We are often told that there is no corruption in New Zealand, and that our public service and electoral system are robust and free from manipulation and conflicts of interest.
These events should spark some consideration of the wisdom of contracting out the powers of government. A career public servant whose whole life and future well being depends on the institution of government would immediately, instinctively and without hesitation see that in copying census forms for non-government purposes he or she was crossing a red line and jeopardizing their own future.
Someone working for a contractor which has interests of its own quite separate from the interests of government may have a different view. In fact the first reaction may be to think "Does this serve the interests of my employer?". If that person had wisdom, that is to say if that person was capable of taking a wide and long view, then he or she would say "No, it would actually be unethical and illegal and therefore contrary to my employer's long-term interests and so I should not do this". But, unfortunately, a significant proportion of us would say "It seems to be in the interests of my employer to copy these forms, so that is what I should do".
It would be idle to suggest that this principle applies only to census workers. It applies to every other sphere of government including those personnel who are seconded to the New Zealand military and intelligence services by foreign states.
This incident may be only the tip of the iceberg in which the interests of government are subverted by contracting or seconding agencies, and the primary blame for the situation lies with government itself.
Bruce’s otherwise excellent text overlooks a key issue: these democratic lapses will ultimately harm the underprivileged, those with low trust in government. If they distrust the next census, the government will collect poor-quality data, undermining policies meant to support our indigenous communities. Ironically, well-intentioned governance exemptions may backfire, leaving good-willing (virtue signaling?) decisionmakers surprised at the unintended consequences.
Thank you for this update/clarification and an explanation of what is left to be examined in this situation. It may indeed result in a by-election depending on the final outcome. p.s. I still question and flinch at the use of the word "elites" in the NZ context; think it's used to frame class warfare, a "them against us" narrative that isn't useful or positive. No billionaire oligarchs deconstructing the government here just yet, thankfully.
The 11,000 New Zealanders who were awarded vaccine exemptions during Covid are probably a good example of the elites in NZ. Were you "elite" enough to get a covid vaccine exemption ?
no. And even if I were to accept your definition of these individuals as an "elite," they no longer exist as one since that's over and done with, thankfully. I don't believe "elites" exist in New Zealand as classes or castes as they do elsewhere internationally, and trying to promote that this is the case fosters division.
Just to say that I find this misuse of data by the type of characters that resort to intimidating dances in parliament very unsurprising. No surprise either to hear of public service departments engaging in "loose" contractual procedures particularly where Maori entities are involved. No way to fix this kind of thing without a clean out of the public service and preferably also of parliament.
For a start, in the public service replace senior executives with those focused more on efficient delivery, less on woke ideals, whilst in parliament get rid of Maori electorates/seats and ban those who misbehave significantly in the house.
That is the Reichstag fire ploy. Use one criminal incident as the pretext to implement far reaching constitutional changes that target a particular section of society and lay the groundwork for a totalitarian society.
If only it was one incident. Apart from this one being illegal and caught out it's the tip of the iceberg when it comes to malpractice. For example three waters. What a racist, nepotistic rort that was. An MSM scandal that it wasn't more of a scandal.
There are two principles at stake here. They are "separation of powers" and "rule of law". Separation of powers means that the police investigate allegations of criminal offending and the courts judge the case presented to them by the police. That is the way that it should work for the Manurewa census allegations.
This necessary separation of powers is tested by your suggestion that the appropriate response to the allegations is to remove parliamentary representation from Maori by getting rid of their constituencies or expelling their representatives from parliament.
If you think a criminal offence has been committed there is a process to follow. If you think that a piece of legislation is misguided there is a different process to follow. I agree that under the present regime the latter process is far from perfect, but until rangatiratanga becomes a reality for all of our people you will have to accept the deficiencies of the colonialist political system.
Separation of powers is also tested by the political bias of the police and lower level judiciary, as shown in the Liz Gunn case. (Gunn, a critic of the New Zealand government, was wrongly prosecuted and convicted of assault before the conviction was overturned in the High Court).
As well as the separation of powers, the rule of law is also under threat in New Zealand, as evidenced by three recent pieces of legislation: The Terrorism Suppression Act 2002, the Fast-track Approvals Act 2024 and the Gangs Act 2024. Legislation which violates the rule of law principle is easily identified because it normally has an attached schedule which lists the particular persons to whom the law exclusively applies. In other words in the very act of legislating the politicians have made a pre-emptive judgement for or against certain persons. This is commonly referred to as "administrative law" and it stands in opposition to "rule of law" in which all persons are considered equal before the law which has no favorites and no pre-judged offenders.
Administrative law gives rise to anomalies. For example a leather-jacketed and patched group peacefully attending a tangi is deemed guilty of an offence while another leather-jacketed and patched group that causes a commotion in a library is not deemed to be in breach of the law. Similarly the victims of genocide are deemed guilty of "terrorism" while the perpetrators of genocide are considered to have committed no offence.
By undermining the separation of powers and abrogating the rule of law the colonialist regime is making a rod for its own back. Your proposal to deny political representation to Maori would only make matters worse for the regime while doing no lasting harm to Maori because Maori would return en masse to rangatiratanga which recognizes separation of powers and rule of law as foundational principles along with a system of democratic governance which makes leaders truly accountable and gives genuine authority to the people.
Your use of terms like "colonialist regime" clearly indicates where you stand, as does your crudely provocative reference to "genocide". Colonisation was generally how civilisation expanded. Consequently the regime in just about every nation on earth could be described as "colonial". More importantly is whether or not it is democratic.
In any case the issue is less about law more about corruption, which often may not be illegal but is still corruption.
Reasons for Maori electorates ceased to exist some time ago. Their continued existence demonstrates a certain democratic irresponsibility of successive Governments. Yes there is no place for knee jerk laws that target specific instances or groups rather than being based on broader principles. Such law is reactive, lazy and messy.
Did you really need to ask? In my view typically but not exclusively (it's a fuzzy set) or exhaustively, intersectional politics, DEI, CRT, Climate Alarmism.
Depending upon the ultimate findings , we I think, need a by election in this seat.
These events should spark some consideration of the wisdom of contracting out the powers of government. A career public servant whose whole life and future well being depends on the institution of government would immediately, instinctively and without hesitation see that in copying census forms for non-government purposes he or she was crossing a red line and jeopardizing their own future.
Someone working for a contractor which has interests of its own quite separate from the interests of government may have a different view. In fact the first reaction may be to think "Does this serve the interests of my employer?". If that person had wisdom, that is to say if that person was capable of taking a wide and long view, then he or she would say "No, it would actually be unethical and illegal and therefore contrary to my employer's long-term interests and so I should not do this". But, unfortunately, a significant proportion of us would say "It seems to be in the interests of my employer to copy these forms, so that is what I should do".
It would be idle to suggest that this principle applies only to census workers. It applies to every other sphere of government including those personnel who are seconded to the New Zealand military and intelligence services by foreign states.
This incident may be only the tip of the iceberg in which the interests of government are subverted by contracting or seconding agencies, and the primary blame for the situation lies with government itself.
Bruce’s otherwise excellent text overlooks a key issue: these democratic lapses will ultimately harm the underprivileged, those with low trust in government. If they distrust the next census, the government will collect poor-quality data, undermining policies meant to support our indigenous communities. Ironically, well-intentioned governance exemptions may backfire, leaving good-willing (virtue signaling?) decisionmakers surprised at the unintended consequences.
The reality is TPM and John Tamihere believe they are not bound by Pakeha concepts of Conflict of interest, confidentiality, or electoral integrity.
The guardrails need to be strengthened and there need to be real consequences if they are breached
At the very least if the other investigations find TPM used the census data there need to be a bye election
Thank you for this update/clarification and an explanation of what is left to be examined in this situation. It may indeed result in a by-election depending on the final outcome. p.s. I still question and flinch at the use of the word "elites" in the NZ context; think it's used to frame class warfare, a "them against us" narrative that isn't useful or positive. No billionaire oligarchs deconstructing the government here just yet, thankfully.
The 11,000 New Zealanders who were awarded vaccine exemptions during Covid are probably a good example of the elites in NZ. Were you "elite" enough to get a covid vaccine exemption ?
no. And even if I were to accept your definition of these individuals as an "elite," they no longer exist as one since that's over and done with, thankfully. I don't believe "elites" exist in New Zealand as classes or castes as they do elsewhere internationally, and trying to promote that this is the case fosters division.
Just to say that I find this misuse of data by the type of characters that resort to intimidating dances in parliament very unsurprising. No surprise either to hear of public service departments engaging in "loose" contractual procedures particularly where Maori entities are involved. No way to fix this kind of thing without a clean out of the public service and preferably also of parliament.
What do you mean by "cleanout"? How would that be done?
For a start, in the public service replace senior executives with those focused more on efficient delivery, less on woke ideals, whilst in parliament get rid of Maori electorates/seats and ban those who misbehave significantly in the house.
That is the Reichstag fire ploy. Use one criminal incident as the pretext to implement far reaching constitutional changes that target a particular section of society and lay the groundwork for a totalitarian society.
If only it was one incident. Apart from this one being illegal and caught out it's the tip of the iceberg when it comes to malpractice. For example three waters. What a racist, nepotistic rort that was. An MSM scandal that it wasn't more of a scandal.
There are two principles at stake here. They are "separation of powers" and "rule of law". Separation of powers means that the police investigate allegations of criminal offending and the courts judge the case presented to them by the police. That is the way that it should work for the Manurewa census allegations.
This necessary separation of powers is tested by your suggestion that the appropriate response to the allegations is to remove parliamentary representation from Maori by getting rid of their constituencies or expelling their representatives from parliament.
If you think a criminal offence has been committed there is a process to follow. If you think that a piece of legislation is misguided there is a different process to follow. I agree that under the present regime the latter process is far from perfect, but until rangatiratanga becomes a reality for all of our people you will have to accept the deficiencies of the colonialist political system.
Separation of powers is also tested by the political bias of the police and lower level judiciary, as shown in the Liz Gunn case. (Gunn, a critic of the New Zealand government, was wrongly prosecuted and convicted of assault before the conviction was overturned in the High Court).
As well as the separation of powers, the rule of law is also under threat in New Zealand, as evidenced by three recent pieces of legislation: The Terrorism Suppression Act 2002, the Fast-track Approvals Act 2024 and the Gangs Act 2024. Legislation which violates the rule of law principle is easily identified because it normally has an attached schedule which lists the particular persons to whom the law exclusively applies. In other words in the very act of legislating the politicians have made a pre-emptive judgement for or against certain persons. This is commonly referred to as "administrative law" and it stands in opposition to "rule of law" in which all persons are considered equal before the law which has no favorites and no pre-judged offenders.
Administrative law gives rise to anomalies. For example a leather-jacketed and patched group peacefully attending a tangi is deemed guilty of an offence while another leather-jacketed and patched group that causes a commotion in a library is not deemed to be in breach of the law. Similarly the victims of genocide are deemed guilty of "terrorism" while the perpetrators of genocide are considered to have committed no offence.
By undermining the separation of powers and abrogating the rule of law the colonialist regime is making a rod for its own back. Your proposal to deny political representation to Maori would only make matters worse for the regime while doing no lasting harm to Maori because Maori would return en masse to rangatiratanga which recognizes separation of powers and rule of law as foundational principles along with a system of democratic governance which makes leaders truly accountable and gives genuine authority to the people.
Your use of terms like "colonialist regime" clearly indicates where you stand, as does your crudely provocative reference to "genocide". Colonisation was generally how civilisation expanded. Consequently the regime in just about every nation on earth could be described as "colonial". More importantly is whether or not it is democratic.
In any case the issue is less about law more about corruption, which often may not be illegal but is still corruption.
Reasons for Maori electorates ceased to exist some time ago. Their continued existence demonstrates a certain democratic irresponsibility of successive Governments. Yes there is no place for knee jerk laws that target specific instances or groups rather than being based on broader principles. Such law is reactive, lazy and messy.
What are "woke" ideals?
Did you really need to ask? In my view typically but not exclusively (it's a fuzzy set) or exhaustively, intersectional politics, DEI, CRT, Climate Alarmism.
Do you live in Aotearoa?
No in New Zealand thank goodness.
Other parties use the likes of facebook to access and target swing voters in marginal seats, what's the difference?
The census form has a privacy guarantee printed on it. That’s the difference and it’s a very big one.