Marian in the news
Well Marian Hobbs was in the news yesterday. First of all the Dom Post editoral incorrectly stated she had announced some months ago she was retiring, and then the Independent Financial Review revealed she had threatened to resign her seat last week.
It’s all related to the Cabinet decision not to approve a grant to the Karori Sanctuary, despite the fact Marian lobbied for the fund to be set up specifically for cases such as the sanctuary, the PM launched the fund there, and lauded the sanctuary as an example of why the fund was created.
I should point out that of the dozen or so people I have discussed this issue with, everyone without exception has said they feel 100% that Marian has been absolutely hard done by, and that they would be appalled in the same situation. And this is not meant politically or way of condecension – more shock that the political management of the grants has been so lacking. There is genuine sympathy for the position Marian has been placed in.
As Colin Espiner notes in The Press, two possible resignations in the same week, is a mess for the Government.
June 8th, 2006 at 7:47 am
I for one would be glad to see the back of Hobbs.
But an interesting comment on the events of Hobbs and Field was given by Victoria University professor of political science Nigel Roberts…..He said the Government was extremely unlikely to collapse, even if both Hobbs and Field resigned. “It’s not the end of the Earth for the Labour Party or the Labour-led Government.”
Labour already ran a minority government, and as long as New Zealand First and United Future continued to support it on matters of confidence and supply and the Greens continued to abstain, the Government would not collapse, Roberts said.
I think it’s a case of hoping & praying by a desperate opposition.
June 8th, 2006 at 7:56 am
I think this is the nail in the coffin for all those who believe she voluntarily left cabinet – she feels so under-valued and unlistened to that she feels like leaving.
June 8th, 2006 at 8:15 am
Is she still smoking I wonder? She actually started when she went into Cabinet.
June 8th, 2006 at 8:18 am
I don’t feel sorry for Marion over this Karori thing. It has shown that her motivation for setting up the fund was genuine local pork-barrelling rather than concern for the overall good of the country. I suppose electorate MPs are supposed to do that a little, but if you support a national-level fund and it doesn’t then prioritise your local project on objective measurements… tough. I say it’s a triumph of national interest over pork. An all too rare exception in this age of “political management” (gag).
June 8th, 2006 at 8:18 am
This is the tip of the iceburg of course. As for Nigel Roberts I do not think he can count. Though if they became 2 seats down the Greens would probably still obstain on confidence motions and the Maori Party would do the same – if only to await the new boundaries when a extra seat or two might happen.
June 8th, 2006 at 9:29 am
A hypothetical question. If Hobbs was to resign and make a by election necessary which Blumsky then won and became an elctorate MP would National then be entitled to replace him as a list MP.
June 8th, 2006 at 9:46 am
I don’t feel sorry for Marion over this Karori thing. It has shown that her motivation for setting up the fund was genuine local pork-barrelling rather than concern for the overall good of the country. I suppose electorate MPs are supposed to do that a little, but if you support a national-level fund and it doesn’t then prioritise your local project on objective measurements… tough. I say it’s a triumph of national interest over pork.
Heh. You might want to ask Mr Blumsky about that too – did you hear him venting righteous outrage (and having his balloon nicely pricked by Joe Bennett) last week on Jim Mora’s show?
As I noted in the blog this morning, there’s a particularly Wellingtonian sense of entitlement about all this …
Cheers,
RB
June 8th, 2006 at 9:55 am
PDM – No.
Under MMP the Party Vote determines the total number of MP’s a party is entitled to. The exception to this is in the case of ‘overhang’ where the number of electorate seats secured exceeds the number of seats your party vote entitled you to (e.g. The Maori Party).
In the case of Wellington Central, if there was a by-election and Mark won, National’s total entitlement of seats would not increase. Mark would simply switch from being a ‘list’ member to being an ‘electorate’ member.
Labour would be entitlted to replace Marion with a list MP to make up their numbers.
June 8th, 2006 at 10:12 am
Of course if the Maori Party ran a candidate and somehow won then that *would* lead to repercussions in the numbers…
June 8th, 2006 at 10:13 am
PDM – Yes
(Sorry Battler
The Electoral Act does not consider the proportionality of the house as a whole. It specifies (s 191) that shortly after the election the Chief Electoral Officer determines how many “Other” (i.e. list) seats each party is entitled to.
Those seats are then allocated according to the party lists. When one of those seats becomes vacant it is allocated to the next available person on that party’s list.
Proportionality is determined once (in the s 191 provision) and then is never rechecked or maintained.
So if Field leaves Labour no recalibration of the list allocation occurs. If Blumsky wins Wgtn Central in a by election no recalibration occurs.
So if Blumsky gives his list seat for any reason (including becoming an electorate MP) it will be allocated to the next National list candidate no matter what that will do to proportionality.
Somewhere in the comments on this blog there is a long explanation/discussion of this wrt what would have happened if Peters had won his case against Clarkson. Peters would have taken the electorate seat, his list seat would have become vacant and then would have been reassigned to the next NZF candidate – breaking proportionality by transferring a seat from National->NZF.
June 8th, 2006 at 10:34 am
RB – Yeah, I did notice Blumsky’s behaviour… and that DPF called the Hobbs-Blumsky actions an example of good inter-party cooperation. I also saw it as a lame joint bid for some more pork for Wellington.
June 8th, 2006 at 10:35 am
Hi Anita
So what you’re saying, is that if Marion Hobbs resigned from Parliament all-together, a by-election is held and Labour’s candidate loses to National’s Mark Blumsky, then Labour effectively loses a seat in the house and National gains a seat in the house, even though this is not what their Party Votes entitlted them to at the General Election?
Interesting things could happen if Labour has any more disaffected electorate members in the closet….
June 8th, 2006 at 10:38 am
Battler/PDM – I’m with Anita one this one.
If a by-election were held, and won by Blumsky, and, before being sworn in as an electorate MP (but after the vote-counting was all finished) he resigned as a list member, he would be replaced as a list member, and come in as an electorate MP.
June 8th, 2006 at 10:41 am
Battler is wrong and Anita is right.
June 8th, 2006 at 11:47 am
RB:
Ah, yes, that “particularly Wellingtonian sense of entitlement” as opposed to the Auckland variety – which is stunned bemusement when you remind Jaffas that roughly 3/4 of New Zealand’s population aren’t overly sympathetic when JAFFAs bitch and whine about how they don’t get fair dibs on the pork barrel.
Tip O’Neill famously observed that all politics is local. He forgot to mention how much of local politics consists of high-pitched bleating.
And as I’ve said elsewhere, it’s more than a little naive of both Blumsky and Hobbs to mistake a photo op for an iron-clad funding committment. Move on people, because Helen certainly has.
June 8th, 2006 at 11:56 am
battler – yes, that’s what happens.
You may recall that that is exactly what happened when the Labour member for Te Tai Hauauru resigned in 2004. A by-election was held which was not won by Labour, and Labour dropped from 52 seats in Parliament to 51.
June 8th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
One would assume then that if Hobbs was Minister for Wellington then she would have the same degree of influence as the Minister for Auckland and no doubt would be equally influential and industrious.
June 8th, 2006 at 9:48 pm
Craig, if you define Auckland as “greater Auckland”, then probably nearer to 40% agree that Wellington gets rather more than a fair suck on the sav when it comes to funding. I for one, shed crocodile tears for Marian (and Mark), Auckland wouldn’t mind proportionality when it came to sucking on the government teat.