National shelves leadership, M¯aori rule changes

The National Party will not push ahead with a proposal to make the way it selects its leader more transparent, shelving one of the key recommendations from the internal review carried out after last year’s disastrous defeat.

This reflects a view in the caucus that it is better placed to choose the leader by rules it sets itself. In contrast, Labour’s members and unions usually elect the leader along with caucus.

Feedback encouraged the party board to drop the proposal, which now won’t be put to delegates at its special general meeting this weekend. The party has also walked back from an earlier idea to have a dedicated Ma¯ori director under Te Tiriti o Waitangi partnership.

After last year’s election defeat, National’s board commissioned a review into the party’s three years in opposition and its election campaign. That review – and another into party governance – made several recommendations to change the way it is run.

The next step in the review process is a meeting of delegates from around the country in Wellington on Saturday where a handful proposed changes to the party’s governing constitution will be voted on. A guide to this meeting, uploaded to National’s website, notes the board has made some changes to what will be voted on, after consulting with members at regional conferences.

It includes changes to the recommendations made by the review, which won’t be put to delegates for a vote. They include formalising the relatively opaque process by which caucus selects the leader of the parliamentary section of the party.

Currently, the caucus sets the rules for leadership bids and once caucus has selected its leader, that person is rubber-stamped by the board. The review recommended the board ‘‘needed to be engaged in the process earlier to opine on a fair process and ensure an acceptable result’’. However, that recommendation has been parked.

The board now says it’s agreed not to put such a recommendation to delegates this weekend because it believes ‘‘this is an issue best left to caucus, who are currently empowered to create their own processes for leadership bids and changes’’.

This reflects a view in the caucus that it is better placed to choose the leader by rules it sets itself.