Which comes first, the party policy or electorate?

You can cast your vote for the General Election 2014 tomorrow.

As part of the Northern Advocate's election coverage we've quizzed the candidates on some of the issues that are important to Northlanders.

The questions have come from readers and the Advocate.

Here is the latest question asked and the responses from the Whangarei, Northland and Te Tai Tokerau electorate candidates who submitted their response within the deadline given.

We asked: Will you vote against any of your party's policies if they are detrimental to your electorate, or will you toe the party line, regardless of the impact on your voters?

Whangarei electorate:

David Currin, Internet Party:
The short answer is that I would put voters first, but I'll talk a bit about what the Internet Party represents in order to put that into context.

We're a party founded on spirit of the internet and we want to take what the internet represents in terms of an open platform for social change, to Parliament.

We want people to be able to have a more granular say on how laws are made in this country - more direct participatory democracy, so that governments can't just do their own thing without any accountability between elections.

We develop well-researched policy based on evidence rather than ideology and involve our members in all of our policy development. Our environment policy, for example, was consulted on and greatly improved by more than 300 of our members in our online policy forum.

So to come back to the question: I have no interest in participating in a self-serving parliamentary system that puts tribal party politics ahead of the interests of its citizens.

That's a big part of the reason why I'm standing for the first time for the only political party I've ever been involved in. I'm doing this because I want to shake things up and get parliament working again, so that we have a government that works for the people and not the other way around.

If I ever find myself in a position where the party line is in conflict with voter consensus then the party isn't representing the people. And isn't that what this is supposed to be all about?

Paul Doherty, Green Party:
Not one of our policies will be detrimental to the electorate, so this will not be a problem.

Robin Grieve, Act Party:
The Act Party's rules are quite different from those of National and Labour.

Act MPs are not whipped, which means they are not told how to vote. In one vote some years ago two Act MPs voted one way and the other two another. They cancelled each other out but that is how seriously we take our MP's right to individual freedom.

So as an MP I will be free to vote on anything other than confidence and supply as I see fit. As policy committee chairman I have been responsible for all Act policy and I cannot think of any that are detrimental to Whangarei; quite the opposite, in fact.

If an issue came up that affected Whangarei I would be completely free to vote for Whangarei. I am number three on the Act Party list. I am hoping that Act Party support will rise sufficiently for me to get into Parliament.

Chris Leitch, Democrats for Social Credit:
Despite what they may say on the hustings, candidates from other parties who become MPs are required to vote the way their party tells them to (when was the last time one didn't?).

Democrats for Social Credit MPs, however, are entitled to vote according to the wishes of their electorate provided that they can demonstrate that they have consulted widely within their electorate prior to making up their mind which way to vote.

We oppose tight party control of MPs, where they are forced to vote as the party hierarchy dictates, including the idea of a "confidence motion", used to enforce obedience.

This is one of the negative aspects of the MMP voting system which causes MPs to be subservient to their party bosses because their position on the party list is always at risk if they vote against the party line.

Our candidates are only bound to support our core financial policies. If they were not 100 per cent behind those concepts, they would not become candidates in the first place.

If they disagree with any other policy, they are free to promote an alternative policy, provided they first state what the official party position is.

As an MP I would support the party in government that gets the most votes, unless their proposals are contrary to our party's basic principles, or unless my electorate told me to do otherwise.

Anaru Kaipo, Maori Party:
The Maori Party has always encouraged candidates to have their voice and independence.

Each candidate is selected to represent the Maori Party because they have the best knowledge of the region and we are there to represent the constituents at all times.

If my constituents for Whangarei were not in support of a policy that was being proposed by my party then it is only right that I support and reflect the voice and needs of my constituents; the very reason why I am there.

However, the Maori Party policies are always based around the needs of the whanau and the families are always at the forefront of policy creation.

As you can see by the policies that have been put forward by the Maori Party, it is clear to see that none of the policies in any way are or will ever be detrimental to the region and the families that are represented.

Don Nightingale, Conservative Party:
The short answer is yes.

I believe that a candidate elected by the voters to represent their electorate is honour-bound to act in the best interests of that electorate.

If a party policy was likely to be detrimental to my electorate I would use a conscience vote to say no.

The Conservative Party has a policy of honest, open and responsible government.

Our democratic process allows us to vote for the candidate of choice and a party vote, where the party chooses the member. All parties now press for the party vote so they can make their choice of who they bring to Parliament.

MMP was voted in to break the two-party monopoly of first past the post and to have the opportunity of electing independent candidates. If elected I will use a lifetime of practical experience and old-fashioned common sense to act in the best interests of all New Zealanders.

I do not profess to be a politician but I am asking for your candidate vote to be your voice in Parliament and your party vote to ensure there is a Conservative presence to keep the next government on a short leash.

Pita Paraone, NZ First:
An interesting question that is often asked by voters who did not vote for you in the first place.

Given that lack of support and the "one digit salute" given me recently by a voter who was clearly not voting for me and would expect me to support their cause in any case does beg the question in return, why should I?

However, I have and will.

My track record will show that in regards to the smokefree issue and a Treaty of Waitangi settlement I voted against the wishes of my parliamentary caucus. In fact, for the latter issue I was able to persuade them to change our party position.

I entered this campaign with the intent to be given the opportunity to represent and advocate for the people of Whangarei in Parliament. Give me that mandate and I can assure you that I will certainly vote against any of my party's policies that are detrimental to Whangarei (not the few) and indeed the North, all of which has been lacking for the people of Whangarei and Northland.

Having had constant representation from one party for many years unless there is a change in this representation, nothing will change. It's common sense.

Shane Reti, National Party:
To be an effective voice in Parliament for Whangarei, an MP needs to be as close to the decision making as possible.

Political history is awash with politicians who choose, for whatever reason, to distance themselves from their political party and become independent. With little exception, the ability of such estranged politicians to then represent their constituents is reduced and their voice is weakened. An effective MP will have the skills to negotiate forcefully for the interests of their constituents, and then the fortitude to accept collective decision making and make it work. This is true statesmanship.

Northland electorate:

David Clendon, Green Party:
Green Party policy is developed by a highly democratic process that takes into account the views of our membership.

Our policy is evidence based and incorporates substantial feedback so that the community, various organisations in the sector and the electorate influence our final policy line. Green MPs have the right to "opt out" of policy to which they have a conscientious objection.

Ken Rintoul, Focus NZ:
When a conscience vote is called, Focus NZ's policy is that each electorate candidate will vote according to the wishes of the Focus NZ members in their electorate.

List members will vote according to the collective wish of all Focus NZ members.

This cost-effective members' referendum will be decided on a simple majority vote of our members.

We do not wish to see uninformed voting, and will fully inform our members of the issue through our candidates and members' newsletters, emails, and our website.

Voting will be conducted electronically, via either the party website, email or our smartphone app.

Focus NZ is a party specifically formed to give New Zealand provinces real representation in Wellington. We wish to see each province have a greater say in central government, and intend to empower the provinces to own and solve their own issues. The party also gives electorate offices far greater autonomy than any other party and would expect each office to help in selecting the best candidate for their electorate; someone who knows and understands the electorate's problems and can advocate strongly on its behalf in government.

Rather than see greater centralisation and amalgamation of councils, Focus NZ would empower local governments, giving them greater responsibilities to better govern their local communities.

Focus NZ is a fresh new party with fresh new solutions that make sense.

Mike Sabin, National Party:
The first point to note is that members of political parties are elected as representatives of that party and therefore have a responsibility to the party.

All parties rightly expect this of people they select to stand as representatives in electorates.

Were it a case that my party were looking to introduce a policy that was "detrimental" to the Northland electorate then I would set about having meetings with the relevant colleagues to explain the likely impact with a view to positively influencing a more suitable outcome.

In this regard it is important to be a well-respected, straight-talking member of caucus whose view is taken on board and accommodated. This has been my focus in establishing myself in the National Party caucus.

There has not been an issue as yet that I haven't been able to positively influence a suitable outcome through this approach - as distinct to letting it go beyond this point and then crossing the floor.

I would not feel comfortable to be a representative of a party that didn't allow this sort of discussion and engagement which knowingly implemented polices that were detrimental to my constituents.

I don't see the National Party as an organisation that would do this. Were it the case I was unable to prevent this outcome I would not compromise the interests of my constituents.

David Wilson, Democrats for Social Credit:
Our candidates are only bound to support our core financial policies.

As MPs they are entitled to vote against a party position according to the wishes of their electorate, provided that they can demonstrate that they have consulted widely within their electorate prior to making up their mind which way to vote.

This is different from MPs from other parties who are required to vote the way their party tells them to.

We oppose tight party control of MPs, where they are forced to vote as the party bosses dictate, including the idea of a "confidence motion", used to enforce obedience.

Because their position on the party list is so important, most MPs are not prepared to "rock the boat".

This is one of the negative aspects of the MMP voting system which confers more power on the party and less on the voters. We have also been committed to binding referenda for many years.

This is another avenue which gives voters control over their MPs.

As an MP I would support the party in government that gets the most votes, unless their proposals are contrary to our party's basic principles, or unless my electorate told me to do otherwise.

Te Tai Tokerau

Kelvin Davis, Labour Party:
Generally I think it should be possible to do both. I joined Labour because I thought it gave me the best chance of making things better here.

As a Labour MP I am elected to represent my electorate and the collective in terms of Labour policies.

Where there are issues of particular local concern, where the party position is different from mine, I would seek leave from caucus to vote for my region.

In most cases such leave is granted.