PM Jacinda Ardern responds to the latest claims from MP Gaurav Sharma. Video / NZ Herald
Labour's Hamilton West MP Gaurav Sharma will face judgment from his caucus colleagues this afternoon after making a string of public accusations that he was "bullied" and the party had refused to investigate his side of the story over staff issues.
At stake is Sharma's political future – and his future with the Labour Party.
Labour's caucus and the Labour Party have different processes and rules when it comes to disciplining or moving against an MP.
The issue:
After high staff turnover and what the PM has said were multiple complaints from staff about his management, Labour's whips told Sharma he could not hire any further staff until he undertook training.
Sharma took exception and claimed that his own complaints about "incompetent" staff were not investigated, nor was his complaint to the Prime Minister's chief of staff that he was "bullied" by the party whips instead of being given a fair go.
He also claimed other MPs had complained about being bullied – although no other MP has yet come forward. Sharma aired his views first in an opinion piece on nzherald.co.nz, which made generalised comments about "rampant bullying" by MPs - and then in two Facebook posts which were more specific.
The rules:
The party's constitution sets out grounds for disciplining party members and MPs.
It has a code of conduct which applies to all party members, including MPs.
Under that and the party rules, MPs can be disciplined for "bringing the party into disrepute."
That is a vague, catch-all but serious offence and the PM has pointed to it as the one caucus will be considering in Sharma's case.
The PM has said MPs will have their own views about Sharma's actions, but that the brunt of it is that MPs are supposed to deal with their problems through internal channels – rather than going public or to the media. Those channels included the whip's office, the Labour leader or someone she assigned to deal with it.
Sharma's counter to that is that he had gone to the whips and to the PM's chief of staff with his complaints, but was ignored and nothing happened. He had gone public as a last resort.
What can caucus do?
Caucus is a confidential forum and sets its own rules. It is likely that MPs will hear from the current whip, Duncan Webb, and from Sharma if he takes part in the caucus meeting, as well as any other MP who wants to speak on it.
It is likely that any motion to take disciplinary action will be put and seconded up by backbench MPs rather than the leader or ministers – but we may never find out.
Options MPs will be weighing up range from censuring Sharma and hoping the issue can be resolved without firmer action, to suspending him or expelling him completely from caucus.
Hamilton West Dr Gaurav Sharma is sworn in as an MP in November 2020. Photo / Mark Mitchell
Suspension or Expulsion?
Suspending Sharma from caucus rather than expelling him would mean his vote stayed with Labour, but he did not attend caucus meetings or represent Labour in official formats.
It would also keep open a chance of redeeming Sharma – although MPs may consider the chances of that are so low that it is not a consideration.
Expelling Sharma would mean that unless Sharma resigned as an MP, he would become an independent MP. It would no longer have his vote – although it does not need it.
Labour would have 64 MPs instead of 65 – 61 is needed for a majority.
Expulsion carries a political risk that Sharma will release more damning information or make further claims in retaliation - but Labour can also more easily dismiss him as a disgruntled MP.
Labour could invoke the waka jumping legislation, which allows a party to apply for an MP to be kicked out of Parliament in the event they either leave or are expelled from the party they became an MP for. However, that is not a quick process and would not necessarily be successful.
If Sharma resigns or the waka jumping legislation is used, it would force a byelection in the Hamilton West electorate.
Redemption?
The other, unlikely, possibility is full redemption: that would require Sharma to apologise and promise to change his ways and accept attempts to intervene in his staffing situation – and for caucus to give him another chance.
That is unlikely both because Sharma has shown no inclination to do that – and because each further public statement Sharma has made has served to further erode trust in him by MPs.
His latest Facebook post on Monday could prove the killer blow of that trust for two reasons:
It was timed just as the Prime Minister started speaking at her post-Cabinet press conference. That meant she had to answer questions on it without having had a chance to read it.
Second, it included screengrabs of messages Sharma claimed were from fellow MPs. Those messages included raising concerns about mental health, wanting to pull a sickie to avoid work and talking about waking up being worried about what they would be in trouble for that day.
There was no evidence they were from MPs, or of the wider context the comments were made in – or whether those MPs knew or had consented to Sharma releasing them.
That will leave MPs who may have griped to Sharma nervous about whether they will be sprung – and few MPs will be able to trust him after that.
MPs the Herald spoke to said his fate will largely depend on Sharma himself.
One MP said if Sharma stopped his public allegations and exhibited "humility" it could get him another chance, but Sharma's ongoing Facebook posts and public statements made that difficult.
"It's difficult to see how anyone would have the sort of trust you need in a team with behaviour like that," one said.
Another MP said: "There's always a way back."
What can the Labour Party do?
After the caucus makes its decision, the party will consider the next move. Kicking an MP out of caucus and kicking an MP out of the Labour Party are different matters.
There are processes for Labour's ruling NZ Council to investigate and discipline party members or MPs: it requires an investigation of the issue and allegations at hand before a decision can be made.
It is also able to be appealed - albeit only back to the NZ Council itself.
Punishments it can deliver are censure, prohibiting a person from being a candidate or office-holder in the Labour Party, suspension of membership and expulsion from the Party.
Some of Sharma's Hamilton West electorate members have written to the Labour Party asking for a full and independent inquiry but party president Claire Szabo and General Secretary Rob Salmond are yet to comment on the matter.
Labour can stop Sharma being re-selected as its candidate in 2023, even if he has support from the local electorate: it can effectively veto candidates it deems unsuitable.
When did it happen last?
The last Labour MP to be expelled from caucus was Chris Carter, a former minister. Carter was expelled in 2010 for sending anonymous letters to journalists claiming that then-Labour leader Phil Goff could not win the next election and that other MPs could do a better job.
Caucus expelled Carter in the middle of the year. This was followed up in October by Carter's expulsion from the Labour Party by its governing council. At the time, the Labour President was Andrew Little, who is a member of Labour's current caucus and a senior Cabinet minister.
Carter sat out the rest of the Parliamentary term as an independent MP and retired at the 2011 election. Carter has since re-joined the Labour Party.
