Fair democracy let David Hay speak and put his hand up. Fair democracy, common sense and strong leadership spoke back.



Newsflash: the media mechanics behind this ‘leadership bid’ reach desperately for a lack of intelligence from the general populace. But I have always known we are a clever bunch really and this is confirmed by the many of who are not buying this media manipulation. I am talking about mainstream media and yes you Patrick Gower my friend. I am hammering many in the political blogosphere as well.

The undermining of the Green Party leadership in this scenario has tried to cling to a failing internal democratic process. It is indeed the very opposite that two months ago recommended to decline David Hay’s application to stand as a candidate. The media release from the Greens here also points to concerns about Hay dating years back. It seems Greens have given him a good, fair democratic run at proving himself. Respectfully, this is sour grapes from Hay and those needing something more exciting to talk about will make it more than that.

There are no “tectonic political pressure points” of the type that saw “David Cunliffe propelled to leadership of the Labour Party” at play here. No Martyn. Just no.

 Rachel Smalley who suggests Hay would not have done this if he did not have the numbers – please read paragraph above and then sit in the naughty corner with Paddy. Lol.

There is also not an “Auckland problem” of the seismic size that Martyn also refers to. Yeah I get representation, electorate votes etc. But the hardworking Auckland province members do their utmost to secure an Auckland presence and to contribute to the Greens national goals and I take my hat off to them. We have work to do – Hay was never a solution to that.

Others have suggested grumblings behind people’s backs about Russel Norman. I love how this works. Just put rumours out there and let them fly. There are no grumblings. I can see how the united, solid, robust, consistent and thoughtful leadership of Metiria Turei and Russel Norman is just far too unsettling for some that it takes something this ridiculous to marinate a bigger scandal. There is no questioning from Green membership of Green Leadership. Democratic process has played out. What you see here is a strong executive not suffering a nuisance ride that expends valuable energy in the wrong direction. We have a great democratic system that allowed Hay to say what he wants and to put himself in the process for selection. Thankfully that selection process is robust and rigorous and has now declined him under that same fair process. Democracy let him in. Democracy, common sense and strong leadership have ended his run on this particular path. That is that.

I am grateful to the vote of confidence and the ongoing support I receive but I want to caution against Martyn and others saying the sooner I am ‘elevated’ on the list the better. Thankfully the membership will not be held ransom to this cry. Yes I am keen to help increase Māori, women and grassroots support for the Green Party. Yes I think I will be a great asset for the Green Party and the already hardworking amazing group of MP’s. Yes I think the Green Party are a strategic step to support my own visions and values as a social justice advocate who wants a better Aotearoa. But I will work my butt off to gain a reputation as being a hardworking, credible and respected voice with clear connections to the Green Party membership and Green Party visions and goals and then the members will vote on that or not. This is how it works and I have full trust in the process, and in their wisdom 

Anyway – back to the real work. We have a country to fix. Nothing to see here, move along.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com


  1. It’s interesting to note that the Green Party was (up until recently) the only political party that allowed grass roots members to vote directly on their leadership.

    If Mr Hay was so keen to stand, why didn’t he follow due process, without the drama; the flood of media releases; etc?

    As for “grumblings behind people’s backs about Russell Norman” – why is it we’ve only now heard this claim? Never, ever, never has even a whiff of dissatisfaction been apparent up till now. Now a word. Not a grunt. Not a facial expression. Nought.

    And by the gods, we’d have heard about it by now if there had been. No secrets in these li’l isles of ours.

    No – as Marama has explained, this is an agenda by one person who has his own problems with the Party.

  2. “Nothing to see here, move along.”

    Marama Davidson

    Kia ora Marama.

    I think you have left quite a bit out. Quite a few harsh things have been said.

    David Hay has made the vague allegation that the current Green Party leadership are not sticking “to the Green Party Kaupapa”.

    And David Hay’s (un-named) detractors have alleged that David Hay is unable to follow the agreed strategy of the party.

    Marama, what do you make of the allegations that David Hay had not followed the Green Party strategy in the high profile Epsom electorate?

    What was that strategy, and how did David Hay not follow it?

    Whatever David Hay did in Epsom, it must have been quite bad as one of his detractors have said, “I do have a genuine apprehension that he may do something publicly damaging to the party if given the platform as a candidate again”.

    David Hay’s (unnamed) detractors say that his behaviour has led them to say that they “can not trust his word”.

    Being accused that your words cannot be trusted is not a small matter for any politician. To be accused anonymously by people who don’t want to reveal their identity suggests unsettlingly, that David Hay’s opponents are not confident of standing behind their accusations.

    Every successful movement attracts carpet baggers intent only on their own personal advancement. I could accept that David Hay is one of these. But I would need to see some proof. Not vague accusations delivered anonymously.

    The same from David Hay. How exactly are the current leadership not standing by the Green Party Kuapapa?

    The only reply that Green Party convener, Georgina Morrison gave when asked why David Hay was not suitable candidate was, “some issues” dating from 2008.

    As to what those “issues” are the public are left in the dark.

    In an answer to the question of why David Hay was not a “Suitable candidate” Georgina Morrison said “the public can judge for themselves based on last week’s performance” (meaning his run for the leadership). This is not an answer this is an evasion and a diversion. And a nonsensical one at that. On this basis anyone, who ran for leadership would not be a suitable candidate, including presumably, the incumbents themselves.

    With only vague accusations to go on, don’t you think the membership and the voting public might think that they are being patronised by being told, “move along, nothing to see here”.

    What is being covered up? What is missing?

    Personally I am none the wiser by your response to David Hay.

      • Kia ora Marama, I asked some simple questions;

        “Marama, what do you make of the allegations that David Hay had not followed the Green Party strategy in the high profile Epsom electorate?”

        “What was that strategy, and how did David Hay not follow it?”


        “What is being covered up? What is missing?”

        To which you have replied:

        “To answer your question with exactly the time it deserves?”


        "Move along."

        Posting someone’s picture upside down and telling people to move along, is in my humble opinion, not enough. People need to know why David Hay should be dismissed and made a public figure of fun. If David Hay is not answered in a full and frank way, to put a line under it, then my fear is this affair will keep coming back to haunt the Greens.

        Though not a member I have a lot of time for the Greens and the more I have to do with them the more that respect and affection grows. I wish the Greens well.

        In that spirit I hope you can consider my remarks in the manner in which they are given.

        I still have no real clue of what David Hay’s gripe with the Green Party is, or what the Green Party have against him. I was hoping you could enlighten me.

        Press Release: David Hay

        Outside the Green Party offices in Auckland this afternoon, Mr Hay gave journalists a print-out of emails that had passed between himself and Jon Field, the party’s General Secretary, following his interview for the candidate pool. A copy is attached to this release.

        The emails reveal that Megan Salole, the Green Party’s 2011 Campaign Manager, had recommended in her secret post-campaign debrief report that Mr Hay should not be accepted into the candidate pool for the 2014 election.

        It is time to forego the generalities and stonewalling. Megan Salole and Jon Field need to come out and detail exactly the reasons they and others think that David Hay should not be accepted into the candidate pool for the 2014 election.

        Megan Salole and Jon field need to detail exactly what David Hay did or didn’t do in the 2011 election campaign that led to David Hay being accused of not following “the agreed strategy of the party”?

        What was that strategy? And how exactly did David Hay offend against it?

        And on what grounds it is feared that David Hay “may do something publicly damaging to the party if given the platform as a candidate again?”

        What exactly is the political divide in this dispute?


        • Doesn’t look like Marama is able or willing to answer, but ‘toad’ has given an explanation at Kiwiblog:
          “The recommendation to refuse hay’s entry to the candidate pool was made in September. His leadership bid was in response to that, not the other way around as you suggest DPF.

          In short, what Hay did in 2011 was attempt to campaign for the electorate vote in Epsom, despite a clearly articulated nationwide party strategy to campaign for only the party vote. This was particularly important in Epsom, where many Greens were holding their noses and voting for National’s Paul Goldsmith in order to try to stop the odious John banks from taking the electorate.”


          • My reason for not wanting to continually respond is because despite all the background, if people can’t see that this is political espionage and not a reasoned challenge then is there anything that will calm that? If people really believe David Hay loves the Green Party, with the entire way he has approached this issue – will giving the background make any difference?

            Of course I may be making a bad judgement call there and maybe some explanation will settle things but I think the discussion needs to come to an end and we all need to focus on the actual issues instead of keep negotiating the detail. That’s just a very personal response to all this.

            • Normally I’d think someone it was up to the party management to address obvious issues openly and not try to hide them under the Green carpet.

              But you blogged about it so should expect to be asked questions about it – and simply fobbing off is not a good look. If you start a conversation you should be prepared to continue it.

              • no not at all Pete Im not going to let you get away with that. It’s the same thing as what Greens have done. Put to rest a nuisance incident and not suffer fools.

                • That and, there’s not much more to be said. I said my piece. Sometimes I choose to continue with constructive debate. Sometimes I choose not to engage when there are clear motives and I know it’s not going to be constructive. And I’m pretty happy with that look actually.

  3. Thanks for enlightening us, Marama. I was a bit mystified about all these developments. The picture has become clearer over recent days. I never trust a word by Patrick Gower, who seems to be more a “creator of news”, than a reporter.

    As for Rachel Smalley, she can be forgiven for not being that well informed, as many in the MSM are so busy tweeting each other, they rely more on twitter news than real developments. Detachment from reality, and what society around them really looks like, that is what is behind it.

    David Hay may try another party now, I suggest, if any want him. Or maybe he wants to start his own, or simply focus on running his business.

  4. If it is true, as Pete George suggests, David Hay campaigned for the ELECTORATE vote in Epsom instead of the Party vote, then that in itself was a grave error on his part.

    Aside from flouting Party policy, Green Party candidates who go for the Electorate rather than Party votes are displaying an ego- centric attitude rather than a collective approach.

    As well, Green Party supporters who give their electorate votes to a Green candidate are not only mis-guided – but aiding and abetting this current government.

    It is worth noting that, in 2011, had Green voters given their 1,775 Electorate votes to Labour’s Charles Chauvel, instead of Gareth Hughes (and I’m not suggesting that Gareth was seeking the Electorate Vote), Labour would have taken Ohariu with a 129 vote majority. (see: http://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2011/11/27/post-mortem-1-green-voters-in-electorates/)

    In which case Dunne would have lost, and history would be different. (For instance, we’d have no asset sales or beneficiary bashing, just to name two things that would’ve been different.)

    Again, I’ll state that I’ve no idea if Pete George is correct or not. But if he is, no Green Party candidate can stand if they’re going to chase illusory votes for an over-blown ego.

    • If it is true, as Pete George suggests, David Hay campaigned for the ELECTORATE vote in Epsom instead of the Party vote, then that in itself was a grave error on his part

      Frank Macskasy

      I agree, that would be a grave tactical error on David Hay’s part. Doubly so if it was against the decided wishes of his party.

      I had not been aware that David Hay had been doing this.

      David Parker of course did exactly this.

      David Parker, the Labour Party candidate in the Epsom campaign campaigned very strongly for the electorate vote. This conservative Labour MP from the Right wing of the Labour Party was parachuted in from Dunedin where he is based, to actively campaign for the Auckland seat of Epsom.

      Parker’s campaign took 3,000 votes off Goldsmith. These 3,000 votes was the margin that allowed John Banks victory. Gifting the National Party their needed 1 seat majority.

      It is hard to know what the Labour Party strategists were thinking.

      But as Chris Trotter is fond of saying, Labour would rather keep control of the losing side than lose control of the winning side.

      There may be some truth in this, in that, on the chance that Labour won on such a slim majority, the Labour Party would have had to have made some major policy concessions to the Green Party. Something that Labour have always resisted. When they have a choice, Labour always prefer going with the conservative option of New Zealand First, or the Progressives, and deliberately exclude the Greens from government.

      The Labour Party no longer have the option of excluding the Greens.
      It is possible that under the Conservative influence of Phil Goff and David Parker Labour strategists thought it might be best if they stood this one out. Their thinking being that by 2014 the Greens may be more conciliatory to Labour’s demands that the Green Party give up their opposition to new coal mines and seabed mining, fracking etc.

      But why would David Hay campaign for the electorate vote?

      Did he really think he could win?

      I find it hard to believe that David Hay could be that vain or dim. Personally I would like the word of more than Pete George to confirm that this was David Hay’s sin in Epsom.

      • If you look at what I posted (and linked to) I was quoting a well known Green – ‘toad’. Here’s the link: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/12/the_green_party_suppression_of_dissent.html#comment-1242669

        So it is not my word, it is toad’s word. Versus “Put to rest a nuisance incident and not suffer fools.”

        I don’t think Hay thought he could win (the leadership), but it sounds like he doesn’t want to lose his party to one faction who don’t seem to be acting very Green-like.

        Hay explains some more: http://sophocrat.blogspot.co.nz/2013_12_01_archive.html

        • I think Mararma needs to say if seeking the electorate vote over the party vote was David Hay’s sin in Epsom. And whether this was his only sin.

          And is there really a power struggle going on between the social justice campaigners and the ecological campaigners as David Hay alleges?

          I hope not. As I think the two can be compatible. And there is no reason why one should lose out over the other.

          In the recent past I had noted a tendency to play down climate change. But thankfully I can report that this trend seems to have been reversed. Gareth Hughes slammed the bail out of Solid Energy on climate change grounds saying that the $155 million spent on keeping Solid Energy going would have been better spent paying for a just transition of the coal workers to jobs that don’t fry the planet. And Russell Norman publicly and strongly restated the Green Party position of no new coal mines much to the chagrin of the Labour Party who support new coal mines. Gareth Hughes has also said that the campaign against deep sea oil drilling must be fought around climate change. These are very heartening statements as Labour and the Nats do not want to talk about climate change or admit that their policies are very much the same. Because of this embarrassing similarity, Labour in particular are doing everything they can to smother and strangle this issue and do not want it raised in the elections.
          Too bad that ignoring climate change will not make it go away.

  5. I don’t claim to be Marama Davidson, and I don’t know if campaigning for the electorate vote in Epsom was David Hay’s only sin. However, I can confirm that he did campaign for the electorate vote in Epsom, and that the party campaign team had already told him not to.

Comments are closed.