The Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Idea at the Heart of the NZ Labour Gould Review

Someone leaked the Gould review to Patrick Gower. Could anything have been more safely predicted?  Seriously, why keep these things under wraps? They invariably get out, and become far greater stories because the word "leaked" is attached.  

The Gould Review was a carnival of navel gazing. A joke. 

Media attention has focussed, predictably, on disunity blah blah.  A complete sideshow. Cunliffe suffered no more caucus dissension than most other leaders in opposition, and significantly less than David Shearer who was shafted up hill and down dale. The bullshit about the Anyone But Cunliffe faction has never been properly refuted, ironically because its alleged members are too loyal to defend themselves. "Unity above all" is a catch-cry of the despotic. Anyway, I won't win that argument.

However, the leaked review contains a glistening turd, namely the proposed Vetting Committee for the Labour list. Here it is without embellishment:

One of the most criticised aspects of the last election was the process for selection of list candidates. The existing arrangements cannot be justified in terms of democratic practice or effective outcomes.
First, any Party members who get the support of 10 financial members of the Party should be able to nominate for consideration for a list position.
Second, nomination should be initially vetted by a central Vetting Committee appointed by the NZ Council. The Vetting Committee should consist of three experienced Party members who are not current members of the NZ Council or a Member of Parliament. The role of the Vetting Committee is to verify that the nominee qualifies under the rules, and to select 60 nominees for referral to the Moderating Committee that will allocate the place on the list to the nominees. All electorate candidates should also nominate for the list to ensure that candidates campaign for both the electorate and the Party. It was apparent in the last election that some electorate candidates did not campaign for the Party vote. The Vetting Committee should be aware of and give consideration to the Constitutional obligation for the Party list to reflect the diversity in the community, in particular gender, race and the regions.
— https://www.3news.co.nz/nznews/where-labour-went-wrong--election-review-leaked-2015060315?ref=RLrotator

This is an atrocious idea. Because of its first past the post voting rules, Labour's governing body is already a mono-factional behemouth incapable of promoting anyone but their own.  Adding an additional committee made up of handpicked members, unelected and unaccountable to party members, to vet poential candidates is not only needlessly bureaucratic; it is flagrantly undemocratic. 

Who would the NZ Council appoint to such a Vetting Committee other than people who agree with them?  How does that solve anything? How does it not simply entrench the problem that the party elites are determined to shrink the talent pool to include only people they would be happy to invite around for dinner?

The solution to a lack of internal democracy is not to create an undemocratic entity that takes even more power away from party members. 

In the pantheon of bad ideas, this one deserve high billing.