Judith Collins and Denise Lee In Lee's electorate earlier in the campaign. Photo / Audrey Young
Judith Collins and Denise Lee In Lee's electorate earlier in the campaign. Photo / Audrey Young
What was she thinking? Denise Lee that is, not Judith Collins.
Lee, the National MP for Maungakiekie, may have been entitled to feel annoyed at being left out of the loop over a policy announcement by her leader on Newstalk ZB - that National would review Auckland Council.
But theill-discipline of Lee to put that sentiment in writing and send it to 50 of her closest colleagues in the heat of an election campaign is mind-boggling.
It was either a case of naiveté or of mischievously hoping it would be leaked to the media, as it was.
The one thing that matters most when it comes to MPs during an election campaign is discipline.
You never see it until it isn't there and in National's case, it has just gone awol.
That is why Collins was peppered with questions today such as: is your caucus revolting? Is your caucus unified? Are the wheels falling off your campaign?
Collins did not fight for the job of leader in July. The caucus went crawling to her when it was out of options.
At least until the election, she deserved discipline - which is not the same as unity - and until the past few days she has had it.
Now Collins is being accused of "a shockingly bad example of poor culture," according to the Lee letter leaked to Newshub.
Collins responded the only way possible in order to try to salvage something from the situation - with a display of assertive leadership.
She generously put down Lee's actions to the stress of the campaign - but clearly laid down the law to her in private.
Maungakiekie MP Denis Lee. Photo / Supplied
And Lee has now issued a statement saying she accepted Collins decision and did not want her letter to caucus leaked. But Collins was right from the outset.
A leader has the prerogative to make captain's calls during election campaigns.
A leader also has the prerogative to make up responses on the hoof - as she did in the TV3 leaders' debate.
At least four times she gave responses to Patrick Gower that you won't find in any National Party policy: getting healthy companies to repay the Covid-19 wage subsidy, reviewing the way Pharmac operates; supporting the policy of free sanitary product in schools, and having one unisex toilet in a school.
Leaders are entitled to give spontaneous responses to questions for which they are later accountable.
The leader is entitled to keep internal polling numbers tightly held - especially during an election campaign.
A leader is entitled to not consult widely but have a tight campaign team through which decisions are made.
National leader Judith Collins. Photo / Mark Mitchell
Every leader in the National Party - in fact almost every leader that ever lived - promises to consult more but ends up having a small coterie of advisers on whom they rely.
The issue facing the National Party is not whether Collins consulted her Auckland local Government spokeswoman - she didn't.
It is not whether she made up policy on the hoof - she didn't but she had the right to.
It is not whether it was good policy - a review of Auckland Council and its Council Controlled Organisations is hardly earth-shattering.
It is whether National MPs understand that ill-discipline in a campaign is electoral death.
