When can Maharey resign?
Steve Maharey has said he will not resign, until he can avoid a by-election. What does this mean in practice. We look at S131 of the Electoral Act:
Notwithstanding anything in section 129 of this Act, no writ shall be issued for a by-election to supply a vacancy in the House of Representatives if—
a) The vacancy arises in the period of 6 months ending with the date of the expiration of the Parliament and a resolution that a writ not be issued to supply the vacancy is passed by a majority of 75 percent of all the members of the House of Representatives; or
(b) Following the tabling in the House of Representatives by the Prime Minister of a document informing the House that a general election is to be held within 6 months of the occurrence of the vacancy, a resolution is passed by a majority of 75 percent of all the members of the House of Representatives to the effect that a writ is not to be issued to supply the vacancy.
Now looking at (a) the writs were returned in 2005 on Thursday 6 October 2005. That means Parliament expires on Monday 6 October 2008. Six months prior to that is Sunday 6 April 2008. So Maharey can resign anytime from 6 April onwards and avoid a by-election.
He can resign safely before that date, but that will then require the PM to name the election date, or at least the latest date she will hold the election. For example if he resigned on Thursday 20 March 2008, then Clark could table a document saying the latest date for an election would be Saturday 20 September 2008. This last happened in 1996 when did such a declaration to avoid a by-election in Hawke’s Bay following the resignation of Michael Laws.
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Yup.
pity we won’t see Field convicted early enough for a by-election.
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Sam
If Field hadn’t been protected by a sad corrupt Govt that wanted to keep his vote and pretend that his only crime was helping people we could have had that by-election months ago.
Pity so many people completely unconcerned about integrity and ethics still support this sham of a govt.
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:52 pm
On balance, this government has been a limping mangy old hound that it might have been kinder to euthanise on the day it made Winston Foreign Secretary. (DOn;t recall seeint THAT in the manifesto)
It’s hanging on by it fingernails and using increasingly desperate ploys to create the illusion it is still able to do the business.
Field – politically motivated perversion of justice still going on
DBP – words fail me
Maharey – just marking time…..
Everytime this government tries to stand up, its poor old back legs give way.
So like a grumpy old dog, it starts to bite the hand that feeds it;
retrospective spending
smacking
and experiences embarrassing incontinence:
EFB
Suppression of Terrorism
Someone pleeease take it to the vets – do the kind thing…
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:01 pm
On a related note, Tim Barnett was opining that Labour would lose Maharey’s Vote when he resigned as an MP. why?
Surely as the seat has not been declared vacant due to being 6 months before an election,Labour would be entitled to the same number of (party) votes in the house as before he resigned.??
Time for the constitution bush lawyers to sharpen their pencils…
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:07 pm
anonymouse – Barnett is right.
MPs get to vote. During party votes in the House, parties get to cast MPs’ votes. If Labour only has 48 MPs, they’ll only have 48 votes.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Graeme, dont you think it is a little weird that a party can lose a vote because an electorate MP has left parliament within six month before an election – yet a list MP can be replaced for that vote and keep that vote. Doesnt that means that t system provides list MPs more power than electorate MPs during the six months before an election?
Or can’t list MPs be replaced during the six months either? Whatever, local PN Massey students wont be able to lobby their MP for fee decreases in election year because they wont have an MP.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:48 pm
anonymouse – proprtionality isn’t restored automatically with the resignation of an electorate MP as it is with the resignation of a list MP. The List MP is jsut replaced by the next on the List but the electorate MP is replaced by whomever wins the by-election (if it happens, which in this case it won’t) – that, obivously, may result in a loss of proportionality in Parliament – but imagine the musical charis game if the next on the list came in when the electorate MP resigned only to leave when the by-eleciton was won by an MP from the same party or, if another partiy’s MP won, that party having to lose a list MP.
Burt – the reason Feild probably won’t be convicted in time is that the inquiry took forever, then further information lead to the police investion which also took forever, and the judge’s decision also took forever (and now there will be at least one appeal just on permission to judge) – it is these processes that have taken the time.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:50 pm
If Mahery resigns then that is it, as he is an electorate MP and his vote will be lost. The job does not become vacant until 31 March and I assume therefore Mahery will resign about 30 April to be truely sure there will be no by-election and he can start on 1 May. The Government is in a minority already and having to rely on the Greens, a loss of Mahery vote does not make much of a change to that situation. The big question is whether Dunne will pull the plug.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Isn’t it in the Opposition’s interest to not support the “resolution that a writ not be issued to supply the vacancy is passed by a majority of 75 percent of all the members of the House of Representatives”? That way they could force a by-election.
I don’t know what the majority is in PN. Only that by-elections tend to go against the govt. So, if the opportunity not only for Labour to lose a vote, but also for National to possibly gain an additional vote exists, why would you not take it?
Or is it “not done” to force a by-election 6 months out, because of the cost? (Despite the huge wasting of taxpayers’ money by the govt so far.)
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:22 pm
MajorBloodnok:
Perhaps, but to be crude about it that kind of procedural fucking around can really come back to bite you in the nethers. And, really, what’s the upside in forcing a by-election that close to a general? You could put up a counter-argument that it’s a pretty substantial drain on time, finances and resources that would be better used on putting up a good fight for the vacant seat a few months later.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Of course, DPF misses the vital point: a by-election can only be avoided on a 75% vote in the House. In other words, if National wants a by-election, they can have one.
[DPF: I missed that point because I took it for granted. You don't become popular by forcing a byelection to elect an MP who may end up serving only three months. Likewise Labour acted sensibly in 1996 when they could have forced a by-election]
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:23 pm
LeeC –I agree with your grumpy old dog analogy and I agree with those you have named in Labour that are wasted and waiting to jump or be pushed but I am sorry that I disagree with you about Field.
The TPF scandal has to be understood against a background of huge graft and deceit (pledge card etc). Field probably somewhat unwisely sort to help out (like his island culture has espoused) some disadvantaged members of the immigrant community and the alleged corruption that occurred was and is beat up that Labour would have easily contained if he had towed the Party line but the wheels of Labour Politburo are merciless when you do not support the “fuhrer”He was then not protected enough as pay back and then it back fired on them so he was then completely hung out to dry.
But more to the point Maharey is merely taking total advantage of the system -if he has taken up another job then he should go now in respect of the constituents of his electorate.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:28 pm
In other words, if National wants a by-election, they can have one.
Indeed – but I ask again where’s the strategic or practical upside in doing so – not least because it’s not a good look to have the appearance of kicking a widower out the door with indecent haste. OTOH, Massey staff might actually want their grand-a-day new VC on the job sooner rather than later…
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:02 pm
If someone from a different party wins a by-election – meaning proportionality is lost – does it just stay that way?
I guess the only alternative would be for that party to lose a list mp and the original party to gain one – which would just be silly.
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:08 pm
If it is held on September 20 then I will be happy as that is one day after I turn 18 and am eligible to vote!
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Craig: I don’t think there’s any upside in doing so. But some among the mob DPF is seeking to dogwhistle here clearly do, and I suggest they direct their lobbying at the rlevant target.
Woo-hoo. Part 1 of the sedition bill passed. Just quibbling over part 2.
[DPF: Jesus comments like this piss me off I/S. Have a look at what I posted. How is a single word of that dog whistling? I make a purely factual post pointing out timings. This just confirms that the term dog whistling is a meaningless term used by people without any regard for relevance. I've got a pretty good history of analysing how Electoral Act operates]
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Can’t we just retrospectively change the rules so he can resign any time he likes and Labour can stay in power for as long as they like. It’s not like this sort of corruption of the democratic process would set a precedent for the current Govt.
Sam said before “the reason Feild probably won’t be convicted in time is that the inquiry took forever, then further information lead to the police investigation”
That further evidence, yes I remember… It was when Field said he might stand against Labour. His protectors turned on him very quickly once they discovered he wasn’t on their partisan power at any price team.
October 23rd, 2007 at 6:09 pm
I doubt whether the Nats will force a by-election – after all Shipley obliged Mike Moore when he resigned from Waimakariri to become the D-G of the WTO. There appears to be an unwritten gentleman’s agreement on resignations from electorate seats within striking distance of a General Election.
Cost is often raised as an issue but it is somewhat of a red herring. It was said that the average cost of a by-election was $800,000. I’m sure the last two being a large rural general electorate and a Maori electorate, each with larger than usual numbers of polling booths, was higher. PN is a compact provincial town electorate with its boundaries (any by-election would be fought on the old boundaries) neatly encompassing the urban area so the cost would be likely at or below the average.
It is what could be considered only a fairly safe Labour seat with Maharey enjoying a 5500 vote majority. With National enjoying a 10 – 12 point average polling advantage, this seat would be vulnerable to changing hands if that margin between L and N was maintained in a by-election. As has been pointed out before, by-election results can often be quite skewered with larger than normal swings usually against the incumbant government somewhat as a protest vote to wake up the Government but not actually cause them to lose power. Labour lost Timaru in 1985 after a there was a viceral reaction to the removal of farm subsidies and National suffered a huge swing against it in Taranaki-King Country when Bolger retired in 1998 with Arden barely scraping in with under 1000 votes.
October 23rd, 2007 at 7:30 pm
National better force the by-election and possibly get an extra vote. Why should the good people of Palmerston be without representation. Bring this on.
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:00 pm
No point in a by-election. None of the parties need the distraction from the main game, which will be the full election. On the Labour side, just an opportunity to get embarrassed, winning the seat achieves nothing. On the National side, just an opportunity to get embarrassed, winning the seat potentially achieves embarrassing Labour, but it will then just get written off as the normal swing against the govt, and runs the risk of giving a wake-up call to Labour voters about how at risk they are. Nothing to gain for either party really.
No idea how any by-election would play with the new EFB – I don’t think it anticipates by-elections within the period covered. The old rules pretty much guaranteed that by-elections didn’t overlap with full election periods.
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:18 pm
People seem to be missing the point. Under the legislation a by-election has to be held unless 75% of Parliament resolve otherwise. So it is not up to evil Helen or part of a conspiracy to prevent democracy. If Maharey goes then there can be a by election. Unless Key decides otherwise …
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:20 pm
I think Labour could suffer in a by-election, as these are often taken as opportunities to express disapproval with the incumbent government. But as long as they stay in the rules, I see no reason to demand one.
Maharey is a decent bloke who has done a pretty good job as a minister in recent years, despite difficult personal circumstances. He could have been more effective in implementing change and clamping down on waste in some areas, but he was still a good minister and he deserves to be cut some slack. More to the point, he hasn’t been one of those engaging in undesirable parliamentary or political behaviour.
So bon chance Steve. No stain on your eschuteon. And I’m sure Massey won’t regret the appointment.
October 23rd, 2007 at 11:04 pm
Smarmy wont resign. Socialists do not remove their gaping maw from an open faucet of free taxpayer money until they have to. That suckhole will keep taking the cash until the last possible minute. Case in point; Shane nine chins jones, this double dipper has just announced he is giving up his fisheries job (the same one he promised to quit when appointed to parliament 2 years ago), now why would he voluntarily give up all that gravy. Perhaps because the beast has promised him a never ending buffet at the top table in her reshuffle. Bet the last dollar from the fisheries job dovetails nicely with the first dollar of ministerial pay.
October 23rd, 2007 at 11:58 pm
micky, National won’t force a byelection. I’d bet money on that.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:30 am
I’m with PaulL on this much as it would be rather nice to watch Labour lose a relatively safe seat.