Roger Payne
Colin Espiner reported in The Press that a Roger Payne tried to get an injunction to stop National’s Selwyn selection, but failed.
Now a friendly lawyer has kindly sent me a copy of the court judgement. I don’t think I have ever seen a case tossed out so thoroughly and succinctly. Some quotes from Justice Panckhurst:
Mr Payne was nominated for selection as the National Party candidate for
Selwyn. Nominees must gain support at electorate level, after which the nomination is forwarded through the divisional office and onto the national office. Recently Mr Payne was advised that his nomination had not been approved by the National Executive. Reasons were not given for that decision. …
Upon considering the papers it was immediately apparent to me that the legal basis of Mr Payne’s challenge was unspoken. In particular he did not refer to the rules of the National Party and did not, therefore, identify the requirements upon the Executive in relation to the approval, or not, of nominations. …
In short, I am satisfied that there is no serious question to be tried, absent a basis in the rules to suggest that the decision of the National Executive was unlawful. …
However, for these reasons, I do not find that there is a basis for injunctive
relief.
A copy of the Injunction Ruling in pdf form is here.
Now I have no first (or second) hand knowledge of why the Board vetoed Mr Payne, but I do know some of his background.
He contested the National selection for Rakaia in 2002 against four other candidates, with Brian Connell winning the seat. I can’t recall at which ballot Payne was defeated but almost certain it was not the final one.
Now anyone who puts themselves forward for selection as a National Party candidate signs (I think as a sworn declaration) that if they do not win the nomination they will support the candidate who does win, and more importantly that they swear they will not stand against the National candidate for another party or as an independent, or even support another candidate.
As the election results for 2002 show, My Payne then broke his solemn sworn statement and stood for Christian Heritage in Rakaia. There is no bigger “sin”within a party than losing an internal selection, and then going off to stand for another party.
I don’t know on what grounds the Board refused Mr Payne’s nomination. but I do know that having once broken your written word in a previous selection, and having stood against the National candidate, I would never ever trust that person to be allowed to seek a candidacy again. In fact I would decline them even being able to rejoin the party.
Note I am not talking about the situation where people swap between parties without having sought and lost a nomination. I am referring explicitly to the situation where people break their sworn word about not standing in the election they sought the nomination for, if they lose the selection.
So Mr Payne should not be surprised he was not deemed suitable to be a candidate. If you crap on a party and break your word to it, why on earth would you think they would even consider you being a candidate. Note I am offering my personal view on the situation here – again I do not know why the Party’s Board made their decision.
March 26th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Selwyn electorate is about Farmer,and Water, and the South Island as a National Strategic Asset, NAT Key catching up fast apparently,
March 26th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
It is called blackballing.
THE FACELESS executive refuses to accept a nomination so he gets nowhere.
Surely as a recepiant of Government money they are bound by the rules of natural justice- which this is clearly not
If they dont want him, the votes during the selection will show that.
How many of Nationals current candidates were previously MPs from another party.
Its beginning to look like a lost dogs home
March 26th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
DPF – my recollection (and I am not claiming to be correct) is that Payne did not make it past pre-selection to the final five for Rakaia. Angus, Kate, John Skinner, Brian and an out of towner who’s name escapes me.
March 26th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
This thread has the potential to cause huge damage to the National Party.
Edit : I do wonder if the thumbs down are from members of the red or blue teams.
March 26th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
That is a bit of a spanking. Dealt with on a telephone conference (by necessity to be fair). A bit weak to suggest that he couldn’t find an up to date copy of the rules. They are about. I have seen them!
March 26th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
I suggest this post is taken down immediately.Have you checked that Mr Payne has received the Court document?
March 26th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
If I offer to employ a standing members husband/wife will I get a place on the party list (or a random health board appointment) ? Or is just how Labour do things?
March 26th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
So Ghostwhowalks, an anonymous smearer, repeatedly demerited for nasty behaviour, is complaining about the decisions of a so called “faceless executive?”
What hypocrisy.
And he even shows ignorance by suggesting the National Party receives “government money”, presumably meaning taxpayer funds for its MPs and support staff in Parliament, which is the norm for all parties with Parliamentary representation. The head office, faceless (but not brainless) executive plus others are in all likelihood to be funded by members and private donors.
However, Ghostie’s rant does raise an interesting question. If the use of taxpayer money by political parties (outside of their MPs and support staff) entitles the public to have a say over a party’s candidate selection process, then we are ALL entitled to have a say over the selection processes for NZ First and United, who have failed to pay back the money they owe the taxpayer as a result of their illegal spending.
As for lost dogs, shouldn’t Ghostie be heading back to the Standard, where he would feel much more comfortable posting on a Labour Party funded server instead of DPF’s privately funded blog?
I doubt this will cause any damage to National – if anything, the exposure of some chucklef*ck who throws his toys out of the cot because he wasn’t anointed after disloyal behaviour is only proof that the National Party has some common-sense. Lord only knows they owe it to local Selwyn members after choosing Brian Connell as their local MP for Rakaia.
March 26th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Brian got Burton a job !!
That lawyer mate of yours David – did he check to see if Mr Payne has received a copy of the judgment yet?
March 26th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
D4J: That is up to the court, not my issue. If a judgement is issued it is public domain.
March 26th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
After viewing the decision, it is astonishing that Roger Payne was not able to source an up to date copy of the rules. Was he incapable of asking the National head office or his local electorate chairman for a copy?
D4J – I think you panic a little too much. The judgment was almost a week ago, though if Payne was incapable of asking for the rules of the National Party, it’s possible he might have thought that the judgment he received was junk mail from Readers Digest and to be burned upon receipt without opening the envelope.
March 26th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
I reiterate my point once again. Has Mr Payne had a copy of the judges minute? If not then surely it appearing here on the internet is hardly fair. Argue that in the High Court and see how ya go mate.
March 26th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
DFJ it was an oral judgment so he would have heard it on the day.
Ghostie – the suggestion was not that they are not bound by the rules of Natural Justice but that they had not breached their own rules (which they are allowed to set).
March 26th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
The pre-selection process is essential. It weeds out the unsuitable BEFORE a public process needs to take place. It is an opportunity in private for people to come clean (if they want to) about skeletons. And if they do not want to fess up then that is respected but they consequentially de-select themselves but in private and confidentially. Background checks can therefore be quite extensive. I believe they could be even more extensive. For instance people should submit a copy of their conviction history, credit history and all court judgments and legal proceedings taken out against them. In this case it is clear, if you stand against the National Party candidate then you deselect yourself for the future. There are plenty of good and worthy people around itching for a chance and deserve the opportunity, why bother with an idiot like this one.
March 26th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
“DFJ it was an oral judgment so he would have heard it on the day.”
Excuse me the judge said he would send it in written form and a copy of Justice Fishers ruling in the Peters case.
March 26th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
D4J – I think it’s been a reasonably straightforward process – there was a concern at the lack of transparency when Carter looked like becoming the nominee, so the party leadership re-opened the process. Now Carter is no longer there, but has been replaced by five worthy candidates. Hardly a vast conspiracy. Payne put his name forward but, for what seem to be obvious reasons, was turned down. He’s now made a fool of himself by seeking redress through the courts and being knocked back, hard.
March 26th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Indeed D4J, the Judgment will have been sent to him as well. An oral judgment is given, as the name suggests, orally to the parties. It is recorded and then transcribed and sent to the relevant parties.
March 26th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
GPT1 – please don’t lecture on law procedures, as I am well versed in it.
Julian – Mr Payne hardly made a fool of himself, because his referees are people of the utmost integrity.
March 26th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Off topic… { cough } but could anyone tell me who was in cabinet in 1999 after the election, from Labour and Alliance… Can’t seem to find a list anywhere.
March 26th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
to Dad4justice
1. ‘red’ or ‘blue’ team – it does not matter which side the veto came from even if that were an issue. The facts are clear, he broke an undertaking in 2005 not to stand for another party if his Rakaia nomination were unsuccessful. He stood for Christian Heritage whereas his duty was clear – to help National to victory in any way possible by either working with the successful nominee or the candidate in his ‘home’ electorate. Which ever way one looks at it, the Party was justified in vetoing his nomination – no one can argue there was bias, improper process etc.
2. It was an open hearing. Unless the court placed a partial or complete embago on the judgment, no one who comes into possession of the judgment when issued by the court has any obligation to check that the parties have received it before ‘passing it on’.
3. Referees – yeah, yeah, yeah – of course he would handpick referees who would display him in the best possible light. He made a fool of himself for having anothrattempt after having welshed on the party before – moreover he was the one who ‘went public’ by taking court ction.
March 26th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
I cannot answer Mr Wood, but may I comment how interesting it that nobody has yet made a pun on the idea of being a pain/causing a pain?
Standards are slipping people!
March 26th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Mr Payne requested a copy of the rule book ages ago and was not given one.By the way he has not seen the written judgment and he is rather hacked off that it appears on here before he gets it via snail mail.
March 26th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
But the summary dismissal of his claim is somewhat unusual. There has been some scholarly analysis suggesting that the advent of MMP means that the role of political parties is no longer entirely private and that selection decision may therefore be revieweable as de facto public power or consequences. If it is, the mere fact the Rules suggest it is entirely “discretionary” may not be determinative – public law obligations such as natural justice may apply.
March 26th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Storm in a teacup. Of course he didn’t get selected, and of course he has no redress. The fact he couldn’t work that out for himself is just more evidence that he wasn’t suitable. Sorry D4J, sounds like he is a friend of yours, but you might advise him to start by getting a clue.
March 26th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
D4J
Since you are “well versed” on law proceedure you will realise that as soon as the Judge has finished speaking then his words are in the public domain.
If Payne hadnt seen them yet then hes a bigger fool than portrayed here.
Good on National for sorting out the crap (as best they can) At least there is some semblence on democracy whereas Labour is just do as Helen says. Its very clear that to either get nominated for a seat or get a job in , say the Hawke Bay DHB that all you have to do is be her minion for a couple of years at the beehive.
Shit, I thought the French were the masters of nepotism but Labour is far worse.
March 26th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
I highly recommend clicking on the PDF link DPF provided and reading the judgement. It is only three pages, and free of ‘legalese’. The bit where the judge notes that the process appears to comply with the party rules, and Mr Payne admits to not having a copy of the rules is especially telling. Anyone who goes to court with only a vague idea of their complaint doesn’t deserve to be an MP, in any party. Even of Brian Connell’s electorate.
March 26th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
There is nothing stopping the publication of the Judgment that I can see d4j. Justice has to be seen to be done and all of that.
With respect d4j I am not sure how probative you (no doubt sincerely) repeating an allegation that Payne asked for a rule book “ages ago” is. Frankly I am skeptical of that claim. They tend to be thrown around like confetti and prospective candidates are encouraged to read them.
The upshot is that Payne was a sore loser in 2002 and remains so. National has done the right thing nobbling him early and in accordance with their rules. The Court has done the right thing giving him the bum’s rush (and he was lucky to avoid costs) and other than a vague bit of interest for the media as he continues to whinge we can all move on and hopefully get rid of this government. Mr Payne might not think so but there are more important things to this country than his disappointment and over inflated ego.
Ah yes Grant – very drool. Must admit the pun had crossed my mind but I decided not to share it!
March 26th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Haha. This has only started. Can Hanna find a rule book and pass it on now? Yeah right.
Edit : The law is such fun.
March 26th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
tim barclay suggests:
Convictions of course are relevant but why on earth shuld it matter if at some point in their life a prospective candidate was down on their luck and had a couple of civil judgements against them? Or was sued by a neighbour over a fencing dispute? Or even if they went bankrupt (other than through criminality, which is caught by the requirement to disclose convictions).
Frankly I’d like to see a few more MPs who knew what it was like to struggle, fall over, pick yourself up and start again in the real world instead of tarde unionists and teachers (with sinecures for life) on the one hand and lawyers and bond traders on the other.
March 26th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Over 30 thumbs down. Haha. Truth hurt.
March 26th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
I couldn’t link to the judgment. Was Payne represented by counsel because from the comments it seems like he was on a hiding to nothing. so either he went against legal advice or represented himself.
March 26th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
“hiding to nothing” or democratic due process?
March 26th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Rex – fair point but I think it is a case of full disclosure rather than saying that if you have a civil judgment (or even a conviction) against you that you are not suitable. What a Party wants to avoid is selecting a candidate and then finding out that a Court has slapped them around for being obreptitious.
Thas – click on the link – it’s a bit messy but there is another link through to the PDF there. Yes, Payne was self-represented.
March 26th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Court judgments should be submitted so the pre-selection panel can get a full picture of some-one. In most cases civil judgments mean nothing against the person. It becomes a balanced decision. But if a person as a whole lot of bad debt judgments and other civil liabilities them the pre-selection panel should KNOW about them so they can get the FULL picture. All this is done in private and if a person feels to uncomfortable then they can withdraw. But if you have something that would make front page news once elected then it is better to sort it at pre-selection. Everyone has shit in their lives it is a matter whether it is manageable or not.
March 26th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
GPT1 – Thanks. Got it.
D4J – My point is whether he had a legitimate complaint – he may rail aganist the National Party (emphasis – national) and it’s inner workings, or he can run as an independent. If he has enough support inside the electorate then he can surely push the point. This is an electorate position in a nation-wide party, and while he may be aggrieved, the “democratic due process” can be dealt with by running on his own merits if National don’t want him. Grass-roots politics isn’t fair, just like life. You probably remember with fondness (like me) the days before MMP when representatives were beholden to the people who put them to the forefornt.
March 26th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
OK D4J, so he’s a mate of yours. Don’t go lending him any firearms. Reading the judgment, I’d draw the line at lending him the hedge trimmers.
March 26th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
“He who laughs last, laughs the loudest.”
March 26th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
He who laughs last is just laughing because everyone else is.
March 26th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
He who laughs last has only just got the punchline.
March 27th, 2008 at 8:49 am
I should note that a few scholars, including myself, think that the Peters v Collinge principle is now dubious in the light of the role parties now play after MMP.
Political parties now are undertaking a public function or a function which public consequences which means some of their decisions are reviewable in accordance with the principles of good administration required under administrative law, regardless of whether their rules purport to make a decision entirely discretionary.
It’s disappointing the claim was summarily dismissed in this way.
March 27th, 2008 at 8:52 am
If you only knew the truth about Roger Payne you might understand why I am so worked up about this.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:10 am
As the great George W. Bush said in 2002: “There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.”
March 27th, 2008 at 9:34 am
So d4J, what is this amazing piece of information that would propel Mr Payne to the candidacy for Selwyn?
March 27th, 2008 at 9:39 am
I cannot discuss the matter any further for the time being.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:03 am
D4J, cannot discuss the matter? Why not? Is somebody censoring you?
March 27th, 2008 at 10:34 am
In terms of knowing the truth I know that Roger Payne has been more of a hindrance than a help to National for a number of years, stood against National in a seat he ran for selection in (whilst running a media campaign against National) and has now sued National for daring to turn him down.
That seems to be enough to decide that National is better off without him.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Wrong GTP1, very, very wrong !!
March 27th, 2008 at 10:59 am
All of what I said is in the public domain. Why am I wrong?
March 27th, 2008 at 11:27 am
So if GPT1 is wrong, D4J, can you provide us with the truth? And if you can’t, can you at least tell us who/what is silencing you, so we know where to direct our anger at your censorship?