Selwyn Electoral Petition hearing starts today
April 6th, 2009 at 1:48 pm by David FarrarMost people will be unaware there is an electoral petition being heard today. It is next door to the Bain trial at the Christchurch High Court and being heard by Justices Randerson, Allan and French.
Normally an electoral petition has a huge amount of media coverage. This has had none to date (but will be some today), because to be blunt there is no chance of sucess. It has been brought by serial litigant Roger Payne.
He was vetoed by the National Party Board as a candidate. There were excellent reasons for this. He broke his solemn sworn word in 2002 when he went for the Rakaia nomination, and having failed to win, stood for Christian Heritage – despite signing a pledge he would not stand for any other party in that election.
Readers can read previous material about Mr Payne here.
If the petition is sucessful, then Amy Adams would lose her seat and there would be a by-election. As I said at the beginning, I do not believe there is any chance of this occuring. Payne is a serial litigant and a very costly nuisance.
The lesson for National is they should never ever have let him rejoin the party after he was automatically expelled in 2002 when he stood for Christian Heritage. I helped get him refused from joining Wellington Central (knowing his history) but he eventually conned some sucker in the South Island into taking his $5. That $5 has probably cost the Party 1000 times that.
Related posts:
- Humour from the Selwyn Electoral Petition
- Selwyn Electoral Petition outcome at 2 pm
- The Selwyn Electoral Petition
- Payne ordered to pay costs to National
April 6th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
he is a pain in the ass with a ridiculous sense of entitlement. I for one hope National enforces costs orders against the dork. And that someone asks him how he thinks suing the perty he wants to represent is going to help him.
Vote:April 6th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Mr Payne really does have no grounds for success.
To succeed in an electoral petition Mr Payne would need to demonstrate that Amy Adams was involved in a corrupt practice during the election process (that is, she was involved in bribery, personation, or treating). An electoral petition has nothing to do with whether she was duly entitled to stand as a National Party selection (which was previously ruled on by the Court). Even if Payne managed to get the High Court to look again at whether the National Party selection process was fair (and he can’t), that isn’t material to whether a corrupt practice occurred.
Vote:April 6th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
How come he has three judges hearing his application.
Is it an appeal against an earlier ruling ?
if not I though the judges were all overworked?
But at least Payne has revealed that the national Party is not really about local selection of candidates, but the invisible hand of head office , who like a medieval pope ( or a British PM) provides 3 names to choose from.
Wasn’t John Keys ‘selection’ as a candidate delayed so a ring in could arrive in time from the inner city to the suburban/ rural seat
[DPF: It is not an appeal. He did however lose all his previous cases trying to cancel the selection process. And you are wrong re Head Office reducing to only three names. Head Office probably only vetoes one candidate in 200 or so. I actually wish they would veto more totally unsuitable people, but they use the power sparingly. Using it against a man who has broken his sworn word is indisputably a good thing to do]
Vote:April 6th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Jacob, the electoral act requires a high court bench of three judges to hear electoral petitions.
Amy Adams was selected by 60 local delegates in Selwyn, who were in turn elected as delegates by National Party members. No doubt you know this, which means you’re just blatantly lying about how National Party candidates are selected.
Vote:April 6th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Since you erect a straw man, then the local delegates choose from 3 approved by head office mus be correct.
And local delegates can have outsiders appointed by head office too. Non !
[DPF: Head Office appoints no delegates to the selection meeting. And they do not restrict the selection to three. Their job is to approve all nominations except those of persons deemed totally unsuitable. By my count they only strike around 1 in 200 candidates out]
Vote:April 6th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
“Dammit – why don’t they like me? I’ll show them…”
Or perhaps he could his own party and run for election? He is Cabinet Material after all.
But – dare I say it – after a year or two of reading the Kiwiblog comments threads, it does not surprise me one iota that the Right has men of this calibre on its periphery!
Vote:April 6th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Jacob, I know you’re not stupid, so you should know that every registered political party in New Zealand has a head office approval function for nominees. The National Party has greater participation of, and actual selection by, local delegates than any other party represented in Parliament.
Vote:April 6th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
“Payne is a serial litigant and a very costly nuisance.”
Two sides to the story David!
Vote:April 6th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
So presumably any Selwyn (or even NZ) elector has standing to take such action. If the petition is without practical foundation IMO the judges should be able to order him to be pilloried in Cathedral Square (ear nailing not acceptable in the 21st century). Roger would have been able to take this action even if National had refused a membership for him. On a more practical level the judges may be able to sting him hard in the pocket for wasting everyones’ time.
Which ever way one looks at it, National’s head office has far less influence in the selection of candidates than Labour’s.
Vote:April 6th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
“On a more practical level the judges may be able to sting him hard in the pocket for wasting everyones’ time.”
The judges can’t take anymore than they already have. Two sides to the story.
Vote:April 6th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
So presumably any Selwyn (or even NZ) elector has standing to take such action. If the petition is without practical foundation IMO the judges should be able to order him to be pilloried in Cathedral Square (ear nailing not acceptable in the 21st century). Roger would have been able to take this action even if National had refused a membership for him. Hope the judges are able to hit him in the pocket hard.
[DPF: There is a real issue over whether he has standing or not. That may form part of the judgement]
Vote:April 7th, 2009 at 9:20 am
The Christchurch Press covers the case today (Tuesday, 7th April), beginning this way:
“Failed nominee Roger Payne’s effort to clean up the political candidate selection process has gone before the High Court at Christchurch.”
Though both Selwyn and Payne’s town of Orari fall solidly within the Press distribution area, the newspaper uses an NZPA report to cover the hearing.
Vote:April 7th, 2009 at 9:34 am
..{DPF]: “Head Office appoints no delegates to the selection meeting.”
From NZ Herald story on how Key engineered his selection at Helensville
“Under party rules, 60 delegates were to be chosen to select the candidate. If an electorate had 900 members on its books eligible to be delegates, the 60 delegates would all be chosen from the electorate’s ranks. If it had less than 900, it was only entitled to a proportion of the delegates.
So Head office does select delegates, but its the regional head office, nothat anybody wants to mislead!!
but theres more..
Mate Milich, who had recently sold his business and had a long association with the party, came in to help out Neeson. He remains deeply unimpressed with some of the tactics used by party hierarchy to try to engineer the process. Party rules were breached through the selection process, he says, and he often fought to make sure the book was followed.
So corruption is alleged..
Was that the same sort of corruption that ended up with the original candidate for Selwyn ( and sitting MP) steeping aside AFTER his selection. But more like a desperate housewives ring to the ‘Carter affair’ which is now having its sequel in the High court
[DPF:There is no regional head office. The Regional Chair (elected annualy by the grass roots) can appoint delegates if an electorate does not have enough members. This prevents takeovers in very weak electorates. And the fact Key won and has gone on to become PM in record time shows how well the rules worked to make a quality selection.]
Vote:April 7th, 2009 at 10:05 am
JVH … I am probably better placed than you to comment on the 2002 Helensville election because at the time I was the deputy regional Chair with a responsibility for that seat. Any selection involving a challenge to a sitting MP is going to arouse passions and so it should. There will be those who remain fiercely loyal to the incumbent. There will be thjose backing the challenger. Both know there are no prises for coming second.
I guess if I wanted to I could have been a delegate but I choose to remain independent from the process as I was going to have to work with whoever was selected. But I certainly took an interest in the process and IMHO it was run professionally by the Chairman who, I think was a Neeson supporter.
As for engineering a result. Pretty difficult to do with 60 delegates. There will be some with a foot in a particular camp but
many jealously guard their independence and make their minds up on the night after seeing the candidates in action.
I suspect it is far far easier to engineer a result with your mob with the panel limited to just seven and comprising 42% Head Office appointees. 60 vs 7 = no contest in the democracy stakes.
Vote:April 7th, 2009 at 10:28 am
We wont even go into why Key himself was enrolled in the Helensville electorate, in spite of never having lived there for the required one month and joined the Tamaki or was it Remuera branch
Perhaps some delegates thought they were getting a ‘local ‘ member instead of what happened, which was Parnell got another MP. – 3 at last count
Vote:April 7th, 2009 at 10:42 am
+++ THREAD-JACK ALERT +++
jacob van hartog is lurking
Vote:April 7th, 2009 at 11:06 am
Whats the bet that Eugene Bingham , who has disappeared from the Herald columns in December , is now working for Key.
And I bet he is not writing 2 bit press releases for his munificent public service salary, rather doing long background checks on leading Labour party ( or Greens) identities as would be expected for a top notch investigative reporter
[DPF: Off topic 10 demerits]
Vote:April 7th, 2009 at 11:11 am
…and this is relevant to the subject of Roger Payne how exactly?
Vote:April 7th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Just pointing out that Selwyn selection was universal suffrage, so there were 600-odd members able to select candidate. Not the usual 60-ish delegates.
Vote: