The Green’s have every right to expel an errant list-MP using, as they are required to do so by their own rules, a vote from party membership.
The use of a party membership vote is critical. It avoids any capricious acts by the party executive or parliamentary leaders. In effect the outcome of the membership vote is the expelled list-MP has lost the confidence of the party and as such does not represent the party.
To maintain proportionality of voting power the party (in this case the Greens) should be allowed to replace that MP.
The legislation that enables this process should however be amended to recognise that this logic should only apply to list MP’s.
An electorate MP should not be able to be dismissed in such a fashion. Their mandate comes from their local electorate (who voted) and not the party (who nearly selected).
Additionally it would seem sensible to also distinguish for list-MP’s the rationale for expulsion.
Exceptions could be for:
- matters of conscience (voting on legislation that are conscious votes)
- where party policy has reversed or changed.
While pragmatically that might not change any outcome, it does establish more clearly the ground rules under which expulsion can occur.
In the current case, it’s clear that the grounds for expulsion are quite straightforward.
Thanks for such a carefully thought-out comment, Geoff. We need to be clear that a member's seat is being made vacant in such a case, following removal from their party. And it does make a difference if that member is list or electorate, I agree. The present law doesn't make any distinction.
My equivocation re Tana is about the status of a list MP and an electoral seat MP. List MPs are not democratically elected by the general public, but internally nominated by the party. Do you have anything to enlighten this aspect Grant? On the assumption that list MPs are bestowed the same rights and privileges as an electorate MP, does the circumstance of the ‘waka jumping’ provisions make this issue more complex?
Thanks for the comment, Wendy. Geoff's comment has addressed that issue well, I think. In the Tana case, there doesn't appear to be any rationale around either conscientious objection or whistleblowing or the like. I've been a bit cautious for the time being as the matter is before the courts. In general, there is a case for having the waka-jumping law distinguish between list and electorate members, but that's making law more complicated. There was always a case for not having that law at all, as the Greens themselves said before. I'd say that a list MP is democratically elected, as a candidate on the published party list, but yes this differs from the local electorate candidates.
While I share the view that Tana should be required to vacate her seat, for the Greens to use the 'waka jumping' legislation to achieve this could be seen as hypocritical and this may well have political ramifications. The Greens present themselves as above the deal making and compromises of politics and they have opposed the electoral integrity act consistently since it was introduced over 20 years ago. They saw it as undermining democracy as it locked MP's into supporting their caucus whether they agreed with their parties policies or not (and if these changed while in government). The Greens argued there may be valid reasons for walking away from the Party ticket that you are elected on. In Tana's case there is little to justify her stand - and she had resigned from the Greens - but for the Greens to use the 'waka jumping' legislation after opposing it so consistently for over 20 years will not be easy to explain for a Party that presents itself to the electorate as working to an ethically high standard.
Thanks for putting that argument, Mark! Ideally, Tana would have vacated her seat voluntarily. But she didn't. As for parting company with the Green Party, her lawyer is questioning whether she walked out or got pushed, and whether the process was lawful. But I agree that the Greens have tainted their reputation for sticking to principles. (As you can see, I'm having trouble myself in deciding where to stand on this one!) My guess is that the Speaker will delay the final decision until the courts have finished with it.
Nice piece.
Re the Greens: I think Geoff's comment is right on the money.
The Green’s have every right to expel an errant list-MP using, as they are required to do so by their own rules, a vote from party membership.
The use of a party membership vote is critical. It avoids any capricious acts by the party executive or parliamentary leaders. In effect the outcome of the membership vote is the expelled list-MP has lost the confidence of the party and as such does not represent the party.
To maintain proportionality of voting power the party (in this case the Greens) should be allowed to replace that MP.
The legislation that enables this process should however be amended to recognise that this logic should only apply to list MP’s.
An electorate MP should not be able to be dismissed in such a fashion. Their mandate comes from their local electorate (who voted) and not the party (who nearly selected).
Additionally it would seem sensible to also distinguish for list-MP’s the rationale for expulsion.
Exceptions could be for:
- matters of conscience (voting on legislation that are conscious votes)
- where party policy has reversed or changed.
While pragmatically that might not change any outcome, it does establish more clearly the ground rules under which expulsion can occur.
In the current case, it’s clear that the grounds for expulsion are quite straightforward.
Thanks for such a carefully thought-out comment, Geoff. We need to be clear that a member's seat is being made vacant in such a case, following removal from their party. And it does make a difference if that member is list or electorate, I agree. The present law doesn't make any distinction.
My equivocation re Tana is about the status of a list MP and an electoral seat MP. List MPs are not democratically elected by the general public, but internally nominated by the party. Do you have anything to enlighten this aspect Grant? On the assumption that list MPs are bestowed the same rights and privileges as an electorate MP, does the circumstance of the ‘waka jumping’ provisions make this issue more complex?
Thanks for the comment, Wendy. Geoff's comment has addressed that issue well, I think. In the Tana case, there doesn't appear to be any rationale around either conscientious objection or whistleblowing or the like. I've been a bit cautious for the time being as the matter is before the courts. In general, there is a case for having the waka-jumping law distinguish between list and electorate members, but that's making law more complicated. There was always a case for not having that law at all, as the Greens themselves said before. I'd say that a list MP is democratically elected, as a candidate on the published party list, but yes this differs from the local electorate candidates.
My doubt’s around the Greens opposing the law but then using it - seems to lack integrity.
I was hoping someone would weigh in with that view, thanks Kai! Principles are always easily sacrificed at the altar of expediency.
While I share the view that Tana should be required to vacate her seat, for the Greens to use the 'waka jumping' legislation to achieve this could be seen as hypocritical and this may well have political ramifications. The Greens present themselves as above the deal making and compromises of politics and they have opposed the electoral integrity act consistently since it was introduced over 20 years ago. They saw it as undermining democracy as it locked MP's into supporting their caucus whether they agreed with their parties policies or not (and if these changed while in government). The Greens argued there may be valid reasons for walking away from the Party ticket that you are elected on. In Tana's case there is little to justify her stand - and she had resigned from the Greens - but for the Greens to use the 'waka jumping' legislation after opposing it so consistently for over 20 years will not be easy to explain for a Party that presents itself to the electorate as working to an ethically high standard.
Thanks for putting that argument, Mark! Ideally, Tana would have vacated her seat voluntarily. But she didn't. As for parting company with the Green Party, her lawyer is questioning whether she walked out or got pushed, and whether the process was lawful. But I agree that the Greens have tainted their reputation for sticking to principles. (As you can see, I'm having trouble myself in deciding where to stand on this one!) My guess is that the Speaker will delay the final decision until the courts have finished with it.