franchise, though those serving a a sentence of three or more years were excluded. That was repealed in 2010. Then in 2020, the Ardern Labour Government restored prisoners' ability to vote, after jailhouse lawyer Arthur Taylor took a successful case to the Supreme Court. Like the Attorney-General, the court said the ban was inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act. Goldsmith has now announced it will (again) be repealed. And he isn't wavering, in the face of the Attorney-General's notice. 'Citizenship brings rights and responsibilities,' he says. He rejects the inclusion of prisoners' rights in the Bill of Rights Act. 'People who breach those responsibilities to the extent that they are sentenced to jail temporarily lose some of their rights, including the right to vote.' Speeding up the vote count On the wider matter of when people are allowed to enrol, the law says an eligible voter can enrol right up to and including election day, at any voting place in New Zealand. According to public advice from the Electoral Commission, if people enrol early, then voting will be faster. The commission says that those who enrol before Writ Day (about a month before election day) will have their names on the printed electoral roll at the voting place. They'll also be mailed an EasyVote card, making it faster for the person issuing voting papers to find them on the roll. 'You can still enrol after Writ Day – but you may need to fill in an extra form when you go to vote.' Goldsmith justifies barring people from voting if they don't enrol more than 13 days out from election day, saying it should enable votes to be counted faster. 'The final vote count used to take two weeks – last election it took three,' he says. 'If we leave things as they are, it could likely take even longer. 'If you want to vote, you need to be enrolled. People have a whole year to get organised. I have every confidence New Zealanders can manage.' Ockers and 'drop kicks' Goldsmith says many countries require people to be enrolled before voting. Australia required people to be enrolled 26 days before the last election, and before 2020, New Zealanders were not able to enrol on election day. 'Those people were not disenfranchised, they were simply required to be enrolled. It is not difficult.' However, the Attorney-General points out the High Court of Australia has ruled on a voter registration deadline that departed from previous settings. She endorses that court's comments, that restricting the impact on the franchise of restricting the voter registration period is a 'heavy price'. Delivering a 2010 judgment on behalf of a seven-member panel of the High Court, Chief Justice Robert French had said the heavy price imposed on the constitutional mandate was disproportionate to the benefits of a smoother and more efficient electoral system, to which the amendments were directed. Last week, Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour said only 'drop kicks' enrolled late to vote. Goldsmith reiterates his unhappiness with the Act leader's comment. 'I said last week, Mr Seymour's comment was unhelpful. The purpose of the change, and a large number of other changes, is to take pressure off the system, so that the Electoral Commission can do its job effectively and efficiently.'
Scoop
11 hours ago
- Scoop
Palestine Action Ban ‘Disturbing' Misuse Of UK Counter-Terrorism Legislation, Türk Warns
GENEVA (25 July 2025) – The UK Government's decision to proscribe the 'Palestine Action' protest group under terrorism legislation raises serious concerns that counter-terrorism laws are being applied to conduct that is not terrorist in nature and risks hindering the legitimate exercise of fundamental freedoms across the UK, UN Human Rights Chief Volker Türk warned today. The UK Government proscribed Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act 2000 after some of its members broke into a military airfield in June and reportedly spray-painted two military aircraft, among other incidents of property damage. 'UK domestic counter-terrorism legislation defines terrorist acts broadly to include 'serious damage to property'. But, according to international standards, terrorist acts should be confined to criminal acts intended to cause death or serious injury or to the taking of hostages, for purpose of intimidating a population or to compel a government to take a certain action or not,' said Türk. 'It misuses the gravity and impact of terrorism to expand it beyond those clear boundaries, to encompass further conduct that is already criminal under the law.' The ban, among other things, makes it a criminal offence to be a member of Palestine Action, express support for the group, or wear an item of clothing that would arouse 'reasonable suspicion' that a person is a member of or supports the organization. Such conduct is punishable by criminal penalties, including fines and prison sentences of up to 14 years. 'The decision appears disproportionate and unnecessary. It limits the rights of many people involved with and supportive of Palestine Action who have not themselves engaged in any underlying criminal activity but rather exercised their rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association,' the High Commissioner said. 'As such, it appears to constitute an impermissible restriction on those rights that is at odds with the UK's obligations under international human rights law.' 'The decision also conflates protected expression and other conduct with acts of terrorism and so could readily lead to further chilling effect on the lawful exercise of these rights by many people,' he added. Since the UK Government's ban came into effect on 5 July, at least 200 people have been arrested under the UK Terrorism Act 2000, many of them while attending peaceful protests. 'I urge the UK Government to rescind its decision to proscribe Palestine Action and to halt investigations and further proceedings against protesters who have been arrested on the basis of this proscription. I also call on the UK Government to review and revise its counter-terrorism legislation, including its definition of terrorist acts, to bring it fully in line with international human rights norms and standards,' the High Commissioner said.
