Opportunity board can overrule its MPs’ decisions and veto coalition deals

Summarised by Centrist

Opportunity leader Qiulae Wong initially told Q+A host Jack Tame that it was not possible for the party’s board to overrule its parliamentary caucus. But when confronted with her party’s constitutional provisions, Wong acknowledged the board could intervene.

“Clearly, yes,” she said.

The constitution requires caucus to be guided by board directions and allows a 75% board majority to overrule caucus decisions and veto any governing agreement.

The board can also appoint or remove the party leader by the same majority.

The constitution does not give board members the power to cast or reverse an MP’s parliamentary vote. However, a disagreement could trigger a direct struggle between elected MPs and a board whose members hold no public mandate.

The board currently includes major donor Alan Wilderland, who has personally donated $180,000 to Opportunity through three payments. Alajamber Limited, which he owns and directs, donated another $41,160.

Wilderland cannot exercise the board’s powers alone, with any veto requiring 75% support.

Wong also defended charging some new and returning landowners the proposed land tax before they qualify for Opportunity’s $19,400 Citizen’s Income.

She said they should still pay because of the policy’s long-term benefits. That would leave affected taxpayers carrying an immediate cost while trusting that the system would survive long enough for them eventually to benefit.

Opportunity has accepted six donations exceeding $30,000 this year, totalling more than $400,000, while campaigning to prohibit political donations above that amount.

Wong said Opportunity had to “play the game with everyone else” under the rules as they currently stand. The donations were legally declared, and there is no suggestion any law was broken.

Former Labour prime minister Helen Clark called Wong’s Q+A interview a “train wreck”, describing her answers about land tax, higher income taxes and public service reductions as “fantasy posing as policy”.

Labour finance spokeswoman Barbara Edmonds has since said Opportunity’s land tax “is not going to happen”, despite Willie Jackson suggesting days earlier that Labour might negotiate a lower rate.

Editor’s note: The board structure is the central issue. Opportunity’s constitution expressly gives a body not elected by the public the power to direct caucus, overrule some of its decisions and prevent a governing agreement from receiving formal party approval.

What happens if elected MPs refuse to comply is much less clear. The board cannot vote in Parliament, but it could trigger an internal crisis by removing the leader or disciplining MPs.

On large donations, it seems standard for commentators to criticize  a party proposing reform for not following the rules it proposes now. At the Centrist, we don’t see that as hypocritical. Instead, we believe you are well entitled to follow the current rules.  

However, Opportunity is accepting lawful funding under the same rules as its competitors. Unilaterally rejecting large donations would place it at an electoral disadvantage before it had the power to change those rules, and accepting them does not invalidate its case for reform.

Helen Clark is entitled to her opinion, but after 17 years out of Parliament and with no role in this election, her verdict remains political commentary rather than an authoritative assessment of Opportunity’s policies. We actually wonder why the media so readily publishes her opinion.

Read more at 1News and Chris Lynch Media

Receive our free newsletter here