Green Party Co-leader, Russel Norman, will soon take a seat in Parliament. "Retiring" Green Party list MP, Nandor Tanczos, will be vacating his seat before the election to allow his party's co-leader, who was 10th on the party list at the last election, to enter the House. Catherine Delahunty and Mike Ward, who were 8th and 9th respectively, have indicated they are not available to fill the vacancy, leaving the way open for Mr. Norman.
When Nandor Tanczos offered several weeks ago to stand aside to allow Mr. Norman to enter Parliament, Mike Ward had initially refused to step aside. This caused Mr. Tanczos to withdraw his offer and say he would stay until the election.
Many Greens were not happy with Mr. Ward's stance, seeing him as putting himself above the interest of the wider party and its supporters. Mr. Ward reconsidered his stance and will now indicate he is not available to fill any vacancy.
Greens appear to be very happy with this outcome.
Russel Norman was highly ranked last time and Green voters voted for the entire list.
Since then, Green Party members (any member financial for at least 6 months is eligible to vote) democratically elected Russell Norman as party co-leader.
Since THEN all Green Party members have voted AGAIN on list rankings and placed him even higher on the list than last time.
This repeated and consistent level of support is more open, more frequent and more democratic than any other party I can think of - and especially those parties whose more vocal supporters have criticised the Greens for Norman entering the House at this time.
Nandor Tanczos has said publicly he believes it a good thing to leave the House early if one is not to stand again, allowing someone else who likely will be there to get on with it. This is a very worthwhile and pragmatic move. Typical of the best ideals Greens uphold.
I haven't heard any Greens say publicly or privately that they are unhappy with this or deem it to be undemocratic.
Critics on the right end of the political spectrum have gone more or less ballistic. Their arguments are hypocritical at best. Over on Kiwiblog, they are having a wonderful time.
Why are National Party supporters angered by what the Greens have done? It can’t be out of concern for the democratic rights of Greens (or anyone else) as National hopes to wipe those off the political map entirely by dumping MMP via a self-serving referendum. Why self-serving? We won't see a similar referendum on assets sales should we see a National government ruling alone later this year. But we would get a referendum on how they are elected. They have made it clear they don't like the way they have been relegated to their true level of voter support by MMP.
These critics can't be upset because the Greens aren’t democratic internally. Greens are arguably the most democratic party of all who currently hold seats.
Every eligible Green Party member who chose to voted on the ranking of the entire 2005 list. Russel Norman was ranked 10th - a high place.
Every eligible Green Party member who chose to voted in 2006 on who was to be the new male co-leader: Russel Norman was elected.
Every eligible Green Party member who chose to voted, just a few weeks ago, on the ranking for the entire 2008 party list. Norman was placed even higher after that.
The several thousand Green Party members insist on their party being robustly democratic.
These are all things National Party members can’t do. When was the last time the party leader (or deputy) was elected by all party members? Never?
They can't vote to rank their list either. They can't even choose who will be on it nationally. The BEST they can do is help select their one electorate candidate, who MAY also be on the list IF that local candidate agrees to also stand for the list. Also, the National Party head office can unilaterally select up to 5 others for the list. Party members have no say.
The 'outrage' of National Party supporters vocal on Norman entering the House is utterly misplaced. Greens are very happy to have their male co-leader in the House, to support Jeanette Fitzsimons and the rest of the Parliamentary team. She has lead the Greens alone in Parliament since Co-Leader Rod Donald's untimely and sudden death a month after the 2005 elections. That was the event that left the best candidate to replace Donald as male co-leader stranded outside the House.
The record shows that Russel Norman has been repeatedly and democratically endorsed as a representative by Green Party members - at the last election and since.
In countries that use First Past the Post, a new party leader (like Canada’s past Conservative party leader, Brian Mulroney) enters the House of Commons after some loyal MP vacates his safe seat for a by-election to rubber stamp the new party leader. By convention, the other major party does not even stand a candidate.
The Green Party have done nothing inappropriate. Instead, they have done what will best represent Green Party voters and brought their co-leader into the House by the rules as laid down in the electoral law. That is what representatives are supposed to do: represent.
By every measure I’m aware, the Green Party run a more open and democratic shop than the National Party does. National Party supporters slagging the Greens off should perhaps devote some of that energy to seeking a more open democratic method of choosing leaders, choosing candidates and ranking list candidates nationally within their own party.
If National party members push REAL hard, they may even be allowed to know what their party's policies are. Push even harder and they might even have a say in what those policies might be. Imagine!
Perhaps it’s a culture thing. Greens practice the widest possible democracy internally and support MMP, while the National Party practices its own, more limited form, of internal democratic franchise and at the same time agitates to get rid of MMP……out of self interest….thus deriving Greens (and most other parties) of ANY representation at all!
Hypocrisy very much in evidence…..but the shade appears to be distinctly blue.
General Debate 06 October 2025
1 hour ago
Very minor correction - it isn't 'every member' who can vote on MPs, but anyone who has been a member for at least the 6 months previous. Otherwise, I completely agree with your post.
ReplyDeleteGeorge: It's a fine point, but worth clarifying. Thank you for raising it.
ReplyDeleteIt's relatively easy to enable every member to vote when the party only just scrapes past the minimum 500 members required to register as a political party. It's a lot harder when the party has around 40,000 members.
ReplyDeletehp: The Green Party has over 4,000 financial members. Voting is by postal ballot.
ReplyDeletehp: Hit enter to quickly. National is arguably the most wealthy of all parties. If the Greens can afford democracy, why can't the much wealthier National? You'd get better pricing on materials due to larger volumes, so the cost of democracy per member should be LOWER than for each Green. You just have to WANT to democratic. Saying you can't afford it isn't really a good argument when people have fought and died to make it possible......
ReplyDeleteIt's got nothing to do with the cost, it's practical. How on earth would 60 plus candidates get themselves sufficiently well known by 40,000 members all around the country to enable them (the members) to make an informed choice?
ReplyDeleteAs the judge in the Selwyn selection case said it's enough to have those who make decisions chosen democratically.
HP: Maybe the Greens can offer a useful and practical model for enabling National Party democracy.
ReplyDeleteFirst, you call for nominations for the list. People who put their names forward should have the support of at least some number of financial members in order to be nominated.
Nominees are invited to a party "conference" or "training" session and given the opportunity to impress "delegates" and regular members attending from all branches. The meeting lasts 2 and ha half days. During that time, you all - candidates and deleates/members together - rotate through a number of sessions designed to show how people react to various sorts of tasks, situations and challenges. You get a pretty good feel for who many people are.
After that is over, The delegates have a "straw poll" based on what they saw and heard and develop a "draft" ranking. Anyone can attend this meeting, but only delegates can vote in the straw poll. If you don't get enough votes, you may not end up on the list at all.
Later, a booklet is composed with an entry about every candidate and sent to every party member along with a ballot paper listing all names. The "draft" ranking is also provided.
Each branch will also have a local meeting to aid anyone who needs it in composing their vote. The delegate(s) who attended the conference share their impressions of the candidates they saw, to support what is in the booklet.
Party members are encouraged to rank as many list candidates as they feel competent to vote for. People who have been in the party a long time will typically be able to vote competently for a greater number of people because they know them better and have seen them operating in the party over time.
The result is that every party member who wishes to has been able to attend a conference, meet the candidates up close, talk with them, work with them and see them respond to various challenges. Or at least talk to delegates and members who who have, or simply look at the brochure...or do all three.
It works very well.
I'm sure the National Party could manage it, even if only on a regional basis. One could be forgiven for thinking the leadership don't want to involve the wider party because they don't much like democracy. It makes things so complicated. Just too hard. If you let grassroots members choose and rank all the candidates, the next thing you know they will want to know what the party's policy is! If you tell them that, they may even want to have a say as to what policy should be!
That mustn't happen! Allowing the party members to have any real say in who the candidates are, their rank, or what policy should be would be....the end of the world as we know it! Unthinkable!!
LOL. Seriously HP, I wouldn't ad couldn't support any party that allowed so little say to its members. Hell, not even the National party MPs are allowed to shape - or even KNOW - what the party's policy is!
I wouldn't stand for that for 5 minutes. I'm amazed anyone does.......let alone vote for it.
The National Party does have a nomination process and regional list ranking by its members and those who determine the ultimate list ranking are also elected by members. It's a democratic process.
ReplyDelete