top of page

Subscribe Form

Thanks for submitting!


Paul Goldsmith: When did we, as a country, decide that the Treaty trumps democracy?

Labour’s Māori Development Minister, Willie Jackson, infamously said on Q&A recently that the nature of our democracy has changed. He’s backed it up in a New Zealand Herald opinion piece declaring, “We live in a new democracy”, while stating that politicians questioning the changes are engaging in “racist dog-whistles”.

What’s going on? Last week Labour, the Greens and the Maori Party passed the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill.

Under this Bill, the people of Canterbury will elect 14 councillors. Everyone gets a vote – Māori, Pakeha and everyone else. And then something extraordinary happens. Ngāi Tahu appoints two more councillors. No voting and no election.

This is not a Māori ward, allocated proportionately to the population. These are additional appointments made by an independent entity – Ngāi Tahu. Something like the English aristocracy of old, or the Fijian Great Council of Chiefs.

National has opposed the Bill and will repeal it, if re-elected next year, because it offends two basic principles – equal voting rights for all New Zealanders, and basic accountability at the ballot box.

Ministry of Justice advice to the Government on the Bill points out that this clearly discriminates against non-Māori. Yet extraordinarily, the Ministry also says in a couple of loose paragraphs that the Treaty justifies this change.

This is a dramatic and radical change to the way we choose our government in New Zealand. When did we, as a country, decide that the Treaty trumps democracy? We haven’t.

The idea of equal suffrage – equal voting rights, regardless of gender, class and ethnicity – has been a pillar of our democracy for decades. Remember Kate Sheppard? All New Zealanders should have an equal say in who governs them; an equal say in appointing the people that make the decisions that affects their lives.

Equally fundamental to our system is the ability to throw poor performers out at the next election – that is the bedrock accountability in our democracy. But not under this Bill. Ngai Tahu’s representatives could never be thrown out.

Why this Labour Government thinks they can casually move away from these principles without a broad national discussion or clear mandate is beyond me. Where are the legal profession; the constitutional experts, the Human Rights Commission, the usual noisy crowd? The silence is deafening.

Kiritapu Allan, the Minister of Justice, says incoherently that “equal voting rights are critically fundamental to New Zealand’s democracy” and that she nevertheless supports giving Ngai Tahu the ability to appoint councillors, after they’ve already enjoyed equal voting rights. She makes no attempt to reconcile the two.

Some Labour MPs have said that Ngai Tahu is a special case; other Labour MPs (Tamati Coffey) have said: “I put a pānui out to all of those other iwi that are listening: Ngāi Tahu have opened the door.”

It’s clear that the argument for the Canterbury legislation will be extended to every other regional council, then unitary councils, then the rest.

If we as a country no longer think that equal voting rights apply at one level of government, pressure will build for change in national elections.

I can’t think of a more divisive agenda for any government to run.

In the absence of any comments from the Prime Minister on the topic, New Zealanders can rightly conclude it is the agenda of the Labour Party to change our democracy away from equal voting rights and accountability to one that points to two classes of citizens.

If Jacinda Ardern and her government Ministers no longer think that Kiwis should have equal voting rights, then they should make the case and ask New Zealanders whether they agree.

If it is dog-whistling to question these things, then we are all lost.

Paul Goldsmith is a National MP and spokesperson for Justice

5,149 views142 comments


Feb 25, 2023

It is ridiculous to extrapolate the “one person, one vote” for elected parliamentarians and which is the foundation of our democracy, to the decisions of local bodies or organisations or in fact working groups for specific projects. Surely you are not suggesting that all New Zealanders should have decision making to every decision a council makes, far better to have those with direct attachments or involvement in each particular sphere.

The Ministry of Justice advice Paul Goldsmith refers to says

“Empowering Te Rῡnanga o Ngāi Tahu to appoint two non-elected members to Environment Canterbury adheres to the same principle as the decisions to give Ngāi Tahu input into other environmental governance bodies in the [Ngai Tahu Claims] Settlement. Ngāi Tahu…

Aug 31, 2022

It was good to hear Paul Goldsmith speak so strongly against the loony and racist any other race than Maori Jacinda government, one can be forgiven for assuming that the left is not only politically morally and financially corrupt. But! Oh dear where is the voice of 'Luxton ' The only comments I hear about him is not good 'Weak. Ineffective.Pussyfooting. Afraid to say any thing about the calling New Zealand Aotearoa in Parliament the huge cash payouts to Maori enterprises and press companies the changing of names of government departments to Maori names the list goes on. It is of such concern to hear these and other comments from a group of my friends who all are considering votin…


Much historical comment has been raised below and almost all are accurate in what they say. However I would point out that history does not stand still and while we can lament the mistakes of the past we can also learn from them and this mean that we do not repeat the same mistakes. Paul Goldsmith writes a very relevant and important piece and we people of New Zealand need to take it on board. New Zealand is heading toward being a seriously divided nation, something I opposed in 1981. As for Chris Luxon he is not the Messiah. I leave all with the thought that he has only been in the drivers seat for 8 months, he has unified…


Brian Gaynor's article can be seen here.

He wrote the article 15 years ago. I imagine if the story was updated to 2022? I think the headlines might be "Australians flood into NZ seeking higher incomes and a better life"


A question has been asked as to National Governments overturning Labour legislation once they are back in power.

The short answer is very rarely but there have been a few case, not always wise in hindsight.

The most dramatic was Rob Muldoon's 1975 decision to scrap Norm Kirks 8 month old compulsory superannuation scheme. In 1974 National advertised against the scheme with the infamous "Dancing Cossacks" TV Adverts. They also bribed the greedy middle aged with a "retire at 60 with a 80% average wage pension.

In 2007 the well respected Brian Gaynor wrote an article titled "How Muldoon threw Away NZ's Wealth". Gaynor declared that if the scheme was still in place NZ would have been one of the…

bottom of page