Written By:
- Date published:
6:00 am, November 11th, 2025 - 24 comments
Categories: open mike -
Tags:
Open mike is your post.
For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.
The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).
Step up to the mike …
I've turned on some more new bot defences. Let me know if you think you're getting blocked at thestandardnz@gmail.com. It shouldn’t happen to humans, but sometimes does for people behind VPNs.
BTW: I will be checking the ban list, so this isn't a way to bypass the moderators. 😈
I was blocked yesterday on my PC, but not on my other devices (tablet and phone), but am now back able to access again. Whew!
So a court case is looming, that will test TMP's constitutionality:
Not even close to it, but if the lawyers wrote their constitution with suitable escape clauses, and the expulsion used one such, the party hierarchy is likely to win.
At some point this ends up before the Speaker.
The 2 expelled from caucus still sitting in parliament.
Not a simple case of waka jumping.
TPM providing cause for expulsion from not just their caucus but also parliament.
The classical conception of representative democracy, as laid out by Edmund Burke, underpins much of our constitutional order.
In Burke’s formulation, an MP owes their constituents not blind obedience, but their conscience and considered judgment. We do not vote for electorate representatives simply to act as extensions of a party whip, but to exercise their own judgment on behalf of their constituent
This understanding sits uneasily alongside the Electoral Integrity Act and its aim of maintaining the proportionality of Parliament.
The Act reflects a competing democratic principle: that the composition of Parliament should mirror the balance of party support as expressed by voters nationwide.
These two ideas, both legitimate in their own right, rest on fundamentally different conceptions of representation: one personal and local, the other collective and proportional.
In practice, New Zealand’s MMP system attempts to hold both principles at once. Electorate MPs draw their authority directly from voters in their constituencies, while list MPs derive theirs from the national vote share of their parties.
The waka-jumping law blurs that distinction by allowing parties to expel MPs, whether list or electorate, if their behaviour is deemed to distort proportionality. Yet, while the Act technically applies to all MPs, it has never been used against an electorate member. To do so would invite a constitutional confrontation between the sovereignty of the electorate and the discipline of the party system.
Ultimately, the unresolved question is one of democratic priority: do we place greater weight on the right of voters to choose an independent representative, or on the right of parties to preserve the proportional balance that underpins MMP?
Both principles are central to our democracy. But they pull in opposite directions.
In this case the TPM vote is enough for 4 MMP seats.
They won 6 electorate seats.
TPM providing cause for expulsion from not just their caucus, but also parliament.
The overhang absolutely complicates matters, but it doesn't change the fundamental constitutional question:
Do electorate seats belong to the MP, or the party they got elected with?
I'll raise you with
If the MP is only entitled to 4 MP's via MMP, how can it claim that losing the 2 electorate MP's from its caucus impacts on the proportionality of parliament?
Gerry can meander on about going on a Japanese diet to lose surplus they can afford to lose without him having to make an intervention.
The matter is less that constitutional question than the waka jumping legislation being applied.
The precedent involved impact on the Green party list number, this case does not.
Pragmatically, I think that there is a division in Parliament. List seats belong to the party (Darleen Tana waka-jumped); electorate seats belong to the individual (Sharma, not waka jumped – but 'encouraged' to believe he would retain the seat in a by-election – before being comprehensively defeated).
Please note – this is opinion not fact. And certainly not law.
But I think that it reflects the way that ordinary Kiwis think of them: 'I voted for my local MP (person) and for the party I want (list). The party can ditch the list MP (if they prove to be unsuitable) – since I've had no input into their position on the list – but not the electorate MP I voted for.'
If the MP is unsuitable, then the electorate will decide at the next election. Historically, it requires a very strong local support base to remain as a local MP under those circumstances (Anderton, Peters).
I think that the parties (Labour, National) have been walking on eggshells not to invoke waka jumping for electorate MPs – even when they have strong grounds (Ross, Sharma). They don't want this to be established in parliamentary practice (in case it doesn't suit them further down the track)
I think that’s a constitutionally sound position.
It’s also worth noting that the Act says MPs can be removed, not will. Which makes this a discretionary rather than automatic process.
The two big hinges this turns on are, first, the law’s stated purpose: “to maintain the proportionality of political party representation in Parliament as determined by electors.”
And second, the requirement under section 55C that the Speaker be satisfied a notice from the TPM co-leaders complies with the Act: i.e. that a proper process has been followed.
There’s also potentially a valid argument that Parliament only ever intended the legislation to apply to list MPs.
A quick look through Hansard from both the 2001 and 2018 debates shows almost no reference to electorate member. The discussion was entirely about maintaining proportionality through party lists. Applying the law to electorate MPs could go beyond both its wording’s practical purpose and its constitutional spirit.
The courts have to give weight to the intent of Parliament as well as its actual words.
If TPM is pragmatic about this – they'll simply accept a fait acompli. And simply regard the two MPs as effectively independent.
I think that they'd be on very shaky ground approaching the Speaker under both of the two points raised. The TPM process has been arguably very shaky on constitutional grounds, and the proportionality of Parliament is arguably not distorted.
Also, forcing a by-election – would likely result in an unfortunate outcome for them. Either the TPM vote is split, and Labour win; or the electorate back Ferris/Kapa-Kingi and give TPM a vote of no confidence.
I don't see a win for TPM in a by-election scenario.
But, Tamihere – who seems to be driving this whole issue – isn't noted for cool compromise and effective diplomacy. So who knows what will happen….
But first the Speaker has to determine whether the MPs concerned have ceased to be a member of the Party.
The MPs could tell the Speaker so (in writing, after Meka Whaitiri first announced via email to the speaker that she'd left Labour, then rescinded the announcement – when she realized that she'd be open to being removed from Parliament). I doubt that this will happen here. Neither MP has resigned from TPM.
Or the leaders can inform the speaker that the MPs remaining in the House would distort the proportionality of the House.
I agree with SPC – it would be hard for TPM to argue that an overhang was the 'will of the electorate'
This situation is far closer to the original concerns of the Greens (and other MPs) when the waka jumping legislation was originally enacted. It's a power-play by the leaders of TPM to get rid of MPs who they dislike/distrust; rather than a reasoned response by a party to an MP who is off the rails (Sharma, Jamie Lee-Ross, Tana). Utu for daring to challenge Tamihere.
There appears to be no policy differences between the MPs on either side of the division – it's all about personality and party infighting.
Score one for Winnie – rip ’em a new one.
getting ready for the next election.
Yep. I hope most on the political left (and some righties) want to retain what's left of our public assets. A(t)las, self-serving NAct MPs (govt by and for the sorted) and their funders have no ‘interest’ in things public, be they services or assets. NAct is simply a machine for the relentless upwards redistribution of wealth – more asset sales are part of NAct's long-term plan to shrink revenue and undermine state capability.
Winston is on point this morning:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360881986/tawdry-silly-argument-winston-peters-criticises-asset-sales
NZ First leader Winston Peters has savaged National's suggestion of asset sales as a "tawdry silly argument", which he says it is falling back on after having failed to fix the economy fast enough.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said on Monday he was open to the possible sale of state assets, though he has ruled it out this term.
Winston Peters told Morning Report there was a history of poor choices of asset sales by both Labour and National.
"Because they've failed to run the economy properly, they want to go to the assets of a time when the country was run properly, when we were number two in the world and built up by our forefathers and to start to flog those off … to so-called balance their books," Peters said
Yes, he is. With the self-mutilation of TPM, it looks like Peters and NZF are going to be in a very strong position after the next election. Peters has an excellent sense of how public sentiment is shifting during an election cycle. He cynically consorted with the protesters occupying parliament in order to get the numbers for the 2023 election, now he is posing as the benevolent, soft-socialist/nationalist descendant of Savage and Holyoake, because he again senses the public mood. I imagine what Peters wants from the 2026 election are the numbers to force Luxon's successor to keep ACT out of the coalition tent and force them into a confidence and supply agreement only. Exactly what he did to the Greens under Labour-led governments. There are big questions now for Hipkins – does he have to dial back the animosity towards Peters?
I had predicted he would do the mid-term switch to oppo mode that he used with Labour, but he didn't do it in winter as expected.
This appears to be a belated attempt to revert to type. I concur with your view and suggest opportunism as another suitable label. Hipkins could do a christian end-run around Luxon on it: "Hey guys" he can enthuse to the media, I had a dream last night in which God told me to use Winston. I take back that hostility!"
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360881986/tawdry-silly-argument-winston-peters-criticises-asset-sales
This is Peters predictably playing to his base – with the argument that he's an effective brake on extremist policies (whether to the right or the left). Note that he's not attacking policies legislated in this government (for which he could be culpable) – but suggested policies which might be on the slate for the next election.
Yes, I know there are holes in that argument you could drive a bus through – but it works for him. Perhaps he's wise not to overestimate the intelligence/credulity of the average NZ voter….
Yeah I agree with that. He'd been looking rather flakey in recent months so a rerun of one of his traditional ploys is timely for him. Gives his base a sense of being on the right track, I suspect. More likely to push Seymour to the margin.
Could even shave the Nat base a tad. There seems potential for not-totally-clueless Nats to see asset sales as evidence of intellectual impotence…
Bad news for the government, one of their favoured sponsors is selling a dangerous product.
What will be the future health cost of vaping?
https://theconversation.com/vaping-might-seem-safer-than-smoking-but-your-heart-could-tell-a-different-story-268612
Labour making it clear that they are making a strong and determined tilt to regain the Maori seats – in the current climate of uncertainty with TPM.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/labour-expresses-no-concern-if-te-pati-maori-destroyed-at-2026-election-willie-jackson-says-party-will-try-to-take-them-out/FFV3YKJO6FFIJFN6TCKDNSIOA4/
There's political sense in saying that, at least when it comes to perceptions among non-Maori voters. And that's despite potentially losing the electoral advantage of TPM overhang seats if their plan actually works out. Maori voters may not oblige though.
Good on them. all seats should be contested all the time. Cushla is a great local labour MP… she's a breath of fresh air compared to the cosplay self obsessed likes of Ferris & Waititi.