In fact it seems reasonably clear that he does, until his party membership is formally terminated by NZ First’s board, but someone might need to tell Winston that.
Some media are reporting that Horan has been expelled from the party. It’s tempting to put this down to overenthusiastic reporting, but then the Herald’s Claire Trevett wrote this:
Some media are reporting that Horan has been expelled from the party. It’s tempting to put this down to overenthusiastic reporting, but then the Herald’s Claire Trevett wrote this:
Mr Peters said that the caucus had been briefed on Mr Peters' findings but it would meet later today to expel Mr Horan. His expulsion from the party would be automatic.
The way that is written suggests Trevett is reporting what Winston said. If it is, then Winston may be in for a surprise.
Here's what rule 10 of NZ First's constitution says (caveat: I’m assuming the version available here is the most up to date one):
10.Termination of Membership
(a) Membership may be terminated by voluntary resignation
(b) If the conduct of any member is offensive, undesirable, inconsistent with
the welfare and interest of the Party, or contrary to the Constitution, the
Board shall, on receiving a written complaint, or on its own initiative,
consider the member’s continuing membership of the Party. A hearing
shall be convened to consider the complaint.
(c) Within 14 days the Board shall notify the member in writing, by personal
service or by registered mail of:
i. The nature of the complaint;If the member fails to attend the hearing, the Board may proceed with
ii. The date, time and place of hearing; and
iii. The member’s right to be present and to be heard.
the hearing in the member’s absence.
(d) If the Boards determines that the members behaviour was offensive,
undesirable, inconsistent with the Party’s welfare or interests, or contrary
to the Constitution, the Board may be a majority decision of the Board
members present at the meeting, impose any one or more of the following
penalties.
i. Censure the member;(e) If a complaint is made by a member of the Board, that Board member may
ii. Fine the member;
iii. Order restitution or compensation;
iv. Suspend the member from some or all rights and privileges;
v. Expel the member.
present the complaint for hearing but is excluded from any further
participation in the hearing.
(f) If a member joins or participates in any other political party, membership of
New Zealand First will be terminated.
If you didn't manage to read that before falling asleep, let me summarise in a few words the critical points. NZ First's board can act on a complaint about a member, or act on its own initiative in the event it thinks a member has been naughty. But in either case it must convene a hearing, and the member concerned is entitled to be present.
(Ignore for a moment some of the ropey drafting of this rule, because I think the intent of the rule is pretty clear)
I’m going to assume there hasn't been a hearing by NZ First's board, because I'm sure someone would have mentioned a hearing if one had taken place, and I'm also going to assume from Horan's defiant statements that he hasn't resigned as a member. And while his future plans are unclear, he hasn't to my knowledge joined another party.
So Horan's still a member of NZ First, and not even King Winston can decree otherwise.
I’m not sure what that means for his status in Parliament. Is he truly an independent MP if he’s still a member of his party but not a member of the party's caucus? I’m sure one of those all-knowing public law experts will be along soon to clarify the point.
Constitution? Everyone knows that NZ First's rules are whatever Winston deems them to be.
ReplyDeleteAnd thanks to MMP, Peters can do nothing beyond expelling him from caucus. Horan can stay on as an independent, and NZF now has only seven votes on any issue. They cannot replace Horan until he formally resigns from Parliament; but where else will he get a good-paying gig like that?
Given that him returning was rather unlikely in the next election, this is almost a gift for Horan. He actually has to take a holiday, with a very good salary, for two years. If he wants he can go into Parliament and say anything he likes, within basic rules of Parliamentary behavior. I doubt he will, though, my memory is that he's far too lazy for that, and probably can't handle all the uppity fat chicks in there.
ReplyDeleteTalkback radio time.
thanks to MMP, Peters can do nothing beyond expelling him from caucus.
ReplyDeleteClearly you missed the many MPs who party-hopped (jumped or pushed) under FPP. Nothing whatsoever to do with MMP.
And do you really want party leaders to be able to expel MPs from Parliament? Without any due process? Just for political convenience? Stop and think about that one.
File under: Worms, can of.
"I’m sure one of those all-knowing public law experts will be along soon to clarify the point."
ReplyDeleteWhilst I know you had Graeme Edgeler in mind when you wrote this, let me try and fill in.
The question whether an MP is recognised as an independent MP or as a part of a party caucus is not dependent on whether or not she or he is a member of a party. So, recognition of an MP as a part of a party caucus depends purely on what the Party leader tells the Speaker - if the leader says to the Speaker "X isn't an MP for our Party anymore", then as far as the Speaker is concerned, X isn't ... and X becomes an independent (or, if X gets written permission from another party leader, X can join their caucus and become recognised as an MP for them).
Nor is the Speaker interested in the grounds that Peters has for telling him that Horan is no longer a member of the NZ First caucus, nor is he interested in whether any sort of caucus rules were properly followed prior to telling him that Horan is out. Those may be issues that the rest of the NZ First party care about, and they may possibly be matters that can be judicially reviewed (though there is some doubt on this, given obiter statements by Elias CJ in the Supreme Court's Awatere Huata judgment).
But in a nutshell - yes, once Winston tells the Speaker in writing that "Horan's no longer one of us", then he becomes an independent MP (as was the case with Chris Carter - he became an independent MP two months before his expulsion from the Labour Party).
I suspect that while NZ First's constitution might pay overt obeisance to democracy, in practice the board will be a rubberstamp for Winston Peters and if he says Horan is gone, he's gone.
ReplyDeleteAs above, he can stay as an MP until the next election, or until convicted of a crime carrying a 2 year or upward jail penalty (which is interesting - presumably one can therefore remain an MP when in jail, if the maximum penalty was under two years? )
let me try and fill in.
ReplyDeleteThat.
Also - Keeping Stock, that has nothing to do with MMP. The same would have happened under first past the post. Or supplementary member. Or single transferable vote.
The reason New Zealand First will get 7 votes is that New Zealand First have chosen to take seven votes. Good for them, some may say, but it was their choice. You may like to change the Electoral Act to give party leaders, rather than voters, a say in who gets to be an MP, but look forward to me opposing you if you do!
In the Labour Party (for instance), there's a distinction between the Parliamentary Labour Party and the Labour Party. So presumably Carter was expelled from the PLP according to the Parliamentary Labour Party's rules, and then later rules 298 and following were applied.
ReplyDeleteWhether or not the PLP is subject to judicial review is pretty interesting. I don't see any obvious reason why not, and it would seem to make sense it should be. Where do you see Elias suggesting it mightn't be --- nothing jumped out of the Awatere-Huata judgement as suggesting that to me?