Party of principles rings hollow

are those of the collective.

The MPs made a stand against Turei’s acknowledged benefit fraud. They said her subsequent comments condoned people lying to Work and Income; she was unfit to lead the party.

Party leaders spent much of Tuesday retooling what happened as a betrayal of the party and of those pushed to lie to government agencies in the face of hardship.

But that is a willful misreading of the situation. The MPs threatened to resign not in judgement of those in crisis: they resigned because they judged their leader to fall short of their party principles.

The party has a co-leadership to demonstrate its diversity – that should include diversity of opinion, and the possibility of those opinions being challenged.

Whether or not you agree with Turei’s stance is irrelevant. The real question is whether or not the Greens are a party willing to allow dissent.

The Greens have spent much of the lead up to the election positioning themselves as the party of principles.

At the centre of that has been Turei’s admission that she committed benefit fraud two decades ago.

The decision sparked a firestorm of controversy, with the Greens adamant Turei made the admission at great personal cost in order to bring the poverty issue to the forefront of the debate.

Turei’s stance, at the time called principled, was touted as a reason why Kiwis of principle should give the party their tick on voting day.

And yet, when two members of the party took a stand based on their own principles, they were punished for it by the party’s leadership.

The two veteran MPs had put the election campaign at risk, Shaw told reporters on Monday night, and he would move to have them suspended from caucus and removed from the party list.

Suspending the pair from caucus would be more symbolic than anything. There are just a few weeks left of the current parliament, and with an election campaign in full swing, it would send a message without having many practical repercussions.

However, expelling them from the party altogether is much more serious.

Shaw says it is the lack of advanced warning about the pair’s decision that led to the move.

It’s not what they did, it’s how they did it, he argued.

However when pressed by Radio New Zealand’s Guyon Espiner on Tuesday morning, Shaw admitted the pair signalled their intentions two weeks ago, and he had been trying to change their minds ever since.

With that in mind, the decision seems petty. It also signals a tarnished end to the careers of some of the party’s longest serving members.

It begs the question, are the Greens only welcome to taking a principled stance when it aligns with that of the majority?

Or are they are a party willing to allow its members to raise their heads above the parapet when they feel something is not right.