Could Leighton Baker be toppled as leader of the Leighton Baker Party?
It's not actually all that clear that party rules comply with the Electoral Act 1993
There are a whole lot of minor parties contesting this year’s election. One of them is the Leighton Baker Party, a tailor-made vehicle for one Leighton Baker. He was the former leader of the party now calling itself the New Conservatives.
This is not a new phenomenon. When Jim Anderton was expelled from the Alliance in 2002, he founded the Progressive Coalition, which included the former Social Credit Party. Before the election that year, however, the party’s name was changed to “Jim Anderton’s Progressive Coalition.”
The theory, Anderton said, was to capitalise on his name recognition.
Leighton Baker also had trouble with his former party. He was axed as leader of the New Conservatives in favour of Elliot Ikilei in 2020.
Thinking about this, I wondered if Baker had taken steps to ensure history would not repeat itself. It would be pretty funny if the guy found himself ousted in a palace coup and the Leighton Baker Party continued to be led by a usurper of Leighton Baker.
So, I had a look at the party’s rule book on the Electoral Commission website. It is pretty clear that Mr Baker isn't about to be usurped anytime soon. His perch, it appears, is as secure as Fort Knox.
Firstly, Baker is stated to be the party leader in the very rules themselves. If he became “unable to carry out his role” then the membership would elect a new leader. However, it is not clear what the new leader could and could not do.
You see, there is a management committee, but “Leighton Baker” appoints all its members, who also appear to hold appointment at his discretion.
The rules do not refer to the “party leader” having this power, to be clear. Baker is personally named. Party membership is also said to be at Baker’s discretion (but not solely, with the management committee also having a discretion here).
What really interests me is that Baker also seems to have personal responsibility for candidate selection for the party list. This has to happen in consultation with the management committee, which is not the same thing as a joint decision. Bearing in mind that Baker has effective control of the management committee, this all adds up to something less than what you might call robust internal democracy.
The rules also provide no mechanism for amendment. Accordingly, it is hard to see how the party could be made more democratic. As an unincorporated association, established and subject to the law of contract, every single member would need to agree to any new rules.
And all of that would be fine, except for section 71 of the Electoral Act 1993.
This section requires democratic procedures in candidate selection, with current financial members of the party or their elected delegates to have a substantive role in this process. The clear intent of the law being to prevent the concentration of power by ensuring the political process is not closed off to a select few but remains open to the wider party membership.
This isn’t the United States, of course, where state laws sometimes insist on very open party selection processes. The Electoral Act 1993 allows party bosses to exercise effective control over candidate selection by means of complex electoral colleges, quotas shortlisting and other means of indirect influence. All the parties take advantage to this of some degree or the other.
Of the parties in Parliament, the Greens are probably the most democratic. The National Party is surprisingly democratic in electorates where party membership is strong, but less so in terms of list selection. The Labour Party, by contrast, is much more controlled from the centre.
But not to the degree of the Leighton Baker Party, which appears to vest the power of selection in one man, who appears to be the leader for life (or until he is unable to be). If the law's intention is to prevent the concentration of power and promote democratic participation, it’s hard to see how there is even a fig leaf of compliance for the party.
This isn’t a legal opinion and there are all sorts of things I could be missing.
One possibility is that, whatever the rules say, the party also has bylaws or internal policies that provide for democratic selection processes. If Baker has consented to these, would they operate as a democratic fetter on his constitutional dominance of the party sufficient to meet the requirements of section 71? But why wouldn’t these just be in the rules?
Or is it that everyone who joins the party knowing what the rules are is deemed to have consented to Baker’s role as leader and appointment powers. But what happens if he ceases being the leader? For the reasons outlined above, it’s not clear that he would forfeit his powers or who would hold them if they remain reserved to him but he no longer could exercise them.
I’ve emailed the Leighton Baker Party to ask. Will let you know if they come back to me.
But for now, my political advice to Leighton Baker Party members would be to refrain from any attempt at toppling Leighton Baker’s as leader. You will fail. Once bitten, ker is clearly twice shy.