Kevin Bird

In NZ politics, has personal integrity been sacrificed on the altar of group-think? Has the pendulum of “democracy” swung away from individual thought, freedom, integrity and accountability towards a form of Hive-like group-think? Has a callousness emerged which is willing to exclude or exterminate the free?

Perhaps we have now moved to a situation in New Zealand whereby the separate party Hives have become effectively one big Hive?

All of the parties in our current NZ parliament decided not to meet with protesters and victims of vaccine injury at the Freedom Village. The weak and vulnerable are evidently expendable. Is this approach acceptable in a “democratic society”? I hope not. Surely what defines us as #realNZ is our love for, and defence of, the little guy. 

If we don’t care about the little guy, we have surely lost our way.

Many of us naïvely thought that the NZ Bill of Rights legislation protected us from bullying, marginalisation, and oppression. But in practice it did not help our protesters and victims one iota. Many protesters lost their jobs, careers, professions, livelihoods, houses and physical health, and are now suffering mental health consequences of being an outcast in their own country. Understandably, these victims and their families don’t like it one bit.

So what can be done? Might is not always right, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, as the saying goes. History is littered with stories of those in power getting swollen heads and oppressing people, minorities, the vulnerable, and their neighbours. “We” have become the dispensable “them” ironically in an era where #Theyareus was popular for a season.

Jackboot Jacinda. Cartoon credit SonovaMin. The BFD.



How do you combat this march towards a dystopian future while working under rules which support the status quo? Can we use the current stacked channels of power against them? It is surely very difficult, as the protesters discovered. Protesters were so careful to peacefully protest, to protect their reputations. But the political Hive and the media Hive conspired against them to make at least some of the protesters look bad. A smear campaign was developed to protect the status quo.

Is the answer a new party? Winston First #2? The Tamaki Ego #3? The force-my-religion-onto-everyone #6? The Matt King follow-me party? My answer is that I don’t know. What I do know is that there is a litany of failures including The Alliance, the Peters party, the Peter Dunne party, TOP, Outdoors, Christian Heritage, NC#1, NC#2, OneParty… (yes, there are more).  None of them has broken down the status quo. But you could argue that the status quo Hive, while at its strongest right now, is also at its most vulnerable. Frustration is palpable in large elements of the voting population.

Here is one approach:

  1. A new party is formed. A name which speaks of Freedom, rights, democracy. A free-Hive, or grand coalition of the free.
  2. The new party agrees on bottom-line human rights and freedoms policy (maybe through the formulation of a draft NZ constitution).
  3. The new party has NO other policies because they believe in representative democracy.
  4. The party’s constitution determines minimalistic leadership positions which meet the legal requirements. Those positions are administrative and communication positions only.
  5. One of the key policies in the constitution, and a requirement for membership, is that there will be no party accountability for any policy apart from that outlined in the party constitution. This will be an anti-Hive protection against group-think, corruption and personality politics.
  6. List MPs (again working to the existing system) will be those candidates who achieve the best proportional results in their electorate race. This effectively introduces a self-imposed SMP voting system within the party, removing subjectivity and “money for mates” scenarios. As a back-up and for the initial candidates, existing party members can vote in the List top-up via a ranked proportional system.
  7. Initially candidates will have to be selected for electorates by the party membership, likely through a ranked proportional vote selection process.
  8. For transparency, each candidate shall be required to state their policy preferences well ahead of elections, and for this information to be published.
  9. MPs will be required to vote according to the constitution first, then according to their publicly stated policy preference (or to issue a press release detailing why their view has changed), then according to how they feel on the day, according to their own conscience. This will allow the member and the public to have clarity about what and whom they are actually voting for.

    Campaigning will be largely based on individual candidates who believe in democracy, freedom, accountability and transparency and in accordance with stated individual policy preferences. Any funding for campaigns will be spent equally by individual candidates.

    What do you think? Are there alternatives?
If you enjoyed this article please share it using the share buttons at the top or bottom of the article.
If you would like to access exclusive Member content or just remove the ads to make your reading experience more enjoyable click here to browse our Membership options.

Guest Post content does not necessarily reflect the views of the site or its editor. Guest Post content is offered for discussion and for alternative points of view.