Geddis on Internet Party selections

March 31st, 2014 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

Andrew Geddis blogs on the issue of whether the ’s selection rules comply with the obligation in the for them to be democratic. He first points out that regardless of the rules, they can get registered:

There are two separate points here. The first is whether the Internet Party’s rules governing candidate selection are consistent with the Electoral Act’s requirement that parties use “democratic processes” when choosing who will stand under their banner. The second is whether that first question is at all relevant to the Party gettting registered. I’ll answer them in reverse order. …

One is that this obligation applies to registered parties. In other words, for it to kick in, the party already must be registered with the Commission. (In fact, a party doesn’t have to have any rules at allbefore being registered, as it is only required to provide the Commission with a copy of the party’s rules a month afterregistration.) And when it comes to the Commission carrying out the party registration process, it has no legal authority to look at a prospective party’s candidate selection rules (assuming these exist). 

So the Internet Party can definitely get registered. So how can they be held to account in terms of if their rules are democratic enough:

The only real teeth and claws to this provision is that it gives a disgruntled prospective candidate (or ordinary party member) a ground on which to challenge candidate selection rules (and the way they are applied) in court. But, of course, that relies on there being some individual upset enough to get litigious against the party she or he purportedly supports and wants to represent.

So a member of the Internet Party could challenge the rules in court. Would they have any grounds for doing so?

There are a couple of initial points stacked against any such claim. The actual demands of the Electoral Act are pretty minimal: so long as there is “provision … made for participation in the selection of candidates …  by … delegates who have (whether directly or indirectly) in turn been elected or otherwise selected by current financial members of the party” then s.71 is met. Additionally, the Internet Party has as its legal advisor one Graeme Edgeler, and I’d be very, very loathe to think that he’d allow the Party to run under a set of rules that aren’t consistent with the law.

Having said that, however, I think he might just have done so (or, at least, will do so if and when the Internet Party is registered with the Commission under its current set of rules).

That is significant. Geddis is saying that he thinks there is an arguable case the rules are not consistent with the law.

The Executive Committee (at its sole discretion) gets to both select who will be on the list and where they are placed on it. The membership gets to rank the Executive Committee’s initial choices, but with the Executive Committee then only required to “have regard” to the outcome of this process when making its final decision.

What, then, is this “Executive Committee”? Well, the relevant point to note for this election is that it consists only of the people who are setting up the Internet Party without any membership input at all.

Also the Executive Committee can not be changed by the membership, as only nominations made by a current member of the Executive Committee are valid. The party founders basically can stay there as long as they want, by refusing to nominate anyone else for their Executive Committee.

So, when it comes time to choose the candidates for 2014, the Internet Party’s Executive Committee will be made up of the self-appointed “founders” of the Party … irrespective of the party membership’s views on their suitability or otherwise. Which means that any initial screening of prospective candidates for the Party’s 2014 list (consistent with rule 12.1), as well as the final decision on the list’s makeup and rank order, will be taken by individuals who have not been (either directly or indirectly) “elected or otherwise selected by current financial members of the party”.

Not very democratic is it.

All of which means that I rather think that DPF might be right when he questions whether the Internet Party’s rules will meet the requirement of s.71 of the Electoral Act (once it is registered with the Electoral Commission) – at least, with respect to how those rules apply for the 2014 election.

It will be very interesting to see who gets appointed to the all powerful Executive Committee.

 

Tags: , ,

16 Responses to “Geddis on Internet Party selections”

  1. dave53 (85 comments) says:

    National seems quite worried by Kim DotCom’s fantasy party. All these attack dog posts!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Viking2 (11,261 comments) says:

    Sounds a lot like NZ First.
    Winston has the same safe haven.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Rex Widerstrom (5,327 comments) says:

    Not just a lot like, V2, exactly like.

    For “Executive Committee” in the above, substitute “Winston Peters, Michael Laws & Sarah Neems” and you get exactly what happened in 1996, as later admitted by Laws in his book (though Winston and Doug Woolerton denied it when David Stevenson and I took the party to court).

    And I’ll wager a variant has happened at every election since.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. CHFR (219 comments) says:

    dave, I guess you know the meme of the dog whistle, it is only the dog that hears it and you are first to post so what does that say about you??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. redqueen (519 comments) says:

    The Internet Party is all just a video game that KDC thinks he’s currently playing…

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Daigotsu (451 comments) says:

    A self-appointed executive able to ignore the views of its membership?

    Sounds a lot like the Taxpayer’s Union.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. iMP (2,333 comments) says:

    We should look also at Peter Dunne’s Untied Party. They don’t have any members, so how can “members participate in the selection process…” s. 71.

    As well as Herman Goring, Winston Peters is totally open to legals over this process. But of course he’ll fight any claim tooth and claw, gives him publicity, and helps him get in. So, we allow an anti-democratic culture at variance with our law to carry on in broad daylight before us.

    Oh silly me, this is MMP.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Pete George (23,309 comments) says:

    iMP: We should look also at Peter Dunne’s Untied Party. They don’t have any members,

    That’s patently false. They’re the only party in Parliament that has had their membership verified by the electoral Commission.

    It’s more pertinent to ask what real power members of parties like the Internet Party and the Conservative Party have when they owe their existence and their finances to a single rich person promoting their agenda.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. toad (3,672 comments) says:

    Also the Executive Committee can not be changed by the membership, as only nominations made by a current member of the Executive Committee are valid. The party founders basically can stay there as long as they want, by refusing to nominate anyone else for their Executive Committee.

    The Internet Party’s rules look very similar in that regard to those of the Taxpayer’s Union.

    [Edit: Oops, I see Daigotsu beat me to it on that point.]

    [DPF: yep but we're a union, not a political party standing candidates who have to be democratically selected according to the Electoral Act]

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. OneTrack (2,807 comments) says:

    When did the taxpayers union become a political party?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. KiwiGreg (3,212 comments) says:

    @onetrack when toad and Daigotsu needed straw man “arguments”.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. thedavincimode (6,589 comments) says:

    dave53

    Hardly likely. I think the people who are concerned are those who’ve been slinking up to Dotcon HQ to chew German sausage. Your lot for example – the whinging commie immigrant and the IT slapper.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. thePeoplesFlag (220 comments) says:

    12:00pm, post number two on Kim Dotcom.

    Post number three around 4.30pm?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. davidp (3,557 comments) says:

    I noticed that the injunction taken out against the Dotcom bodyguard specifically says that he is prevented from talking about the Internet Party. Is that a first in NZ politics… that someone isn’t allowed to warn the public about a party or their official Visionary-for-life, because they’re not legally allowed to? Does the injunction make the Internet Party the most secretive party in NZ history? Because even when Peters was being dragged through the media about his secret funders, he never went to the courts in order to shut down public scrutiny.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Daigotsu (451 comments) says:

    It’s true there is no legal requirement for Taxpayer’s Union to be at all representative. But I think DPF has problems with the lack of democracy in the Internet Party’s charter that go beyond it not meeting the legal requirements.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Manolo (13,516 comments) says:

    What’s the opinion of his talented legal counsel, the incorruptible Graeme Edgeler?
    The legal eagle and KDC’s minion-employee seems to have vanished.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.