Labour leader Chris Hipkins could have his ability to make captain's calls restricted. Photo / Mark Mitchell
Labour leader Chris Hipkins could have his ability to make captain's calls restricted. Photo / Mark Mitchell
The “captain’s call” could become a thing of the past, at least for the Labour Party, with members this weekend having the opportunity to vote on a rule change that would effectively ban them.
A “captain’s call” is an informal convention of New Zealand politics which allowsa leader to decide a party’s policy, at least as long as they’re in the captain’s seat.
The party hierarchy disputes that this call was inconsistent with Labour’s constitution, although many members disagree and have been venting that disagreement at regional conferences. Some members have even proposed changes that would make such a call far more difficult.
The Labour Party declined to comment for this story.
On Sunday, at Labour’s national conference in Christchurch, members will finally get to vote on whether to amend the party constitution to effectively ban captain’s calls.
The Herald has obtained a proposed amendment, put up by region one of the party, which runs from just south of Auckland up to Northland, which would only allow a change to the party’s manifesto if the caucus and party policy council jointly agree − and even then, this can only be in “matter of great urgency”.
Finance Minister Grant Robertson developed a wealth tax proposal that was ultimately scuppered by Hipkins. Photo / Mark Mitchell
The rule also applies to changes to the party policy platform, often described as the party policy bible, which is a much larger document consisting of policies voted on by members over many years. Unlike the manifesto, the platform endures beyond a single election and operates as a bedrock of policy values.
The wording of these policies is often fairly general, which allows more specific election manifesto policies to fill out the details and turn the idea into something that can be campaigned on and implemented in government. Labour’s rules state that the manifesto must be consistent with the platform.
The proposed amendment would mean the leader could only make calls with the consent of caucus and the policy council.
A commentary from the region sponsoring the amendment says that adherence to the current rule, which also restricts captains' calls has been “poor”. The commentary cites the practice of the “captain’s call when the leader arbitrarily announces a change” as being “inconsistent with the constitution”.
Labour’s governing New Zealand Council recommended members oppose the amendment. In a commentary, the Council “acknowledge[d] that many members expressed concern … about the policy we took to the 2023 election”.
The council said that “several regions have passed policy proposals related to our tax policy and welcome debate within the party”.
The Council commentary said that this particular amendment would not actually have prevented the 2023 captain’s call, because that call was in relation to the policy for the 2023 manifesto, not in relation to departing from the existing 2020 manifesto that had already been agreed.
When Labour draws up its manifesto for an election, it requires agreement from caucus, the policy council and the New Zealand Council. The argument for the legality of the 2023 call is that Hipkins’ rule-out was consistent with these rules because it was consistent with the process used to draft a manifesto, which includes the party caucus, Policy Council and New Zealand Council. The council said the proposal would actually make it easier for a caucus to abandon the manifesto because it provides another pathway to do so.
Thomas Coughlan is Deputy Political Editor and covers politics from Parliament. He has worked for the Herald since 2021 and has worked in the press gallery since 2018.
