As the country debates a longer Parliamentary term, Grey Power’s own electoral process comes under scrutiny.
Four years or three? That’s the question a possible referendum on extending New Zealand’s current Parliamentary term will pose as an increasing number of politicians and parties suggest extending the current Parliament term from the current three years to four.
Critics suggest the debate will, in its own right, distract from the other issues which confront the country while supporters argue that a longer term will enable greater certainty and economic planning.
The debate is unlikely to capture the public attention until this time next year but, for now, Grey Power has its own constitutional debate pending.
While many local Grey Power committees and members have spent the past two years looking to update their constitutions to accommodate a number of legislative changes, less attention has been paid to a proposal from the Federation that could, if passed, dramatically change the way Grey Power operates at a national level.
Currently the board consists of the officers – president, vice president, treasurer and secretary, plus seven elected members. The seven – one from each of the seven geographical ‘zones’ – are chosen by the branches which make up the zones. They are accountable to and regularly in contact with their zones.
Now there is a proposal before the Federation to scrap the seven and replace them with five directors elected “at large”. It’s a major change to the current method and a number of branches have begun pushing back.
In April, the Upper Hutt branch wrote to zone four (the lower North Island branches) recording concern at the move. Upper Hutt is not alone with Wellington Central and Wainuiomata also concerned.
They question how the ‘five’ would be accountable to the current regional structure, and how the current connection between the Federation and the regions would survive.
This proposal is reminiscent of moves by many companies and NGOs to appoint so called ‘independent’ directors to their boards. Supporters argue the independence assists objectivity. Critics say it means no accountability and question the absence of a business case and costings.
“It’s the equivalent of MMP without the local voice”, says Wellington Central committee member David Cuthbert.
David, who worked in Parliament for many years questions why the proposal has not been more widely debated within Grey Power membership at large.
“This is fundamental stuff and deserves careful scrutiny and debate,” he says.
Others worry that the move is a distraction from a wider debate about the role and influence of the Federation and a declining membership.
In recent years there has been ongoing debate about the extent to which the Grey Power Federation is able to carry out its advocacy and campaigning role.
Zone four board member, Colleen Singleton, echoes those concerns saying that changing the makeup of the board is akin to changing the icing on a cake that is past it’s sell by date.
The issue will go to the AGM, but absent of a wider, nationwide campaign of education and debate, it may not pass the 75% threshold needed to change the constitution.
