Not often that I find my self agreeing with Matt McCarten and Fran O’Sullivan at the same time. They have written from different perspectives but come to the same conclusion :- Hone Harawira has a right and possibly even a responsibility to criticise the leadership of the Maori Party for the direction they are taking.
McCarten :-
Political maturity means accepting MPs will have different opinions.
A party having a considered discussion about itself is democratic and can make it more popular.
Trying to crush alternative perspectives will have the opposite effect.
O’Sullivan :-
Backbench MPs are not subject to Cabinet collective responsibility. They should be able to articulate their views on major issues and challenge the powers that be. Trouble is, far too many of today’s crop leave any pretence to owning an independent brain outside the door when they enter Parliament.
and
Harawira is made of sterner stuff. But there has also been a sea change, which I put down to the journalistic tendency to quickly put any backbench MP on to the “must be dumped from caucus’ slipway” when they call their own party to account.
Instead of greasing the ramp, why don’t journalists simply challenge the leadership to respond to the valid points Harawira has made?
Publicly opposing the leadership of your party is never easy. But there are plenty of precedents, more from Westminster than here but can and should still be done.
The process is pretty clear. One resigns from portfolios and shifts to the backbench. One talks it through with the leader and then caucus. And one is honest and straightforward – not the Carter approach.
We don’t have a real tradition of this sort of approach – Muldoon, Minogue, Waring, Anderton, Upton, Lee. Being a small Parliament doesn’t help. And the increased power that has gone to the party and the leadership with MMP hasn’t helped either.
But I do agree with McCarten and O’Sullivan that it is an important part of a democracy that, in the end, MPs have the right to go public with their concerns.
Lots of colleagues disagree. I refer readers to the box at the top right.
And to make it clear to trolls again – I believe Phil Goff is the only person in our caucus who can lead a government this year – and that this post is about MPs right to express their views – nothing wider.
Come on Trevor, this comes across as a bit disingenuous when you state that “the process is pretty clear”. Really? Where is this written down? In the Labour Party constitution? The process you describe is just an invention to justify the dodgy expulsion of Chris Carter.
I’m no fan of Carter, but he was dealt with terribly by the extra-parliamentary Labour Party. It’s still not even clear exactly what his crime was, apart from being a dissenting party member who acted like most maneuvering politicians, using subterfuge and plotting in an attempt to further their own ends. The council found he had breached party rules ‘by acting in a misleading manner likely to cause internal discontent and encourage external ridicule’. But what Labour Party MP hasn’t acted in this way?
Much has been made of the silly anonymous letter that Carter penned to parliamentary press gallery journalists. The party president (and others) made much of this ‘crime’ – Andrew Little was reported as saying that ‘in the past, leadership challenges and coups had seen direct confrontations either to the person concerned or the party caucus’. These are weasel words that anyone with any knowledge of internal parliamentary politics know is disingenuous rubbish. Such ‘furtive sneaky’ letters and such are used all the time. Anyone that has worked in Parliament knows that this sort of thing is common. This type of activity is common place, and is used as a weapon against both external and internal party opponents.
It seems that New Zealand political parties are becoming extremely homogenous and intolerant of difference. The great danger of having party members expelled for publicly advocating leadership change is that New Zealand’s political parties become even more uptight, narrow, top-down, bureaucratic organisations than they already are.
Bryce, interesting point you make
“While the Maori Party caucus has its own very good reasons for marginalising and ultimately expelling Harawira, the MPs are also under very strong pressure from their coalition partner, National. The Prime Minister and other leading party figures have been asserting very definite directives to Sharples and Turia to ditch Harawira. Much of National’s goodwill (and thus policy concessions) to the Maori Party has been placed on the table as being conditional on Harawira’s departure.”
I dont know who you are and couldnt tell from your profile at the website but are you a journalist? If yes, do you have strong sources for your claims of “definite directives”?
Hi Tracey
My source for the statement that Key and National have made directives to the Maori Party leadership to ditch Harawira come from a very reliable source in the Harawira camp. Of course, whether the “directives” were really just “gentle attempts at persuasion” could be a good question, but there was definitely been an ongoing intervention in the affair from the National Party.
And no, I’m not a journalist. Just a blogger and an academic.
@ Bryce. Michael Laws is the only other person I know of who has done such a thing. He left Parliament.. Carter made it worse by lying, denying he had done it and naming a colleague as the culprit.
And if you have a look in your political history books you will find dozens of examples of people who have honourably opposed their leader and even acted properly as they exited their party.
Thanks Bryce, enjoyed reading your analysis.
And why should a process involving Harawira involve the Labour Party constitution.
Trevor – I raised the question of whether the “rules” for “publicly opposing your leadership” is in the Labour Party constitution because you said that it was “pretty clear” and related this to the Chris Carter not following those rules. I’m suggesting that no such rules really exist or are agreed upon by any political party, but that you’re making them up – and trying to suggest that they’re commonly agreed upon – in order to justify Carter’s rather undemocratic expulsion.
And if you want to look into the history book, you’ll see plenty of MPs – Labour or otherwise – doing similar or “worse” things and not being expelled. For example, it’s worth considering other maverick Labour MPs from recent years. In the 1980s and 1990s, senior Labour MPs such as Roger Douglas, Richard Prebble, David Caygill, Phil Goff, and Mike Moore never even came close to be expelled. Yet all these politicians were all very rightwing mavericks that damaged the reputation of the Labour Party in a much more serious way than Chris Carter has ever been capable of. Those politicians that implemented neoliberal policies seriously damaged Labour’s core support base and significantly dragged the party seriously to the right.
What’s more, those individuals all plotted and made public pronouncements of a much more divisive and destabilizing kind than Carter has done. In fact during the 1980s and 1990s, Labour MPs broke caucus discipline all the time without censure. For example, throughout 1994 and 1995 Mike Moore and his supporters were openly disloyal and uncommitted to the Labour Party. In the 1994 Selwyn by-election, for instance, supporters of Moore attempted to give the Alliance information about Labour’s campaign. In 1995 Moore publicly called the Labour Party a ‘toxic waste dump’ and referred to a section of the party’s MPs as ‘Klingons’. The same year he told the media that Labour’s first MMP party list was a ‘suicide note’ and he said all sorts of incredible things about the need for a new political party, but was never even told off. Around this time, the caucus secretary Jack Elder leaked internal party information which showed that membership had declined from 5600 to 3600, and this led to no serious consequences. Even the current party leader, Phil Goff, has said some incredibly divisive things in the past. In fact, back in the mid-1990s Goff was revealed to be in talks with the Act Party about jumping ship, and this brought no censure at all.
To some extent, this post follows on from Clare Curren’s post about freedom of speech. Personally I can’t stand Harawira and what he stands for but he does have a right to speak out. Or is that taking “open Government” just a bit too far?
Then why didn’t Chris Carter have the right to criticise his leadership?
No one stopped anyone from speaking out but there are consequences. IF he knew the rules and the rules forbade something, hecoud speak out but expect to be punished according to the rules. The punishment doesnt include execution as far as I am aware.b
Firstly, I agree that Hone should be able to speak out – as I have said earlier, his speaking out is about the concerns he has with the direction of his party and the selling out of their core values. Its what those who vote for him expect and I respect him for doing so. It takes courage to go against the tide.
Secondly @BE
“I’m no fan of Carter, but he was dealt with terribly by the extra-parliamentary Labour Party.”
I agree. His methods were not so great – but he had a point, and I know there were others in Lab who were not – perhaps still are not – supportive of Goff. I understand that the Lab MPs need to stand by their leader – showing a strong front is impt – but it did not change the fact that what Chris said was echoed across a number of diff demographics around NZ. I do wonder what might have happened to CC if his approach had been different? What if he had openly gone to the media and said the same sort of things? Would he still have been kicked out I wonder?
Incidentally, if the point about Goff once considering Act is true – then thats a bit of history that concerns me, given the basic fundamentals ACT is based on.
Bryce at the risk of being boring isn’t the difference between those MPs and Carter that they were open in their views and didn’t lie about them to colleagues and the public. Prebble even suggested Lange was mad. I think with each of your comments you build my case
Bryce, I think you’ll find plenty of NZ examples of MPs who have done things the ‘right way’
- Rod and Jeanette, when the Greens decided to exit the Alliance and contest the 99 election on their own
- Copeland, leaving United over smacking in 07, although he totally mucked up informing his leader
- Turia leaving Labour in 04
- Kirton, leaving NZF in 98
- Dunne, exiting Labour in the early 90s
There are probably more.
Paul – that’s a good question: If Carter had openly sought to build up a coup against Goff, would he have been expelled? I think Goff and co would still have tried to get him expelled. But, I have to admit that their chances of success would have been reduced because they couldn’t have thrown back the “intrigue” mud at him.
In terms of Phil Goff jumping ship to Act in the 1990s, this was reported in the mainstream media on the basis of statements from, I think, Richard Prebble (then Act leader). Goff never refuted the report. But the thing about Goff is that he’s extremely pragmatic, so despite having some neoliberal instincts, these are totally suppressed in favour of the chase for popularity.
Trevor – yes, maybe you’re right that Carter’s lack of upfront honesty about it all singles him out as different from most party rebels like Hone Harawira or Heather Roy. But I still can’t really see how that makes him qualitatively different in terms of “the rules of the game”. All politicians scheme, some more openly than others.
Bryce
ACT could have cleaned out plenty of MPs at that time if all who met about switching, were expelled from their existing party! Goff at the time was BFF with several key ACT staffers and potential MPs. Only natural they’d talk to him.
I can see both sides of the Honest Hone problem. The Maori Party have every right to consider his actions OTT. He’s been warned before, spoken to, allowances have been made and there is only so much a Leadership can take of dissent. On the other hand, Honest Hone himself hasn’t actually told a word of a lie coupled overhanging, a Constitution lacking in sanction.
I’m sure there are valid arguments on both sides. Which is why I predict that nothing will happen to him.
Phil – can you come up with a list of those that have done it “wrong”?
I guess I’d start by suggesting your former boss Jim Anderton and the rest of the Democrats in the Alliance (2002)!
In fact I’d say that all the intrigue that went on in the Alliance in 2001/02 illustrates that it’s pretty hard to differentiate between the “right way” and the “wrong way”. This is because there’s always formal and informal groupings within political parties that are maneuvering to retain or increase influence and power.
Gee, Bryce has a bee in his bonnet about Carter and every storm in a teacup before.
Do you never look forward man ?
Bryce, 4.31pm is one of the shortest things you’ve ever written! I deliberately omitted the Alliance 01/02 ‘cos I was close to the action. And you left out Matt Robson.
For the record, Anderton, Robson, Gillon and Wright choose to contest the 02 election as Progressive. Harre, Jackson and Gordon contested it as Alliance. And Lee, Bunkle and Campbell choose to leave Parliament. I’ll let others tell that history.
What you call a “bee in my bonnet”, ghostwhowalksnz, I call a concern for “robust democratic politics”. You might regard the expulsion of a senior Labour Party MP as a “storm in a teacup”, but I thought it was a dark day in politics in New Zealand when a dissenting party member could be as easily expelled as Chris Carter was from Labour. And then there was number 6 on the Act Party list, Peter Tashkoff, also recently expelled, and possibly Hone Harawira soon. Political parties should contain a diversity of political points of view, and these should be encouraged to exist. Loyalty to a particular party leader should not be the criteria for being able to remain a member of any healthy political party.
And in terms of Phil Lyth’s MPs (Anderton, Robson, Wright and Gillon) – they were much more poorly behaved in the Alliance breakup than Chris Carter ever was in Labour. And there was even less political principle involved for them. Funnily enough, in that particularly case there *was* actually good reason for all four MPs to be expelled from their party, as well as be chucked out of Parliament.
G. Cactus
Gee Cactus
IWICSIC.
I wish I could speak in code.
IWSMFAWATOMK.
It would save my fingers and wear and tear on my keyboard.
A bit like the Jodrell Bankers who text without predictive. I’ve seen it all B4.
BCNU LTR.
I would think timing is a factor – parties which want (need) to appear united and strong act against a dissenter to demonstrate this. Of course this is all the more important when a party is fearful the critic is right, but see admitting this as unhelpful.
Sure Labour was/is fearful they cannot win in 2011 (whoever is leader rather than because Goff is elader though, but that’s not easy to say in public) and the MP is under “government” pressure to be a loyal vessel for coalition with National till election day (and sans Harawira passified into a rump to service National’s continuing government for a second term). This shoes Key’s electoral risk-taking, against any deal with NZ F in 2008 and to realise a more compliant MP for a second term. Of course there are risks, NZF could have been returned in 2008 (or 2011) and a new Harawira vehicle (with McCarten and Bradford) could with Greens could make an offer Sharples and Turia could not refuse – the end of the Key government and a governing coalition with Labour on their terms.
Best friends forever with ACT enemies of the poor is a lot for goff to live down logie.
PS Gates has a simpliar past, but is trying altruism (charity work) with the ill-gotten gains of corporate monopoly profits (and various cronyism with big power we can only guess at).
I suspect there were more lab MPs sympathetic to CC than we imagine – and I also suspect that had he managed it better this would be a far different debate! However, he did stuff it up, and being painted as a bit unstable did nothing to help his cause. I would further imagine that the moment it all fell to bits and went pear shape any support he may have had from concerned colleagues who may have shared his pov would have flown out the window as they all ran for cover to distance themselves, least they too become has beens.
Certainly would have been interesting to see what might have been – I guess we are unlikely to know in the interim. Does make me wonder also what will happen after the election though, if we are unsuccessful in overthrowing the anti democratic team currently calling the shots.
…perhaps Chris and Hone will form a new party…ones mind does boggle…
Good post.
Its not sufficient to hold robust debate between MPs purely behind closed caucus doors. Public interest in politics gets reduced to trivia when they can’t see how specific policy gets made and what differing views from MP’s went into it.
I reckon the public would appreciate the importance of participating in the political process a lot more if they could see more of that process in action, and more leadership in public discourse from individual MPs.
Another reason why RA is great.
The maori party will just have to reap what they’ve sown.
) in the first place.
The leadership, in pandering to the racist/nationalist/seperatist vote, are at fault in selecting such a ‘Word deleted Trevor’ (saved you the bother
Of course he was never going to be able to tow a party line that he feels betrays his constituency, without even mentioning his leaders choosing national as bedfellows, with all the disaterous implications that has for the the maori population as a whole.
Brilliant to watch Hone force sharples and turia to the left.
This years general election result is already looking bad for key’s nats.
Hone does have a right to criticise his party. But that means that as a Labourite I have a right to criticise my party too right Trev?
The reason I say this is because once you posted a blog on Bill English in regards to a leadership issue. I posted a reply saying that Labour should do something about Phil Goff, and you deleted it. It’s got to go both ways.
And no I don’t think that Phil Goff is the right person to lead Labour.
So, get to it, offer your critique. You’ve piqued my interest now, I’d like to hear it.
@Red Devil
He is the right person at the moment.
No he’s not Sica. Non-Labour members (marginal) that I’ve spoken to think that he’s not up to the job.
I may have missed it but no one mentions John Tamahere who did not last long after publication of his Investigate interview.
How come the PM hasnt said “as long as I am PM he stays” to Hone like he did to Rortney? Or are his values and principles so flexible?
Tracey, the PM can’t control the makeup of the Maori Party, he can control ministerial portfolio allocations.
Simple really.
No Bed Rater Tracey is right. The PM brings out the big guns to protect Act but leaves the Maori Party in the dirt. This is because Act are the real support partner to National. Maori Party are just an add on. It’s clear to me that based on the National Party’s policies regarding Maori, there should have never been an agreement between National and the Maori Party.
Sorry Bed rater, he clearly thought he could control the ACT party when he suggested Hide must stay as leader.
Red Bater, remind which portfolios Rortney lost?