NZ Herald editorial: Waka jumping law shouldn't be necessary

A democratic party of committed members who feel they can contribute to its policy development should not need a law to keep them from jumping ship. Photo / Mark Mitchell

Editorial

It is unfortunate the new Government feels the need to introduce a law against "waka jumping". Political parties ought not need legislation to keep their MPs loyal. And a party should not have the power to expel a member from Parliament if the individual disagrees with the party line.

Party discipline is already stronger in New Zealand than in comparable representative democracies. Westminster often hears members criticise their own party's position and vote against it. A Republican majority in the United States Senate does not guarantee passage for bills promoted by the Trump Administration, fortunately.

While it has been rare for New Zealand MPs to "cross the floor" on a particular issue, it used to be permitted when someone felt strongly enough and the Government's whips could preserve its majority. It is only since the adoption of proportional representation that one or two small parties have needed a law to preserve their voting numbers and it does them no credit.

The phrase "waka jumping" was coined during the first MMP coalition when Winston Peters was expelled from its cabinet and his party split, with nine MPs continuing to support National, which also obtained the vote of a deserter from the Alliance Party in Opposition. The next coalition, of Labour and the Alliance, enacted a law requiring members to resign from Parliament if they would not vote with the party under which they were elected. It did not stop the Alliance rupturing within three years.

The law had a sunset clause and duly expired at the end of Labour's second term. Its third-term partner, NZ First, had it reintroduced but the bill was still awaiting passage when the government changed in 2008 and it was dropped.

It has been revived now as part of the coalition agreement between Labour and NZ First. No such clause appears in Labour's agreement with the Greens. Clearly neither of them feels the need of it and the Greens were reluctant to support it, initially looking for a policy concession in return. Thanks to them the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill gives MPs a little extra protection against summary expulsion by their party leadership. By law, the decision would have to be made in accordance with the party's rules. For Greens that would mean a 75 per cent vote of all party members.

A democratic party of committed members who feel they can contribute to its policy development should not need a law to keep them from jumping ship. The fact NZ First wants one is an admission it is not that sort of party. Its MPs over the years have hardly bothered to disguise the fact the party's founder retains almost absolute control. At times not all of its MPs have been in awe of him. One or two have thought NZ First a convenient vehicle for their personal political ambitions but they have not lasted long. He needs to keep his latest crew on board for the duration of the Government he has formed, and clearly needs a law to do it. At least it's likely to be scrapped as soon Peters goes.