Will Horan Go To The Maori Party?

How To Expel An MP (Horan & NZF)

Horan and his leader Winston Peters. Photo from Facebook as published by NZH.

DPF over at Kiwiblog today, among others including Jane Clifton, has traversed some of the issues I also discussed yesterday about Brendan Horan and his expulsion from NZF.

Yesterday I queried, “Winston has to prove wrongdoing to justify the expelling. Horan can challenge that ‘due process’ has not taken place. Did the NZF Board meet, for instance? or did Winston just make an arbitrary decision? Likely. Lawyers will look at that.”

DPF posts today. “But Horan is still a member of the party. Now you can argue that these rues don’t stop the caucus suspending an MP, or even expelling him. But it seems the caucus has not made any such decision on Horan. It is unclear if they have even had a discussion on the issue. Also Horan claims no allegations have even been put to him directly…”

Jane Clifton writes, “The Horan case does indeed raise questions on many levels. Is it fair for Winston Peters to have summarily dismissed Horan based on information he had only received 45 minutes previously, and without giving Mr Horan the opportunity to respond. Certainly the laws of natural justice would suggest not, but then again politics is not a place with a lot of natural justice.”

DPF again. “It is very unclear that Peters has the power to unilaterally declare Horan has been expelled from caucus, or even that he will be expelled from caucus. However the only people with standing to challenge this are other members of the caucus.”

This is totally unlikely, as Winston Peters runs his caucus like a potentate; really his MPs are simply bolt-ons to his North Harbour bridge. No one will in caucus challenge his misuse or lack of process. Horan’s lawyers will do that, just as Winston challenged National’s clear right not to de-select him for Tauranga as their candidate years ago.

As DPF has pointed out, rank hypocrisy.

As an aside, DPF says, “Amusingly the party leader is also the only MP exempt from paying a 10% tithe to the party!” 

But a Leader expends significantly more of his/her own funds than any ordinary MP, so that is not so galling. Except if it was National or ACT, it would be evidence of “corruption” in Peter’s eyes, such is his inconsistency politically. “Yes” is literally “No” to cite the famous Peters meme.

“But there is an important point here. Leaders should not have the power to unilaterally expel MPs from caucus. I think it is good that Winston has acted swiftly against Horan, but I assumed he had at least put the issues in writing to Horan…”

I agree, and made this clear yesterday. With falling memberships, even in large parties like National, candidate selections are being determined in more and more electorates by coteries of party officials. This gives Leaders inordinate power to bring in mates and loyalists to them. This is wrong. Leaders already have huge influence over the construction of party lists. One of the few powers still left party members is the right to select or de-select a candidate. This power is lost them for List MPs already.

Party leaders should not determine solely, or with a  few acquiescent officials, who NZ’s parliamentary representatives are. This is dangerous long term.

To this erosion of active democracy we cannot add unilateral Leader power to sack their MPs for reasons that are not subjected to an agreed process that is fair, regardless of any allegations. Even if they are accused of child abuse, they have a right in law to a defense and may be exonerated.

So, a few points:

1. Peters has not followed even his own (NZF) due process, this is a breach of natural justice against Brendan Horan.
2. Horan can challenge this and would probably win, regardless of the allegations which are a separate matter.
3. Peters cannot unilaterally expel Horan, but has done so.
4. Horan is no longer a member of the NZF caucus once a letter is received by the Speaker from the president or chief whip of NZF saying so. But Peters’ statement in the House yesterday has effectively done that, again, unilateral. That makes Horan a non-NZF MP but an MP nevertheless.

Something no one has yet discussed, and that is Horan’s right to go and join the Maori Party, and lend his lobby vote to them under their Whip. Horan is Maori, so this is a possible fit.  Horan’s departure alters NZF’s  percentage of questions in the House, speaking time etc., which if Horan reconnects somewhere else, is transferred to them. I think this is correct, because allocations are based on Party Vote percentages.  This has not actually changed for NZF, but they have expelled an MP, so surely cannot retain the same allocation.  This makes Peter’s unilaterial action yesterday quite serious.

About these ads

About coNZervative

A blog about politics, life, culture, literature, music and thought from Christchurch, New Zealand [NZ] (the home of 10,000 earthquakes since 4 Sept. 2010) built because of the bullying and cajoling of Liberal opinion-makers (journalism and Hollywood) against conservative-minded people who are as entitled to opinion and a perspective as anyone; and because Conservativism has served the world well. John Stringer is a New Zealander (Christchurch) in his 40s married to an American from Taco Bell; they have 5 adult children in 3 diff. countries. John is an ex-Anglican pastor, a teacher, published author (NZ), novelist (USA) and cartoonist (Aust, NZ), and has spent the last 25 years in NZ politics with the National party (he was a parliamentary candidate in 1999). There was a stint in London working for the British Conservative party as well, where he did media minding and campaign work with several Brit cabinet ministers, including Baroness Thatcher, Baroness Blatch, Michael Howard, Tom King, among others. He has an MA (classical studies, Victoria); is a graduate of the New York Film Academy; and has various awards for writing. His passions include British bulldogs, fly fishing, and history (Ancient and WWII). Winston Churchill was mainly a “Conservative” but also a “Liberal” MP between 1900-1964. A Member of Parliament for 64 years, he contested 21 parliamentary elections (for Oldham, Manchester North West, Dundee, and Epping/Woodford). Throughout his career Churchill stood for liberty. He believed in open debate and freedom of speech, and opposed any system or ideology that tried to dictate the way one should think. Churchill felt deeply that disagreements within the democratic system should not degenerate into personal animosities. RIDER: This site is not connected to nzconservative, a Catholic site, or NZ Conservative Party, although from time-to-time I share some of the views espoused by both groups and other sites I follow, as published; I am an independent thinker and blogger.
Image | This entry was posted in Current Events, Other Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s