![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Tēnā koe Wiremu,
I got your email address from your website (https://wiremuthomson.nz/), after getting a leaflet about your voting petition in my letterbox. I share your concerns about making sure that everyone who has a long term interest in our country gets to take part in electing the representatives governing it. Not those who see Aotearoa only as a set of resources to extract. But I don't believe limiting voting to citizens is the best way to achieve that.
A number of points to consider;
1) citizens can have their right to vote removed if we are outside the country for more than 3 years. See;
https://elections.nz/media-and-news/2023/rule-change-for-overseas-voting/
Even those born here and likely to return, many of whose whānau and friends are still here and affected by government decisions. Even those whose whakapapa guarantees them all the rights and privileges of any other citizen, under the terms of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and He Whakaputanga.
I hope you'd agree that as citizens we have an inalienable right to representation in government. Officials can't revoke other rights of citizenship, like our passport, because they think we've spent "too long" outside Aotearoa. Why should they be able to deny us our right to vote if we decide to spend a few years living overseas? Which in this globalised world, with our country hobbled by inequality and the resulting poverty, is often the only way we can get ahead.
When people are required to return to NZ every 3 years to retain eligibility to vote, it privileges those who can more easily afford the cost and time commitment of long distance travel, and whose health enables it. While discriminating against the less wealthy, and those with disabilities or health challenges. This may or may not be contrary to the Bill of Rights Act (IANAL), but it certainly violates the spirit of it, and the principle of universal human rights.
A petition demanding that citizens' right to vote is respected regardless of their whereabouts is one I'd sign.
2) Limiting voting to citizens doesn't confine it to those who have a long term interest in the wellbeing of Aotearoa, its people or its environment. Take Peter Thiel, a US tech billionaire who was essentially able to buy NZ citizenship in 2011, having spent only spent 12 days in the country. See;
Citizen Thiel
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/indepth/national/how-peter-thiel-got-new-zealand-citizenship/
Duty-free “Apocalypse Insurance”: Revisiting Peter Thiel’s New Zealand Citizenship;
https://repository.uclawsf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1870&context=hastings_international_comparative_law_review
3) I agree that allowing Active Investor Plus (AIP) visa holders to vote, despite being required to spend only 21 days here every 3 years to maintain their residency is unwise. As with Peter Thiel, these people are treating Aotearoa as an "apocalypse bolthole", to quote Matt Nippert's NZ Herald article linked above. I don't support the existence of the AIP visa. But putting that aside, making people eligible to vote purely on the basis of having an AIP is effectively auctioning off our sovereignty to the highest bidder, along with the property we sell them.
4) Permanent Residents too (as defined by Immigration NZ) have made a long term commitment to Aotearoa, Unlike Peter Thiel and AIP holders. The visa obligations to obtain Permanent Residency require spending 2 years continuously living here before being granted that status, and to show they are committed to living in NZ long term;
https://www.immigration.govt.nz/live/resident-visas-to-live-in-new-zealand/permanent-residence/becoming-a-permanent-resident-of-new-zealand/
A permanent resident has the same tax obligations as citizens, and their lives and futures too are affected by the decisions of NZ governments. I believe it would be antidemocratic and unjust to prevent them voting in the election of those governments. Although I'm open to the idea of requiring them to spend a full 3 year Parliamentary term as a resident before being eligible to vote.
I'm also open to the idea that their ability to vote here is a privilege not a right - as it is for citizens - and that it may be reasonable to revoke that privilege under some circumstances. For example if they leave the country for an extended period, putting their long term commitment to living here in question. But this already happens if they leave for more than a year. I see no reason they shouldn't be represented in government while living here.
5) People with any open-ended residency visa are eligible to vote in NZ elections after 1 year of continuously living here. I'm open to the idea that this is too short a time, and that like Permanent Residents, they ought to be required to spend to spend a full Parliamentary term as a resident before being eligible to vote. But if someone is living here for years at a time they too are affected by government decisions and deserve representation.
6) There are strong arguments to support the idea that the current government, like their counterparts overseas, are engaged in active voter suppression. Passing changes to electoral rules that are arguably intended to create eligibility for people likely to vote for them (eg AIP visa holders), and make voting harder for people they believe are likely to vote against them (eg removing the ability to register to vote on election day). Prisoners, for example, are citizens, and government decisions affect their lives more than almost anyone else. As I argued above, I don't believe governments have a right to declare them ineligible to vote.
Any changes we propose to election rules, especially around voting eligibility, must be carefully weighed. To ensure they're not serving this corruption of the electoral system.
In a system of representative government, rigorously defending the right to vote, and to full democratic participation in the practice of government, is crucial to defending our other human rights. Thank you for putting your personal time and resources into working on this, according to your own understanding of the issues. I hope to have an opportunity to engage with your further.
Nāku noa,
Danyl Strype
Waikato, Aotearoa
PS You have shared your thoughts about this in a public leaflet, so I will publish a copy of this open letter under the title 'Protecting the Right to Vote on my personal blog at;
https://strypey.dreamwidth.org/
I got your email address from your website (https://wiremuthomson.nz/), after getting a leaflet about your voting petition in my letterbox. I share your concerns about making sure that everyone who has a long term interest in our country gets to take part in electing the representatives governing it. Not those who see Aotearoa only as a set of resources to extract. But I don't believe limiting voting to citizens is the best way to achieve that.
A number of points to consider;
1) citizens can have their right to vote removed if we are outside the country for more than 3 years. See;
https://elections.nz/media-and-news/2023/rule-change-for-overseas-voting/
Even those born here and likely to return, many of whose whānau and friends are still here and affected by government decisions. Even those whose whakapapa guarantees them all the rights and privileges of any other citizen, under the terms of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and He Whakaputanga.
I hope you'd agree that as citizens we have an inalienable right to representation in government. Officials can't revoke other rights of citizenship, like our passport, because they think we've spent "too long" outside Aotearoa. Why should they be able to deny us our right to vote if we decide to spend a few years living overseas? Which in this globalised world, with our country hobbled by inequality and the resulting poverty, is often the only way we can get ahead.
When people are required to return to NZ every 3 years to retain eligibility to vote, it privileges those who can more easily afford the cost and time commitment of long distance travel, and whose health enables it. While discriminating against the less wealthy, and those with disabilities or health challenges. This may or may not be contrary to the Bill of Rights Act (IANAL), but it certainly violates the spirit of it, and the principle of universal human rights.
A petition demanding that citizens' right to vote is respected regardless of their whereabouts is one I'd sign.
2) Limiting voting to citizens doesn't confine it to those who have a long term interest in the wellbeing of Aotearoa, its people or its environment. Take Peter Thiel, a US tech billionaire who was essentially able to buy NZ citizenship in 2011, having spent only spent 12 days in the country. See;
Citizen Thiel
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/indepth/national/how-peter-thiel-got-new-zealand-citizenship/
Duty-free “Apocalypse Insurance”: Revisiting Peter Thiel’s New Zealand Citizenship;
https://repository.uclawsf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1870&context=hastings_international_comparative_law_review
3) I agree that allowing Active Investor Plus (AIP) visa holders to vote, despite being required to spend only 21 days here every 3 years to maintain their residency is unwise. As with Peter Thiel, these people are treating Aotearoa as an "apocalypse bolthole", to quote Matt Nippert's NZ Herald article linked above. I don't support the existence of the AIP visa. But putting that aside, making people eligible to vote purely on the basis of having an AIP is effectively auctioning off our sovereignty to the highest bidder, along with the property we sell them.
4) Permanent Residents too (as defined by Immigration NZ) have made a long term commitment to Aotearoa, Unlike Peter Thiel and AIP holders. The visa obligations to obtain Permanent Residency require spending 2 years continuously living here before being granted that status, and to show they are committed to living in NZ long term;
https://www.immigration.govt.nz/live/resident-visas-to-live-in-new-zealand/permanent-residence/becoming-a-permanent-resident-of-new-zealand/
A permanent resident has the same tax obligations as citizens, and their lives and futures too are affected by the decisions of NZ governments. I believe it would be antidemocratic and unjust to prevent them voting in the election of those governments. Although I'm open to the idea of requiring them to spend a full 3 year Parliamentary term as a resident before being eligible to vote.
I'm also open to the idea that their ability to vote here is a privilege not a right - as it is for citizens - and that it may be reasonable to revoke that privilege under some circumstances. For example if they leave the country for an extended period, putting their long term commitment to living here in question. But this already happens if they leave for more than a year. I see no reason they shouldn't be represented in government while living here.
5) People with any open-ended residency visa are eligible to vote in NZ elections after 1 year of continuously living here. I'm open to the idea that this is too short a time, and that like Permanent Residents, they ought to be required to spend to spend a full Parliamentary term as a resident before being eligible to vote. But if someone is living here for years at a time they too are affected by government decisions and deserve representation.
6) There are strong arguments to support the idea that the current government, like their counterparts overseas, are engaged in active voter suppression. Passing changes to electoral rules that are arguably intended to create eligibility for people likely to vote for them (eg AIP visa holders), and make voting harder for people they believe are likely to vote against them (eg removing the ability to register to vote on election day). Prisoners, for example, are citizens, and government decisions affect their lives more than almost anyone else. As I argued above, I don't believe governments have a right to declare them ineligible to vote.
Any changes we propose to election rules, especially around voting eligibility, must be carefully weighed. To ensure they're not serving this corruption of the electoral system.
In a system of representative government, rigorously defending the right to vote, and to full democratic participation in the practice of government, is crucial to defending our other human rights. Thank you for putting your personal time and resources into working on this, according to your own understanding of the issues. I hope to have an opportunity to engage with your further.
Nāku noa,
Danyl Strype
Waikato, Aotearoa
PS You have shared your thoughts about this in a public leaflet, so I will publish a copy of this open letter under the title 'Protecting the Right to Vote on my personal blog at;
https://strypey.dreamwidth.org/
