The vanguard argument

Too often debates on topics are reduced to one phrase "this is not good for Māori". While this may apply in some instances, it is now deployed so often that it has become a nonsense.

In recent days, the government has announced its intention to reform electoral laws. There are several proposed changes, but one of note is the intention to end election day registration – that is, the ability of someone to walk into a polling booth on election day, sign up for the electoral roll, and then cast a special vote.

This is something I support. Most of us can enrol days, weeks, if not months beforehand. It’s not particularly difficult and I don’t buy any of the excuses we are already hearing. It’s remarkable how people can get their Lotto ticket before 7.30pm on a Saturday, or ensure they’ve bought their favourite drop of chardonnay from a supermarket before 9pm, yet somehow, when it comes to voting, three years is not enough time to sort an enrolment.

But what struck me was that the primary reaction against this move was that it would impact Māori. It then had me thinking about how the “it will impact Māori” line is pretty much the preliminary go to argument of progressives and the left-wing. It is the vanguard argument deployed over and over again – that is, the first argument deployed and often, it must be said, one that is quite effective.

Its effectiveness as a phrase has little to do with the value of the argument. Instead, it is because many New Zealanders back off any discussion involving ‘Māori’ or ‘the Treaty’ for fear of being called racist.

As an increasingly effective tactic, the line is deployed more frequently and more widely. Be this election laws or access to health care, trans rights or abortion, DEI hiring to race based preferential purchasing – almost everything is couched in such terms. The statement “it will impact Maori” (and sometimes other groups including youth or Pasifika) is the tip of the progressive spear, enabling them to thrust through change with little critique.

This phrase though makes for poor reasoning, poor decision making, and poor law making and so we must firstly recognise this ‘vanguard’ dynamic and then confront it. New Zealanders need to call the phrase out when put forward with little or no merit. This of course requires a degree of discernment because there will be times when a proposed change does disproportionately impact Māori or other groups. But this label’s near-ubiquitous use shows other agendas at play.

The vanguard use of “this impacts Māori” needs to be called out not just to stop Māori being misused to promote left-wing progressive ideology, but to also to stand with Māori (and other groups deployed in this way) who themselves are more than able to stand on their own two feet and not be constantly conceived as victims. Groupings of people are not simply characters to be misused by those committed to identity politics, intersectionality, and the politics of disharmony. Put simply, it’s downright insulting to Māori and everyone and yet too many remain silent.

There is also a deep disrespect to use a culture to justify far-left and progressives causes which in themselves cannot stand scrutiny. As mentioned before, invoking minorities is a classic left-wing tactic to deflect criticism and ironically, is a form of appropriation (which of course the progressive left rage about all the time).

Finally, and returning to the specifics of the proposed electoral voting changes, I am conscious the Attorney General (AG) has put out a report (known as a Section 7) stating the proposals might breach the Bill of Rights. The AG goes on to mention that the changes could disenfranchise some voters including Māori, youth, Asian and others. Whether it is the AG playing games to undermine a colleague or is captured by officials, one thing is sure – there is a lack of understanding about the fundamental nature of human rights. Rights are not some blank cheque of personal wants or an altruistic gift imparted upon people. Rights exist alongside responsibilities, obligations, and duties. These appear missing in the AG’s analysis. Certainly, people have the right to vote but they simultaneously have obligations, responsibilities, and duties including to register themselves beforehand and vote on the appropriate days. These responsibilities, obligations, and duties are hardly onerous and nor are there any impediments of particular concern – as I said at the start, a person has almost three years to get things sorted.

One last observation – far-left and progressive commentators, as well as the Attorney General, all speak of voters being disenfranchised. They imply an outside force is alienating people from an ability to vote. Yet there is no outside force. Ironically, any inability to register for voting is the responsibility of the individual concerned. If there is an disenfranchisement, it rests solely on the people involved and perhaps, had they spent the five minutes registering to vote online rather than complain to the media, there wouldn’t be an issue.