List ranking under way

List ranking is under way in the Green Party. Ballot papers, candidate biographies and an Initial List have just gone out to members.

The Initial List was formed by the votes of branch delegates and the candidates themselves, following the Green Party conference in Auckland in early February. At the conference Green candidates presented themselves to delegates who then went back to their branches to discuss potential list placings. The idea of the initial list is that it provides non-binding advice to members when they cast their votes, as members all over the country generally don’t have personal knowledge of all the candidates.

Once members of the Green Party cast their ballots, the party list can only be subject to minor adjustments in order to meet certain balancing criteria for gender, Maori, South island and youth representation. Last election there were no minor adjustments of this nature.

The voting and revision will take a couple of months.  A final list for the 2011 election will likely be ready in late May or early June.

This list ranking process is an internal one for the Green Party but inevitably, with a democratic process like this involving thousands of people, the info about the initial list will inevitably spread. So in order to make sure the info that spreads is the right info, here’s the initial list that’s going to Green Party members right now:

1 Turei, Metiria
2 Norman, Russel
3 Hague, Kevin
4 Delahunty, Catherine
5 Graham, Kennedy
6 Hughes, Gareth
7 Sage, Eugenie
8 Logie, Jan
9 Clendon, David
10 Walker, Holly
11 Roche, Denise
12 Genter, Julie Anne
13 Mathers, Mojo
14 Shaw, James
15 Leckinger, Richard
16 Browning, Steffan
17 Summerhays, Karen
18 Hay, David
19 Langsbury, Dora
20 Elley, Jeanette
21 Barlow, Aaryn
22 Gilchrist, Michael
23 McDonald, Jack
24 Kennedy, David
25 Woodley, Tane
26 Gallagher, Shane
27 Rotmann, Sea
28 Curtis, Mikaere
29 Burston, Joseph
30 Tollestrup, Steve
31 Goldsmith, Rachael
32 Kruize, Alex
33 Toms, Saffron
34 Dorner, Zachary
35 Monteith, Darryl
36 Watson, Pieter

20 Comments Posted

  1. @Drakula 3:01 PM

    The debate on the political positioning remit appears to have moved from the original thread on it (which has now strayed onto a market v regulatory response to environmental issues) to this one, so I guess I’ll chip in my 2 cents worth here.

    My view on this is that the Greens should delete the clauses from the remit that indicate preferences for Labour or National and replace them with one simple clause:

    “The Green Party will not enter any coalition or confidence and supply arrangement that binds its MPs to vote for legislation that is averse to Green Party policy.”

    Unlike other Parties who make policy on the hoof, ours is democratically endorsed by the membership. We should never betray that endorsement. In any Government arrangement, if the other party/parties in that arrangement want to pass legislation contrary to Green policy, they should have to get the numbers elsewhere to do it.

    We should never put ourselves in the situation that the Maori Party have (voting for gutting the ETS against their policy) or the ACT Party has (voting on the 2009 Budget to repeal the tax cuts that their policy wholeheartedly endorsed).

    Such a requirement for a Government arrangement would require both National and Labour to swallow many dead rats, but a few dozen more for National than Labour if they want the Greens as a partner in Government.

    Of course that could potentially result in a coalition between National and Labour – but that would be better than we have now. And it would position the Greens as the major Opposition party, which would be wonderful for us in the medium to long term.

    I think the electorate is mature enough to recognise all of this, without us having to spell out a particular preference for a coalition or confidence and supply partner pre-election when we have no idea how the numbers will stack up.

  2. So Drak, repeating my question yet again, why do you persist in blaming the co-leaders for the debate the Party is having when it is membership feedback that has led directly to the proposed remit?

  3. Bj, Toad I have writen directly to Norman and Metiria as to why they should not consider the short term gain and I drew their attention to Mojo Mathers policy statement.

    I would also e-mail the above MP’s and let them know your views.

    It is also difficult to accurately predict the out come before the election, that’s when the new MP’s have to really think on their feet.

    Maybe Norman and Metiria were just testing the waters, but they sure got a strong message from me and Phil-o.

  4. That’s you, me and Drakula (who put me onto the notion) and I’ve already written to my electorate officer and Jan Logie, our candidate saying basically the same thing I said here. The mail from the head office indicated that as the proper feedback channel.


  5. @bjchip 7:32 AM

    The party should not take any public pre-position about WHO it will dance with. It advertises and talks about what it stands FOR, but we wait until we know what they look like and who has won what in the popularity contests to decide and announce what it will do with those results.

    I agree, BJ, and I’ve been trying to argue that within the party for some time, so far to no avail. How about a bit of grassroots activism on it?

  6. @Ritchie 7:53 PM

    ..and what’s embarrassing is some of the people we have in parliament now and in the past due to mmp.

    Presume you are referring to David Garrett and Alamein Kopu, Ritchie.

    But Taito Philip Field and Roger McClay (both now serving sentences for serious criminal offending), were elected under FPP. And some of the most hopeless current MPs are electorate MPs (Sandra Goudie, Paul Hutchinson, Ross Robertson spring to mind).

  7. I still prefer Draks answer.

    The party should not take any public pre-position about WHO it will dance with. It advertises and talks about what it stands FOR, but we wait until we know what they look like and who has won what in the popularity contests to decide and announce what it will do with those results.


  8. I meant that “how you decide to rank the list will make no difference at all” to whether the Party decides to work more closely with National – the membership does that through an SGM. But determining who our MPs will be is also a very important, if separate, process.

  9. “Working more closely with national” should be clearly ruled out so as not to lose half the Greens supporters. perhaps the greens will be happy with 3 and a half percent.

  10. Drak, did you know that any decision to work more closely with National would require the agreement of a delegated special general meeting of the Party? You could take part if you want to influence the outcome, but how you decide to rank the list will make no difference at all.

  11. What is the criteria you are using for this label ’embarrassing’? What is a ‘questionable background’? What kinds of background would you prefer were not represented in parliament?

    If some people with certain backgrounds are not allowed in parliament, should people of those backgrounds be allowed to vote?

    Who will decide what is an appropriate background for someone to be allowed to be in parliament? Presumably people WITH appropriate backgrounds, right?

    MMP has brought more female, maori, pacific and gay people into parliament. Do you find any of those traits embarrassing?

  12. I just got my list today, and I tell you the candidates are very impressive. But the one that stands out for me was Mojo Mathers and I am not just saying that because I know her but it is exactly what I woukld have conveyed.

    “My vision for Aotearoa New Zealand is of a genuinely inclusive society where everyone has a descent standard of living, is treated with respect and where our treasured natural places are valued and protected. I am also passionate about how we do politics, including remaining true to our kaupapa, charter and policy principles. I strive not to let these be undermined by the pressures of of the short term political expediency. – – – -”

    Please take not of that Mr. Norman and Ms Turei when contemplating a little tate a tate with National yes? ‘bowing to short term expediency’ should not be an option for a party that promotes integrity.

    Therefore Mojo will be moved to No1 on my list!!!!!!!

  13. Huh!?…What? You bet I assume mmp is invalid..and what’s embarrassing is some of the people we have in parliament now and in the past due to mmp.

  14. Ritchie, you are using circular reasoning. They could only be unelected if there was something wrong with the system used to elect them. You assume MMP is invalid and so that makes the people who use it to get into parliament invalid which makes MMP invalid. See, now we’re back where we started. You could ‘prove’ anything by using that method!

  15. Thats the trouble with MMP, it lets unelected people with questionable backgrounds into parliament.

  16. Todd you will also notice that Labour waits for the Greens to make a stand on difficult issues and then they will also make a strong stand if they see a positive public response.

  17. Mike, many of the electorates are still going through the selection process. To the best of my knowledge, these are the ones which have confirmed candidates, although some may have happened over the last few days that have slipped under my radar:

    Waitakere,Steve Tollestrup
    New Lynn,Saffron Toms
    Mt Albert,David Clendon
    Mt Roskill,Julie Ann Genter
    Auckland Central,Denise Roche
    Epsom,David Hay
    Tāmaki, Richard Leckinger
    Hunua, Charmaine Watts
    Coromandel, Catherine Delahunty
    Mana, Jan Logie
    Wairarapa, Sea Rotmann
    Ōtaki, Michael Gilchrist
    Rimutaka, Tane Woodley
    Hutt South, Holly Walker
    Ōhariu, Gareth Hughes
    Wellington Central, James Shaw
    Rongotai, Russel Norman
    West Coast-Tasman, Kevin Hague
    Kaikōura, Steffan Browning
    Ilam, Kennedy Graham
    Chch Central, David Moorhouse
    Port Hills, Joseph Burston
    Selwyn, Eugenie Sage
    Rangitata, Gerrie Ligtenberg
    Waitaki, Sue Coutts
    Dunedin North, Metiria Turei
    Dunedin South, Shane Gallagher

  18. Unlike other political parties, it seems the Greens have an abundance of good candidates. I thought David Clendon spoke very well on Marae Investigates concerning oil exploration recently. Interesting how National are presently trying to avoid or ignore difficult issues.

Comments are closed.