Williams vs NZ First

Soon to be former-New Zealand First MP Andrew Williams is taking his party to court:

New Zealand First MP Andrew Williams is taking legal action against his party for dropping him as an electorate and list candidate for the general election.

Mr Williams who was ranked number three on the list in 2011, was removed from the list when it was published on Tuesday.

The MP says he has instructed his lawyers to file papers in the Auckland High Court seeking declarations that the New Zealand First Party breached its constitution when it determined its party list.

He believes he has been mistreated by the party and will ask for an urgent hearing following the election on 20 September. . .

He could be doing the country a favour.

Electoral law requires party to use democratic processes in their selections.

Doing what the leader wants, which is what is what most suspect NZ First’s approach, doesn’t fit the usual understanding of democratic.

8 Responses to Williams vs NZ First

  1. Andrei says:

    Epitome of a self serving politician by the looks of it.

    I loathe MMP, a system guaranteed to create a Parliament filled with obsequious, greasy politicians and to render us powerless to stop their depredations upon decency


  2. Angry Tory says:

    He could be doing the country a favour.

    Hell yeah. Undemocratic list implies party is deregistered.

    Now, I wonder if running the Hager scandal counts as democratic?

    As Cam is very fond of repeating, if NZ had any kind of robust electoral commission or Anti-Corruption Commission the NZF, Greens, Labour & iMANA would all have been deregistered, and we’d be choosing between actual democratic political parties: National on the extreme left, Cons in the centre left, ACT on the soft left.


  3. Dave Kennedy says:

    “…MMP, a system guaranteed to create a Parliament filled with obsequious, greasy politicians…”

    I would be interested to know what your idea of a better alternative would be Andrei and FPP still allowed self serving and hopeless MPs get elected to safe seats. No voter actually gets to really select the MPs they may actually prefer as candidates as they have always been selected by their party whether it be FPP or MMP and not all parties use a fully democratic process for the selection.

    I think National are more democratic than Labour with their process and the Greens have a three stage system to select our list and another local process for electorate candidates. It doesn’t make sense that any party would put a candidate high on their list who wouldn’t serve their party well. It was fairly obvious that National had ranked Aaron Gilmore and Claudette Hauiti were ranked at 56 and 63.


  4. Andrei says:

    It doesn’t make sense that any party would put a candidate high on their list who wouldn’t serve their party well.

    They may well “serve their party well” Dave Kennedy but what about the people of New Zealand, how well might they serve them do you suppose?


  5. Gravedodger says:

    @Dave it would be disingenuous for you to hold a differing position on MMP as it allows you and your fellow GP aficionados to sit in the parliament but that is not a valid reason for MMP to exist.

    Until the Communist and the Anarchist reached the apex of leadership in what was always a lobby group wearing the entirely valid and needed cloak of environmentalism, that lobby group held sway as a political force allied to many who inhabit every other political party carrying the banner for the protection of the planet.
    Now the Green party is just another left wing party and the environmental aspect of the reason for existence is nothing more than a slogan and holds a similar place to that of the Blue Greens of National and those within other parties with environmental consciences
    That Jeanette Fitzsimons won a plurality in Coromandel a significant feat up there with Vern Cracknell in the far north and somewhat ahead of the Bi-election success of Knapp and the somewhat tainted success of Beetham in rural Manawatu, many see, and I cant help but question if the MMP review was alongside this election a different outcome would occur, there is a major flaw in MMP.
    Under MMP it is not a requirement for a candidate seeking to go to Wellington and make law for all citizens to gain the support of a majority of the electors in the best position socially and geographically to judge the suitability of a candidate to sit in the House.

    I abhor the way MMP has permitted the Fugitive from Justice and convicted criminal to manipulate our fragile democracy so effectively and the apparent alacrity that all the parties to the left of National except Craigs PUPs have embraced the opportunity Herr Schmitz has created to dismiss a government that has international acclaim for its successful negotiation of the GFC.

    The silence of the leadership of your party on this serious threat to our way of life is disappointing . Hells bells your good Dr even went to Coatsville when he correctly saw the danger to the GP if The Crook Of Coatsville was able to toy with our democracy. the pity was he only raised objection to possible damage to his little dung heap and ignored and continues to ignore the serious assault on NZ.
    I am left totally dismayed that so many supposedly intelligent people can have any morals and belief in democracy, yet can ignore the gulf between theft and leaks, between, things that matter politically and the dross, and so wholeheartedly accept the erroneous propisition that only Slater has indulged in the dark arts of politics that have existed since people competed for electoral plurality.

    I accept that all electoral systems have strengths and weaknesses but if FPP is so unpalatable then my only concession would be to either a run off in an electorate between the two highest polling candidates or STV where the votes are cast in order of preference and those allocated to the lowest candidate are redistributed until one candidate has a majority.

    As I said the silence of you and your leadership and the embracing of Herr Schmitz is sickening.

    I have a resolute faith in the people to see through the massive deception and manipulation but with $5 000 000 for the campaign and another $5 000 000 for any assistance to overthrow the elected government that the polls have consistently given approval to, you should be leading a charge to prevent such subversion but that you wont, cant or are to timid to initiate says volumes about who you are as a candidate and I suspect when the good burghers of the South tell you the truth you will find many reasons to argue.


  6. Dave Kennedy says:

    They may well “serve their party well” Dave Kennedy but what about the people of New Zealand, how well might they serve them do you suppose?

    I guess it depends what the party stands for and one of the core principles of the Greens is appropriate decision making:

    Appropriate Decision-making:
    For the implementation of ecological wisdom and social responsibility, decisions will be made directly at the appropriate level by those affected.


  7. Dave Kennedy says:

    Gravedodger, two points:
    1) I think history will show the damage to our democracy by this current Government who are currently ignoring good advice from the likes of the IMF and Government advisors. Remember that we are still suffering from some the terrible decisions made by the National Government in the 90s which resulted in the $13 billion leaky building debacle the loss of skilled tradesmen (by destroying the apprenticeship scheme) and Pike River.
    2) The Electoral Commission made some excellent recommendations that would have improved MMP that Judith Collins (in her typically self serving and arrogant manner) ignored: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10883610


  8. Gravedodger says:

    Dave your use of links to support your views become a very suspect ploy when you employ the Herald as a source.

    All those who blame the Pike River tragedy on deregulation and omit a very salient fact, that such deregulation has resulted in billions of wealth creation and the mine safety was in fact divested to those who were operating there, whether management, contractors or workers. Clearly deficiencies in self regulation and/or self responsibility contributed to the explosion.
    Then there is the vexed continual barriers to safe mining practice involved around the protests to the mine that were as much about anti mining as any semblance of environmental aims.

    Likewise with the whole leaky building debacle, it was as much about failings of entrenched incompetent building inspections directed by equally incompetent local body managers and elected numptys.
    Add in changing building systems and inherent design faults for our very damp high rainfall climate and deregulation rapidly fades as a bolster to your arguments.
    Mediterranean styles of tiny or non existent eaves in rainfalls over 1000mm pa is always a recipe for moisture to enter cladding and with design being the big fault I was always sad that builders wore the blame for following design from architects and plan producers who were never in the gun when they and the building system suppliers and marketers were either absent or out of business.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: