APIAPE: Agents of Private Interest, Architects of Public Erosion

Carl Bates: Governance Overreach, Civic Undermining

Not Fit to Judge, Yet Writing the Rules

Misreader of Reality · Legislator Without Listening · Poster Child for Policy Without Purpose

Current Portfolios

• Member of Parliament for Whanganui (National Party)
• Deputy Chairperson, Education and Workforce Select Committee
• Member, Justice Select Committee

Carl Bates, first-term MP for Whanganui, has introduced the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill (121—1). This bill removes the automatic right of New Zealanders to decline jury service from age 65 — extending compulsory eligibility another seven years, up to age 72. At a time when many are managing illness, caregiving responsibilities, or the gradual transitions of late life, this is not a minor amendment. It is a significant legislative shift — targeting a life stage where choice should be protected, not pushed by bureaucracy.

This bill is not a refinement — it is an imposition. It treats age-related limitations as obstacles to be administratively overcome, rather than signs of earned rest and shifting capacity. It bypasses consultation, ignores health realities, and introduces quiet coercion into a life phase marked by loss, adjustment, and legacy. In a society that claims to value its elders, this bill does the opposite — by treating them as civic slackers instead of citizens who have already given enough.

The problem here is not just the policy — it's the principle. Older New Zealanders already volunteer to serve when able. Those who decline do so for valid reasons, and with quiet grace. This law offers them no new support, no added voice, no honour. Instead, it demands explanation where there should be exemption. The question is not only who this helps, but what it enables.

"When a right to decline becomes a duty to explain, dignity is no longer preserved — it is interrogated."
– APIAPE

In his maiden speech to Parliament, Bates offered light-hearted stories about dating apps and his mother’s criticisms, adding nothing about the real stakes of the legislation he would soon promote.¹ The contrast is sharp: while smiling at the podium, he was preparing to draft a bill that imposes bureaucratic burdens on older adults for no clear benefit. This is not representation — it’s redirection.

With no background in elder care, no community consultation, and no stated rationale grounded in public need, Bates is pushing a law that converts rest into responsibility and takes quiet decline as civic negligence. There is no evidence of widespread juror shortages. There is no explanation for bypassing the voices of those affected. This is not grounded lawmaking. It is political detachment turned into legislative burden — forcing older citizens to prove they deserve their peace.

Pattern of Disregard: Productivity over Personhood

Bates' bill aligns with a broader National Party trend: increasing obligations on the public while reducing their say. Consider:

• Paul Goldsmith's Sentencing Reform and MACA Repeal bills — prioritising state control over cultural or community insight.
• Judith Collins’s attempt to repeal the Plain Language Act — stripping citizens of the right to understand the laws that govern them.
• Christopher Luxon’s support for a raft of bills that centralise power and obscure accountability under the guise of productivity.

The theme is unmistakable: narrow efficiency over broad humanity. Bates' bill continues the trend by targeting the elderly — the very demographic that deserves dignity, not forms and deadlines. Whether intentional or not, it may also shift the demographic makeup of juries in a concerning direction: favouring individuals more likely to comply, less likely to challenge institutional power, and potentially less inclined to uphold Te Tiriti-based principles in court deliberations.

This is not democratic design. It is structural manipulation — expanding state reach without consent, and likely serving goals not openly declared.

Local Echoes of National Behaviour

Before entering Parliament, Carl Bates was appointed chair of Feilding & District Promotion — an agency tasked with supporting local businesses and community engagement. By mid-2022, it had come under criticism for underperformance, failing to meet expectations, and submitting funding proposals without business input.

Faced with public scrutiny and the threat of reduced council funding, Bates presented a “new strategy” focused on internal task delegation and improved event delivery. His own example of leadership? Personally taking over the Feilding sale yard tours.²

Mayor Helen Worboys, who previously managed the agency for over two decades, acknowledged the agency’s poor performance and expressed only conditional optimism: “The new board brings fresh blood and therefore, gives us some hope.” Further funding, she said, would depend on measurable results.

The pattern is striking: delayed responsiveness, top-down fixes, vague enthusiasm, and no structural engagement with those most affected. It mirrors Bates’s behaviour in Parliament — pushing legislation like the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill with no consultation, no clear problem, and no support from the communities it impacts.

"This is not democratic design. It is structural manipulation — expanding state reach without consent, and likely serving goals not openly declared."

Whether leading a small-town promotional agency or drafting national legislation, Carl Bates appears consistent: more concerned with control than connection, and more interested in appearance than accountability.

What You Can Do

• Read the opposition to the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill and share it with others.
• Support elder advocacy groups demanding consultation before legislative change.
• Expose the pattern behind the paperwork — share this exposé on Carl Bates.
• Defend the right to rest: civic duty must include the right to decline with dignity.
• Track similar bills from the National coalition that reframe rights as obligations.

Every case documented strengthens public memory—and demands accountability.
🔙 Back to APIAPE Index