Labour penalties target non-voters
Labour has proposed withholding state support such as tax credits and Working For Families from people who are not enrolled to vote.
The measure could be justified if it lifts New Zealand’s low voter turnout, the party says.
Getting the vote out is a priority for Labour and in its submission to the Justice and Electoral Select Committee, written by Labour’s general secretary Tim Barnett, the party argues for the idea to be considered.
“The possibility of making enrolment to vote a pre-condition to receipt of various forms of state support (eg Working For Families, tax credits) should be examined,” Labour’s submission states.
“There are advantages and potential disadvantages to the approach, but it is utilised in other countries and we submit that it is incumbent on us to examine all options to see if they are feasible in our context.”
The un-enrolled are a far more nuanced dog whistle than David Shearer’s clumsy beneficiary on a roof analogy he tried using when Labour last went out looking for a dog whistle to blow.
Here is why what Labour are proposing is cruel – Who don’t enroll? Those running from debt collectors (yes there were recent changes as to who can access that information, but those are easy enough to get around), those who are escaping violent relationships and want to keep their details secret, those who don’t enroll for fringe religious reasons, those who don’t enroll through pure ignorance, those who don’t enroll because they move around many times and those who don’t enroll out of choice.
Why do any of these people deserve punishment by with holding the wider benefits of society? Those on the run from debt collectors don’t require further stresses. Neither do those escaping violent stalker relationships. Neither do the fringe religious. Neither do those impacted by circumstance. You could make a case for those who don’t enroll out of choice, but how on earth do you define that?
Here is why what Labour are proposing is politically clever – This desire to punish the un-enrolled is a direct play to attract ‘middle’ voters (i.e. – people who voted Helen Clark but now vote Key). It’s populism when the populism is all about beating up on the weaker members of society. Labour need a boost in the polls after Little has slowly lost media momentum and sticking it to those perceived as too lazy to enroll and who are bludging in terms of being provided with the fruits of society but not participating in that society makes middle NZs sense of righteousness glow. Bit of bashing on those Society perceive as deserving of the bash never hurt poll ratings. It’s difficult to pretend our democracy is working if people refuse to play along with the ritual of voting, so from a political perspective, this will probably work.
Here is why what Labour are proposing is meaningless – At the moment all Labour are waving around is the threat of losing Working For Families. This is a middle class tax privilege so employers don’t have to provide living wages, it sure as hell doesn’t give those not on the roll any financial security. Threatening the disenfranchised with losing a tax privilege the majority of whom don’t even get is like threatening them with never being able to afford a house. Effectively it’s empty and meaningless saber rattling. If the threat won’t extend to benefits, it’s a dog whistle for hounds with no teeth.
If Labour want the disenfranchised to vote, communicate policy that will have a meaningful impact on their lives in a positive manner. Democracy by the carrot is far preferable to Democracy by the stick.
Just because people are made to enrol under these threats,dosnt mean they will actually vote,you can take a horse to water but you cant make it drink is a very true saying.
….and if they did vote, they would probably vote against the Party that threatened to remove their benefits. If a person doesn’t want to vote, for whatever reason, it is best to leave them alone. A reluctant voter is no good to anybody.
Well done Martyn.
Labour need to go back to their roots and care for the down trodden and lower “Middle class” not turn hard right as they are here.
Talk about being nothing but another “National light”.
This is a classic Tory plan that the labour neo cons have hatched this instead and are now doing the NatZ dirty work for them the clowns.
This is so dumb as you point out, as some who don’t enrol have some reason for this and before Labour think of this dumb move at least do some diligent discovery as to why those don’t vote firstly and focus on pledging to address the root cause.
They again have demonstrated that they lack the smarts to sell a “Controversial plan” by floating the idea with a carefully reasoned debate widely in the MSM to get a feedback on its popularity first before bedding it in as the crafty NatZ always cleverly do.
Shit they are so dumb who thought this up, really was it Shearer?
What about those who refuse to vote because they feel there is no candidate worthy of election? That is in fact a protest non-vote and in a way, a vote. In a true democracy you should be allowed to choose not to vote. Personally, I vote, but I like to think I could choose not to if all the candidates were John Key like clones.
You make good points about the valid reasons for not being on the publicly available Electoral Roll, but this doesn’t address the desirability of compulsory enrolment. This requires finding the best way to achieve that aim, comparable with the census.
And it can easily be argued that entitlements of citizens and residents should only be available to citizens and residents, though I’m not sure that this is the best way in this case. Though perhaps better than fines, imprisonment or deportation!
It seems unlikely to me that National will be displaced in government without the Labour Party doing well, so it is dispiriting to see, in a leftist blog, discussion of important issues repeatedly being hi-jacked to put the boot into Labour for not being as sensibly left as we would wish.
Sure NZ First, Greens and Mana all have strong claims to be part of the argument, but they will achieve little if Labour is constantly kneecapped in this way.
And a submission by the General Secretary to a select committee is not the way to do dog-whistle politics anyway, you do that with the party leader somewhere high-profile, like Orewa!
Is this an indication Labour is subtly taking on the same vicious, gutless practice the Natsies use, intimidating tactics against NZ’s most vulnerable, the disempowered, lower socio economic sector? Seems very like it to me.
A dark image is beginning to shape into an ominous form here, where soon the party lines will become so blurred, it will be difficult to distinguish between Natsy and Labour policies!
Labour is rapidly taking on a lite blue hue, stating very clearly where it’s intended position is in the political spectrum. About as far removed from it’s working class roots and core values as it could possibly get! About to get too cosy with Natsy perhaps?
Hope NZ Greens have taken note of this below the belt move by Labour. A golden opportunity to get out there and broadcast Green social and economic policies loud and clear, shouting them from the rooftops if need be, to give subdued, cowered and impoverished Kiwis a damn good reason to want to enrol as voters and the necessity of supporting a party which advocates for the underprivileged!
Next will come:
If you are unemployed and thus “do not contribute to society”, you will not be allowed to vote in elections.
That is the kind of approach that Tim Barnett appears to be taking, when you turn it around and consider, what National may come up with, should they make similar kinds of suggestions.
We already have the government deny prisoners to vote, wait for more nasty ideas to be “tested” by the neoliberal, well dressed, securely paid and increasingly arrogant politicians we have, on BOTH sides of the Parliament.
It is my view that New Zealand has moved to the far right, when it comes to social and economic policy, the government is only “liberal” where it suits them. That is when they talk about “choices”, for parents to send their kids to private or charter schools, for people to “invest” in savings plans, in real estate and so forth, for now even people to enjoy same sex marriage.
Choice is a great word to play games with, but on the other hand, when it comes to the beneficiaries, the poor and homeless, the word “choice” does not exist in practice, not even in the law anymore.
“Social obligations” ONLY for beneficiary parents came in 2013, not for the middle class parents that work and can “choose” to send their kids to schools and doctors, and ECE.
“Sanctions” again are imposed on the poor, the ones on benefits, if they do not do as they are told, certainly also on those breaking the law, which of course makes some sense, but not for denying them the vote.
We now get all this talk about “wrap around services”, even in “social housing” now, at first this was the catch cry in welfare reforms. What does “wrap around” actually mean? It can in some cases rather be a “straight jacket”, not to keep a person warm, but to tie them into what the state or contracted “service provider” thinks is “good” or “right” for them.
We get prisoners employed to “gain skills” by producing products for ‘Placemakers’ (new Wiri Prison), which means prisoners HAVE TO work to not only gain skills, but to create a product for a private enterprise, that they can then sell!
What is the unions’ position on this I ask?
Some work for inmates may make sense, if reasonable, for a good cause, like building furniture for public playgrounds and so, but for a private enterprise, in the business of selling for a profit?
The more I hear and read coming from Labour and their MPs, the sicker I get of them.
Today on Q+A we got more spouting off of slogans by Grant Robertson, whose eyes instantly lit up at the beginning of the interview, when asked what he found so interesting in Finance, as it was an area he had no experience in. It was the ability to influence what a future government may do, seemed to be his instant answer, so he loves influence, power and being in a key position at the top, I thought.
The rest was mostly the usual diet of slogans we are used to from Labour, but little else, certainly NO commitment to help the poor, the underemployed, the low paid, the unemployed and absolutely NO mention of people dependent on benefits, whether for joblessness, sickness, injury, disability or child care.
I enrolled years ago after receiving enrollment papers in the mail having recently turned 18 during final exams at high school. With the stress of exams and the threat of fines on the form for not enrolling, I enrolled thinking that was that hassle out-of-the-way.
Considering the numerous times I have been summoned for jury service and the hopeless political landscape, it’s one of the few regrets of my life. Jury service is absolutely dreadful; the inconvenience, petty payment, anxiety over the possibly disturbing subject matter of proceedings, compelled to cast judgement on someone which I and others conscientiously object to, and the threat of fines if procedures are not followed.
The current system is overbearing enough with the threat of fines. As one is paid for the undesirable task of jury service, and if low voter turnout and enrolments are a concern, this would suggest that perhaps people should be paid for the undesirable task of voting. Perhaps why one’s right to vote appears to be undesirable should be asked by Labour, not compulsory and punitive measures. Seriously address the concerns of many and they will enthusiastically enroll and vote.
Maybe if one was paid to vote, say a petty $5, that could be covered for the cost of the recent referendum that likely nobody wants. Frankly, as long as Parliament continues as is; I would prefer if I could cancel my enrollment.
Oh god how I hate Labour for this.
They’re doing it wrong. They’re threatening the very people who are their original core voting block. The workers, the disenfranchised, the downtrodden. The people at the bottom rung of society. Originally wasn’t this group of people the core of Labour supporters?
In their aspiration to move to the “centre” Labour have lost much of their original support.
Roger Douglas et al betrayed Labour supporters in 1984 and they’ve never really moved away from that route. They continue to be National Lite. And the workers know it.
THAT’S WHY THEY DON’T VOTE FOR YOU LABOUR
Yet Labour don’t get it, and keep doing the same stupid crap over and over.
I’ve gone from being a Labour supporter, to dismay, now to outright hatred.
Comments are closed.