The most damaging effects of the waka jumping law will be invisible and immeasurable

It is difficult to know what the effect of the ironically named Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill that passed it’s final vote in Parliament this week. We may never know for sure.

We do know that it has made Labour look like Winston’s patsies, especially Andrew Little who had to front the bill as it went through Parliament. And it showed the Greens as far less principled than they had made out for so long while out of government – this could be damaging to them in the next election.

However Audrey Young says that the most damaging effects will be “invisible and immeasurable” in Winston Peters wastes hard-won power on wretched law.

…the party-hopping bill passed in Parliament ahead of the party’s convention can barely be called an achievement, let alone qualify as a proud one.

It has been Parliament at its worst – indulging a powerful politician with an obsession with defectors.

The law is a fetter on dissent, and Peters’ decision to demand its passage as the price of power stands in contradiction to his own history as a dissenter and maverick.

The law will enable a caucus to fire a duly elected MP not just from the caucus but from Parliament if they decide that MP no longer properly represents the party.

The hypocrisy is galling. Peters built New Zealand First on party-hoppers such as Michael Laws, Peter McCardle and Jack Elder.

In those days, Peters was upholding the freedom of any MP to leave a party without having to leave Parliament if their conscience demanded it.

Self-interested hypocrisy is nothing new for Peters.

It was only when party-hoppers left New Zealand First rather than joined it that the notion became objectionable, to Peters. It was only after MMP that what the voters decided on election day suddenly became sacred to Peters.

Essentially, the new party-hopping law is based on self-interest disguised as principle.

It is a draconian solution to a problem of defection that has not existed since those formative days of MMP.

And Labour and the Greens went along with this and enabled it.

New Zealand First did not campaign on party-hopping at all last election but then put it up as a bottom line in coalition talks, while the vast number of bottom lines actually enunciated by Peters in the campaign were surrendered in the horse-trading of coalition talks.

The law does not have the true support of the majority of the House but the Greens have been blackmailed into supporting it against the alternative – a toxic relationship with Peters.

Electoral law changes should have wide support of any Parliament but the law was railroaded through by a party with 7 per cent of the vote because it held the balance of power at the election.

Will Greens learn from being backed into a corner by Peters and then painting themselves in? They could perhaps gain back some of their credibility on being principled it they  don’t campaign next election on a status quo governing arrangement leaving Peters in a dog wagging position.

The most pernicious effect of the new law is not the actual expulsion of an MP from Parliament. Rather, it is the chilling effect it will have on strong, independent thought and voice of MPs within parties and within Parliament. In turn that will have an impact on the selection of MPs.

The most damaging effects of the law will be invisible and immeasurable.

It was the impact on dissent that drew the harshest criticism from Green luminaries Jeanette Fitzsimons and Keith Locke.

Did Green support of this bill go to party membership for a decision? They used to claim that their membership played a part in any important decisions. Surely they must have done that, especially given that it was a change to electoral law, and it had an obvious impact on the party ethos and integrity.

It has been sad to see a raft of new Labour MPs kowtowing to Peters to convince themselves that the law will enhance democracy when it is really a management tool for Peters to keep potentially difficult MPs in check.

One could wonder what threats or promises were made between Peters and Labour and Green leaderships to make both parties roll over on this for Peters.

Dissent has been a strong theme throughout Peters’ career.

He talked about in his maiden speech in 1979 when he lambasted people whom he saw as destructive critics who criticised for the sake of it: “Opposition, criticism and dissent are worthy pursuits when combined with a sense of responsibility. They have a purifying effect on society. Areas in need of urgent attention can be identified and courses of action may be initiated. However embarrassing to community or national leaders, the results are enormously beneficial to the total well-being of the community. The critic I am [condemning] has no such goals. He sets out to exploit every tremor and spasm in society, the economy or race relations, seeking to use every such event as a vehicle to project his own public personality.”

An unkind person might say that Peters has gained power in New Zealand politics by becoming the sort of critic he so despised in his maiden speech.

It is a remarkable achievement to have built a party, and sustained it, and to be at the peak of his political power when most people his age are checking out retirement villages.

It is also remarkable that Peters should be wasting that power on such a wretched law.

And that Labour and especially the Greens have wasted their integrity by enabling the wretched law to pass with barely a whimper.

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

13 Comments

  1. A question for Robert on this: “Did Green support of this bill go to party membership for a decision? They used to claim that their membership played a part in any important decisions. Surely they must have done that, especially given that it was a change to electoral law, and it had an obvious impact on the party ethos and integrity.”

    Reply
    • chrism56

       /  September 29, 2018

      PG – that’s risking things isn’t it? Now we will have to put up with long diatribes from Robert about how you don’t understand government or it is all National’s fault or some other red herring. I don’t think he will be able to accuse you of JADS for this one though.
      The Greens are no different to any other party. They will sell their grandmother to get control. Just none of the others are so sanctimonious about their “piety”.

      Reply
    • Ray

       /  September 29, 2018

      Time to release the squirrels.
      Does Robert even work on Saturdays, I notice some of the Labour lads/trolls work Union time?
      I suggest real politics is a bit harder than most Greens thought it would be, consequently we have these sort of cockups.

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  September 29, 2018

        whats union time…9-5?..do you breed squirrels…or just catch and release…like underweight groper.

        Reply
      • robertguyton

         /  September 29, 2018

        Ray, yes, I do work on Saturdays, Sunday’s too. During the week, I’ve council business, but at the weekends, I write and attend to the orchard project, volunteer at the environment centre and show people around my garden. Despite all that, I try to make myself available here, for the sake of balance.

        Reply
        • “Despite all that, I try to make myself available here, for the sake of balance.”

          Providing balance (or alternative opinions) is welcome here.

          Why don’t you try it a bit more often? Give your point of view, provide information of interest, argue your case. That would be much more effective at getting your message across than trying to play some sort of diversionary interference attacking messengers, whiich is what you most often seem to do.

          Reply
          • robertguyton

             /  September 29, 2018

            Your give advice to your commenters on what they should say and how they should say it? How directive of you, Pete. How very control-freakish that sounds. I suppose you mean it out of kindness, just as I mean my advice to you kindly. Kindness, eh! It’s the theme of the week!

            Reply
    • robertguyton

       /  September 29, 2018

      Sorry, Pete, I didn’t see this; I was outside preparing for a forest garden tour; a group from Dunedin, driving down to have a look at what we’ve done here.
      In answer to your question, I don’t know. I’m not a member.

      Reply
  2. Gezza

     /  September 29, 2018

    Peters 1979:

    The critic I am [condemning] … sets out to exploit every tremor and spasm in society, the economy or race relations, seeking to use every such event as a vehicle to project his own public personality.
    … … … …
    An unkind person might say that Peters has gained power in New Zealand politics by becoming the sort of critic he so despised in his maiden speech.

    Any person with a few clues would have to say that.

    Reply
  3. Blazer

     /  September 29, 2018

    Aunty Alamein,beaming Brendon and the’ tight 5,’….are reasons enough.

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  September 29, 2018

      To me, it is perfectly reasonable that if someone is voted in as a List MP, they should not be able to waka jump and hand the votes that they were given because people wanted to vote for that party to another one. I cannot see why anyone would object to this.

      If I give the X Party my party vote, I don’t want it to be given to Party Y or Z or a new party altogether. I can think of few things more infuriating than finding that my vote had been given to Gareth Morgan !!!

      Reply
  4. PartisanZ

     /  September 29, 2018

    “It has been Parliament at its worst – indulging a powerful politician with an obsession with defectors … ”

    Exactly the kind of hasty, personal, politically-traded, poor quality legislation Messrs Palmer & Butler are trying to constitutionally ‘outlaw’ in their proposed written Constitution Aotearoa New Zealand.

    Problem is, along with ethical accountability in this arena comes the same accountability regarding Human Rights and Te Tiriti o Waitangi …

    So … I guess Righties and Lefties alike would rather put up with this waka jumping *shite* than acknowledge its ethical coefficients?

    I suppose by Rightie standards of visibility and measurement – which we are constantly told is of primary and singular importance – “waka jumping” effects that are invisible and immeasurable don’t really matter? They don’t [need to] exist. A bit like “transparency”?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s