Tuesday, 19 November 2019

Democracy "A Bit Bonkers" - Thoughts Inspired By Lizzie Marvelly's Latest Column.

Didn't See It Coming: NZ Herald columnist Lizzie Marvelly's latest column merits serious scrutiny because such a clear example of anti-democratic thinking is encountered only rarely on the pages of the daily press. Which is not to say that the elitism which lies at the heart of such social disparagement goes unnoticed by the people who are its principal targets. Just as Hillary Clinton’s description of Trump’s supporters as “deplorables” only strengthened her opponent’s hand, the “progressives” all-to-obvious disdain for the competence of ordinary people will inevitably rebound to the Right’s electoral advantage.

THE EXPRESSIONS of stunned horror that greeted the news that Donald Trump had won the 2016 Presidential Election spoke volumes. Almost none of the people gathered to celebrate the election of the USA’s first female president believed a Trump victory was even remotely possible. On display that fateful November night was a lethal mixture of social isolation and social ignorance. The shocked and horrified young Democrats who turned their grief-stricken faces from the television screens clearly knew next to nothing about the America that had just dashed their hopes.

In New Zealand, the world’s most “woke” country, the risk of something very similar to Trump’s upset 2016 victory grows stronger by the day. The 2020 General Election may deliver New Zealanders their first one-term government in 45 years. If that is the outcome, then it will likely be produced by exactly the same combination of forces that toppled the Kirk-Rowling Labour Government in 1975. An angry cocktail of resentments and denials; of ordinary people feeling abandoned by the decision-makers; of core values and cherished traditions perceived as being under threat. A dark tsunami of voter anger: barely perceptible in its approach, but rearing-up to terrifying heights as, finally, it comes ashore.

And, of course, like Hillary supporters, the partisans of Labour and Green haven’t a clue. They just don’t see it: the anger and resentment; the alienation and bewilderment. Or, if they do, they simply don’t rate it. In the eyes of the decision-makers and their opinion-former allies, “ordinary people” simply aren’t up to it.

Consider the latest contribution from NZ Herald columnist Lizzie Marvelly. The fact that New Zealand’s District Health Boards contain a majority of elected members strikes her as a serious design fault. “Democratic elections for District Health Boards have always seemed bizarre to me”, she writes. “Though it’s important to listen to the views of the community when designing services to serve them, the idea that anyone, regardless of their experience, qualifications and skill set (or lack thereof) could be elected to a position where they are tasked with effectively running the health system in their region seems a bit bonkers.”

In these two chilling sentences, we can identify all the ingredients of the looming political disaster. Of these, it is Marvelly’s careless disdain for the capabilities of her fellow citizens that is the most telling. That such people might possess insights and understandings of which the “experts” she so clearly prefers are entirely innocent, does not appear to have occurred to her. Neither, apparently, has the thought that democracy itself is predicated on the notion that the views of ordinary people, as expressed through the ballot-box, constitute the beating heart of political sovereignty.

No, “government of the people, by the people, for the people” cuts little ice with Marvelly. The word she offers up in preference to “government” is “governance”: something best left to professionals.

“Making a difference in an organisational setting, providing quality services for clients and ensuring at the very least that the bills are paid and the doors stay open, is a challenge that requires good governance,” opines Marvelly. Such work, she goes on to say, with all the breathless confidence of the recent convert, must be “conducted by directors who have the right mix of skills, experience and foresight to plan for worst and best case scenarios, pivot quickly when things aren’t quite right, and steer an organisation through times of both trouble and success.”

That working-class mums and dads, struggling to make their meagre wages stretch to housing, feeding and clothing their families might also have the skills, experience and foresight to plan for both the best and the worst, pivot quickly when things go wrong, and so steer themselves and their loved ones through good times and bad, is apparently an idea that has never crossed her mind.

Which is why, presumably, she felt compelled to suggest that “at least half of each health board around the country should be appointed experts, or even better, 60 percent.” With astonishing condescension, all the more objectionable for being unconscious, Marvelly concludes: “Retaining a minority of elected board members would allow DHBs to stay connected with their local communities, without giving the balance of power to people who may not have the skills to wield it properly.”

I have quoted Marvelly at some length because such a clear example of anti-democratic thinking is encountered only rarely on the pages of the daily press. Which is not to say that the elitism which lies at the heart of such social disparagement goes unnoticed by the people who are its principal targets. Just as Hillary Clinton’s description of Trump’s supporters as “deplorables” only strengthened her opponent’s hand, the “progressives” all-to-obvious disdain for the competence of ordinary people will inevitably rebound to the Right’s electoral advantage.

The thousands of West Coasters who gathered in Greymouth last weekend to demonstrate their opposition to the Coalition Government’s policies will no doubt be dismissed as feral rednecks. Even worse epithets will be reserved for the 200+ women who attended the Speak Up For Women conference hosted by David Seymour in the Beehive’s banqueting hall.  Sticks and stones. The Act Party leader’s gesture, prompted by the failure of Massey University to defend the free speech rights of radical feminists, has significantly boosted Act’s chances of adding two – maybe three – new members to its parliamentary caucus.

There was a time when progressives and conservatives could both agree that 2+2=4. As next year’s election draws near, however, the confidence that there are still some propositions to which all politicians can sign-up – such as freedom of speech – diminishes. When young newspaper columnists openly disparage the notion that ordinary people can be trusted with the reins of government; when the same “experts” who led the world into its current condition are held up as the only persons capable of leading it out; then those still capable of grasping basic political arithmetic should not expect next year’s election to have a happy ending.

So long as ordinary people retain the right to vote; so long will pissing them off remain the very worst political strategy.

This essay was originally posted on The Daily Blog of Tuesday, 19 November 2019.

29 comments:

Nick R said...

The argument that we should abolish DHBs isn't necessarily undemocratic or anti-democratic. Fundamentally, it has always seemed to me that the purpose of elected DHBs is to shield the Government of the day from the impact of their decisions. The public health system is above all an exercise in rationing and DHBs have no say at all in how much resource they have to allocate. In fact, they seem to have little power to make decisions at all when it comes to the actual delivery of healthcare. All they are required to do is absorb blame. So arguably, abolishing them would not constitute any lessening of democratic oversight of the health system. Rather, it would acknowledge that the elected Boards do not perform any meaningful role in the first place, and that democratic oversight is the function of central Government.

The alternative is to give elected DHBs real autonomy over their budgets. But I can't seen any Labour or National Government every agreeing to do that.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

"of core values and cherished traditions perceived as being under threat."

Well, as Winston Churchill once said about another institution that was worried about its traditions disappearing – "What are these traditions? Rum, sodomy, and the lash." Although to be fair my dad was very grateful for the rum between 1941 and 1946. Seems to me a bit disingenuous to quote people's cherished traditions and core values if you don't actually specify what they are. Because some of them aren't worth keeping.

"That working-class mums and dads, struggling to make their meagre wages stretch to housing, feeding and clothing their families might also have the skills, experience and foresight to plan for both the best and the worst, pivot quickly when things go wrong, and so steer themselves and their loved ones through good times and bad, is apparently an idea that has never crossed her mind."

Rarely has a truer word being spoken, the idea that the working poor or the unemployed are inherently feckless is a middle-class myth. But having said that, how many of them will be putting themselves up for the boards of DHB's? Most of them will be from the same class as the bureaucrats who would be put in their place if the elections for board members weren't held. I taught for a long time in low decile schools. The number of working-class parents on school boards in my experience was about one in five if that. Most of them were professionals of one sort or another. However they were professionals who had their kids at low decile schools so they did have some idea of the problems. And God bless and they usually did their best. But they weren't working class.

BlisteringAttack said...

Whoever it was, presumably a bright-spark mellennial whizz-kid, who told Hilary Clinton 'Don't worry about the Rust-Belt; we've got it covered and in the bag' should have been dragged out of his/her bed, stood in front of a wall, and shot at dawn.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

"purpose of elected DHBs is to shield the Government of the day from the impact of their decisions."
Yup. Governments have been keeping themselves at one remove from their responsibilities since Roger Douglas. And yet conservatives are supposed to believe in individual responsibility. I'll believe that when a minister actually resigns over some fault in his or her department. Something that hasn't happened very often in New Zealand I feel.

Mike Grimshaw said...

In many ways the appeal is for government by 'woke' technocrats or for a type of enlightened managerialism - both of which are fictions.
What we have is the argument for efficiency over democracy- which has echoes of 'making the trains run on time'. Democracy is messy and means those those i may not like or may not agree with have an equal say to me. However that is also the basis of society - that is, society is composed of those not like me and i might not like- and they might not like me either. But we work out how to get along and how to get things done in the interest of society.

The other option is the retreat into community, which is composed of people like me, but not those i don't like or are not like me. Remember, Thatcher said, in effect, there is no such thing as society. In many ways she was right, society is not a thing, but it is an ongoing project. What we have sought to replace society with is the retreat into communities of interest- and it depends what community you are in as to what you get or can access. Community is inherently anti-democratic and often claims in-built power structures that override democratic aims and values.

Anonymous said...

Chris
I think you have nailed it again. The current government attitude does nothing for the Waitakere man (and his partner). They are the ones being alienated by the wokeness and special interest pandering. Same problem as for the northern England over Brexit or the flyover states for Trump's election.
If that middle class suburbia group votes big time for National, they will never come back. Labour will be reduced to a rump lobby group.

Chris Morris

Trev1 said...

Yes Chris, the tsunami is coming. The combination of smug elitism, contempt for ordinary New Zealanders and sly corruption that is the Coalition has sickened many to the stomach. Deliverance is just around the corner. I suspect Act and the New Conservatives will be game changers.

Anonymous said...

There is an interesting comment in todays Guido Fawlkes about politics in the UK that sums up why Labour in NZ is losing suburbia
"The truth is workers – by which Guido means people who get up every morning and go to work, not some idealised worker as imagined by middle-class Islington Marxists – do not appreciate anti-social neighbours who keep them awake all night after spending their unemployment benefits on drink and drugs. Actual decent working-class Labour voters detest those types, polling shows that they resent the anti-social freeloaders more than any other demographic. New Labour understood this which is why they were tough on anti-social behaviour."
Chris Morris

Unknown said...

I think Lizzie's article confuses governance and management (and also operations). I can accept that management requires experts (and certainly an organisation's operations must be done by experts in the various fields, whether that is brain surgeon or the teaboy having expertise in making tea). But governance is about setting goals and policies, appointing a CEO and monitoring the CEO's performance against those goals and policies. People can get better at doing these things, but the idea is that citizens or shareholders elect people who express their values (even that is just "get the dividend up" or "defend us from the looming foreign invasion") and a well-managed organisation should not require them to have particular expertise in technical matters.

Anonymous said...

Why can't you just shut up and do what a failed pop singer tell you?

petes new write said...

The failure and electoral defeat of the Kiek/ Rowling govt was precipitated by the death of Norman kirk, the Middle East oil crisis and the political smarts
of Robert Muldoon.

Trev1 said...

I sense that Middle New Zealand, which still exists - especially outside the CBDs and genteel suburbs of the main cities, feels under attack from this three headed hydra of a coalition. It began in earnest after an itinerant foreigner allegedly perpetrated the terrible events of 15 March. A cabal of "liberal" academics immediately queued up to label Kiwi males of European extraction as "white supremacists". Parliament was given over on live television to a recitation of the Islamic prayer for the dead (after Christian prayer, at least in English, had been banned by the Speaker). The relevant Koranic text also happens to include an exhortation to jihad. Alongside that a ban on semi-automatic firearms was announced despite the fact that these firearms while favoured by hunters are rarely used in crimes in New Zealand and when they are it is mostly by readily identifiable gangs who are unlikely to ever willingly surrender their weapons. On the heels of the firearms ban came the calls to ban the core democratic right of free speech and to criminalize "Islmophobia" - how can you make being afraid of something a crime? Many also feel great sympathy for the farming community who have been pummeled by the coalition and even called "rednecks" by one of its senior ministers. There is much more to recount but I will leave it there for the meantime. But even as we scribble these thoughts the Prime Minister shies away from addressing the important questions around her coalition partner's and Deputy Prime Minister's campaign funding and seems to prefer to chill out and pose for PR photos with overseas celebrities whose expenses are being met by the taxpayer. Is this government disintegrating and there's nobody home?

kiwidave said...

The handling of the UK's leave decision is a classic example of contempt for the people, for democracy.
Brendon let's rip: Neoliberalism’s useful idiots.

"These are lefties for neoliberalism. Whether it’s Owen Jones acting as Labour’s unpaid media spokesman or Ash ‘I’m literally a communist’ Sarkar beating the streets for Labour votes – these increasingly ridiculous people are campaigning for a party whose policy is to overthrow a strongly working-class revolt against neoliberalism and to keep the UK beholden to Brussels’ rotten capitalistic rules. Revolutionaries? They’re counter-revolutionaries. Socialists? They’re capitalism’s useful idiots. Pro working-class? They are overthrowing millions of working-class votes and trying to ensure that the British working classes, and the rest of the UK, remain subservient to ruthless EU neoliberalism. These people claim they want to overthrow capitalism and yet as soon as millions of ordinary Brits demand a break from the globalist EU they’re weeping into their almond-milk macchiatos. ‘Is this fascism?!’, they cry when the people of Britain raise their voices against EU neoliberalism, bourgeois buffoons that they are.

The only red in Corbyn’s Labour Party is its idiotic devotion to an EU neoliberalism that is red in tooth and claw."
https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/11/20/neoliberalisms-useful-idiots/

kiwidave said...

Great essay Chris, I think you're right - sorry, I mean correct.
Never mind the left/right poles, this "we know what's best" thinking exemplified by Lizzie, rife among an arrogant and out of touch urban elite is the real frontline. No doubt she envisions a future with her and her cronies calling the shots, dispensing "governance", a perfect utopia if only "we" hold the reins of power. What could possibly go wrong?
Hillary's deplorables speech that cost her the election, the searing contempt for the leave voters in the UK and, closer to home, Marama and Golriz's racist dog whistling "colonists" are recent examples.
The arrogance of belief and the foolishness of ideology.

Farewell, happy fields

Where joy forever dwells: hail horrors, hail

Infernal world, and thou profoundest hell

Receive thy new possessor: one who brings

A mind not to be changed by place or time.

The mind is its own place, and in itself

Can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven."

(Milton, Paradise Lost)

Neil Keating said...

On the issue of public service executives' and politicians' power, see 'A largely unnoticed power grab' by academic Simon Chapple, published November 20 on newsroom.co.nz

kiwidave said...

It pays to remind ourselves (looking at you Lizzie) why we have democracy at all, sometimes the things that are the most valuable are only appreciated when they're lost. You don't know what you've got till it's gone etc.
The governing need to be (at least a little) in fear of the governed; accountable and answerable to the people. It may not necessarily be the most efficient but the alternative? Power corrupts; human nature tends to make the governing regard the governed as beneath them, subservient; their interests irrelevant. A very short step away from tyranny IOW.
We see that, in the amalgamation of councils (done in the name of a never arriving efficiency) and the associated creation of a sprawling and unaccountable bureaucracy largely insulated from the concerns of the people or even their elected representatives. The extreme manifestation of that is the EU, the vote (and interests) of the individual, group or nation are diluted to irrelevance.
BTW, the Labour plan to install a state owned broadband network in the UK is illegal under EU rules. The people can't even get to decide on public ownership of a public utility. Let that sink in.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

Well Trevor, I'm at a bit of a loss to know where to start in your completely unfactual and emotional rave.
I think I'll start with the semiautomatic thing. They are not in fact favoured by hunters. As a hunter of more than 40 years, I have never owned one of the things. At least not one of the type that was used in the Christchurch shooting. They might at one time have been favoured by deer cullers and today quite possibly pest controllers, but not by hunters. .223 is not a proper calibre to ethically hunt red deer at the very least.
And funnily enough, try as I might I cannot actually find any reference to a call for jihad – which has a number of meanings in actual fact, you are obviously ignorant of this – in any of the Muslim prayers for the dead. But perhaps you meant it was found somewhere else? It's not exactly clear. Perhaps you could provide a link?
Thank God you didn't go on, I don't really have enough time for this today. :)

Guerilla Surgeon said...

"The only red in Corbyn’s Labour Party is its idiotic devotion to an EU neoliberalism that is red in tooth and claw."
https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/11/20/neoliberalisms-useful-idiots/"
Be nice if you could check your links before you post them Dave, just to make sure they work. Anyway I'm not sure I'd take as gospel anything written by a magazine that is funded in part by the Koch brothers (whoops, forgot one was dead – brother then.)
Anyway, the brexit vote was narrowly lost simply because a lot of people had got a clue what they were voting for, they were consistently lied to by people like Farage and others who've been busy preparing themselves and their businesses for brexit by arranging for European citizenship and shifting their headquarters to furrin parts. The lies were blatant pants on fire stuff. Like spending £350 million a year on the NHS.
I think it's time for another referendum with a little bit more honest campaigning, and the release of the study showing the effects of brexit on Britain which will almost certainly be dire. Let's face it, if they were going to be dire they would have published it by now.


Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
https://www.ft.com/content/7c8d898a-c4cd-11e9-a8e9-296ca66511c9

Mister Jacob R. Mogg, Mister Jacob R. Mogg

Emerging half-baked from Somerset fog.

Even your critics would say it’s a feat

To pretend it’s a battle — you against the elite!

OR

‘Let’s jump off this cliff – it’ll be fun! A right laugh!’
urged all the people (well, I mean just over half
of those who had bothered to speak up at all).
I peered down at the rocks; it was a long way to fall.

I said, ‘This cliff’s more than three hundred feet high
and my doctor tells me if I jump I will die.’
‘Cliff-jumping’s fine!’ they said. ‘Don’t trust doctors, trust us!
We read all about it on the side of a bus.’

Worried, I met up with my local MP.
I shared my concerns. He was forced to agree:
‘Why the rocks below would smash you to bits!
Where did you get this idea of jumping off cliffs?’

‘It was the will of some of the people,’ I said
and his expression changed to another instead.
‘I think,’ he revised, ‘you’re being melodramatic.
The problem is you. You’re undemocratic.’

On the clifftop, we waited. In silence we stood.
Then a voice: ‘Remind me, why is cliff-jumping good?’
But we looked down at our shoes, baffled and stumped.
Then, out of embarrassment, we held hands and jumped.

Tom Hunter said...

One of the key things that is being missed here by both Chris Trotter and Guerilla Surgeon, is that this technocratic governance approach is a direct result of the ever-increasing growth of government, which is both the objective and a side-effect of the Left's approach to running a nation, with ever more rules, regulations, and institutions being created every day.

Government is always "doing something" and when it's not, that's a problem for the Left.

In other times, and under attack from the Far Left, this result was also called The Administrative State, run by The Adminstrative Class, the other meat-in-the-sandwich group of people sitting between the Toliers and the Rich. I've read critiques that really went after The Middle Class as being the great betrayer of the Left; enabled and pandered to by Centre-Left parties.

And that Middle Class incresingly consists of technocrats and managers - and they love Big Government.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

"One of the key things that is being missed here by both Chris Trotter and Guerilla Surgeon, is that this technocratic governance approach is a direct result of the ever-increasing growth of government, which is both the objective and a side-effect of the Left's approach to running a nation, with ever more rules, regulations, and institutions being created every day."

One of the key things missed here by Tom Hunter in a for once understandable comment, is that every government since 1984 has at least paid lip service to smaller and smaller governments. Privatising, and putting the government at one remove from things like DHB's. Alongside that removing rules and regulations which supposedly "hamper" businesses. But which conveniently when gone, allow businesses to plunder public property. So I'm calling Bullshit on this.

Trev1 said...

Dear Guerilla Surgeon, Surah Al Baqarah vs 216 refers.

Sumner Muzza said...

You mean presented with the Congressional Medal??

rouppe said...

I wonder whether we've forgotten why DHB's were formed. My recollection - which might be wrong - is that different regions had different health problems. Diabetes in one, cancer another for example.

The idea of a dhb was to allow for directing resources at the problems they face. Much like school boards are supposed to be able to focus on the problems of their school rather than the averaged problems of education.

It is possible that DHB's are still trying to fund all services, when they should be defunding some to direct resources at others. Maybe that is why all the DHB's are over budget. Because of under prioritisation

Guerilla Surgeon said...

Surah Al Baqarah vs 216 refers. Interesting, as far as I can see it as nothing of the sort.

"Fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you. But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah Knows, while you know not."

Can't see it myself. And it is explained by actual scholars.

"Qur'anic scholars have commented on the historical context of this verse, as well as the overall context of this verse, in which fighting is only ordained in conditions of persecution. Consequently, Muslims are required to defend themselves from oppression to establish justice."

You could just as easily explain this in terms of "jihad".

"A time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace."

Or this.

“You are my hammer and weapon of war: with you I break nations in pieces; with you I destroy kingdoms.”

Or this.

“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword."


Funny how people in the Christian tradition are so quick to ascribe evil intentions to Islamic quotations while ignoring the Bible. Perhaps you should speak to Brendan about theological qualifications.

Tom Hunter said...

every government since 1984 has at least paid lip service to smaller and smaller governments. Privatising, and putting the government at one remove from things like DHB's. Alongside that removing rules and regulations which supposedly "hamper" businesses. But which conveniently when gone, allow businesses to plunder public property. So I'm calling Bullshit on this.

If there was anything coherent about that rant then it might have strengthened calling it Bullshit. You were once a teacher? It explains a lot.

Anyway, your Marxist dialetic thinking means that you're only talking of smaller government in terms of GDP, which privatisation helped to reduce.

In terms of rules and regulations it's getting to be as bad as it was in the 1970's, albeit with different topics. No more need to travel to Wellington or have an office there from which to beg, grovel and lobby givernment for little favours on tarriffs and import licenses and god knows what else. Getting rid of that was to lift a great burden.

But the Command and Control Left never sleep and their effect is like that of Atherosclerosis on a human body. Which is to say that after thirty years we're back in a world where almost every aspect of doing business is accompanied by forms and reports and dealing with bureaucrats at all levels of government and asking them for permission to do things - which is why we have so many highly paid "Public Servants" now.

The funny thing is that teachers I know who have recently retired complain about this as much as private sector folk. It's a societal disease and to be fair, the so-called "Right" of the National Party are as much to blame. Less because of pushing than failing to push back.

I can only assume that you are long-retired, otherwise you'd know this and would not write anything so stupid as to deny such goverment "growth".

Guerilla Surgeon said...

Ah Tom, I see I have pushed you into something approaching coherence. Apart from Marxist dialectic thinking, which whatever it is I don't do. Is it possibly related to that other myth "cultural Marxism"? However you do make a point about regulation in teaching. So maybe it is the same everywhere else. But even so they were all brought in by neoliberal governments. Partly because we've had nothing else since 1984.

Damien Grover said...

I agree with Lizzie Marvelly that it's crazy that I get to decide who's going to be elected to the DHB. I get my voting papers, I've got no idea who any of the candidates are, I don't care who they are, and I've got no idea what the DHB job is. And yet - somehow - I've got as much power as the next guy - who might be an expert on the issue of health care - to decide who gets on the board. I could just as easily cast a vote for a complete nut job and then have no idea what I've done. The current process is pretty much almost completely random. And I reckon I'm not the only potential voter out there who just has no clue about the DHB stuff. Why would we put health care - which is presumably largely an administrative function?? - in to the randomiser of a completely low profile corner of the local electorate process. Low numbers vote for the mayoralty. I suspect even lower numbers vote for the DHBs. Why not make it just a division of the department of health or whatever that's called, and at least we could have people who know what they are doing doing the DHB jobs.

John Hurley said...

HRC agrees with Land of Long White Cloud. Institutionalised Activism
................

Thank you for letting us know your concerns about the NZ Herald series ‘Land of the Long White Cloud’.



The Human Rights Commission has considered your complaint and reviewed the content of the series that you have referred to. Our view is that your complaint is not one that falls within the unlawful discrimination provisions of the Human Rights Act 1993 nor does it meet the threshold of the racial disharmony or racial harassment provisions of this legislation.



The most appropriate agency to deal with such complaints is the Media Council. The Council receives complaints about newspapers, magazines, periodicals, and on-line content from the main broadcasters in Aotearoa New Zealand. Details of the Council’s complaints process are available on its website http://www.mediacouncil.org.nz/



You may wish to view our website www.hrc.co.nz for information about the types of complaints that the Commission can deal with. We do not consider that your concerns come within the scope of the Human Rights Act 1993 and so we will not be progressing your complaint through our dispute resolution process, which involves offering mediation to the parties when a complaint of unlawful discrimination has been made.



If you disagree with our view, and believe that your complaint constitutes unlawful discrimination of a type prohibited by the Human Rights Act 1993, then you have the right to complain to the independent Human Rights Review Tribunal, either directly or by seeking representation from the Office of Human Rights Proceedings. Contact details for the Tribunal are 09-3758623 , and for the OHRP are 04-4626660.





Ngā mihi





Hilary Unwin​

Practice Leader ‑ Enquiries and Complaints (acting) | Kaihohourongo Matua ‑ Ngā Pātai me ngā Amuamu (rangitahi)

New Zealand Human Rights Commission | Te Kāhui Tika Tangata

ddi: 044716757

|

freephone: 0800 496 877

e: HilaryU@hrc.co.nz

|

w: www.hrc.co.nz

John Hurley said...

"There are 5 million of us"; "we are diverse". Only Nazis and losers think the New New Zealand isnt a vast improvement?