From RNZ report ... he's toast, isn't he?

Yep … too political to fail …

Yep. Any MP can be kicked out (it's just that electorate MPs can run in any subsequent by-election if they want).

So nice, also, to see a student rep saying "the corporatisation of Universities is a bad thing" rather than "now we pay for University, it ought to treat us as proper customers".

Note that the test is whether "the [MP] concerned has acted in a way that has distorted" proportionality ... so the battle now is whether any change to independent status in teh House (which distorts proportionality) is because of the MP's actions, or because of what is being done to the MP.

If the MP allows the party expulsion to go unchallenged, the MP makes it easier for the leaders to claim the MPs actions led to their ceasing to be an MP for the party ... "Look! The Party's executive found this to be the case under the party constitution!! It's not just me that says so!!!"

Instead, the Party seems to be relying on this general power ... claiming (I assume) that the MPs have failed to "work to support Te Pāti Māori kaupapa and tikanga" as cl 3.1(a) requires. Which raises interesting interpretative issues - can the National Council trump the disputes process like this?

But it looks like this hasn't been followed/used - not least because it's the "Electorate Council" that is meant to hear these and (if necessary) kick them up to a "Disputes and Disciplinary Committee" ... which doesn't seem to be what has happened in this case?

Dunno? If you fail to file a challenge to the party decision at earliest opportunity, does this weaken your claim that you need the court to injunct the decision - will a court say "if this really was so bad, why didn't you come to me straight away?" I'm not a court process guy ... .

Note also that any undertaking by TPM to the court not to invoke the party hopping law runs into comity issues - proceedings in the House can't be constrained by judicial proceedings ... .

I'd then argue that the existence of the party hopping laws weights the balance in favour of said injunction ... because, if TPM use the fact of expulsion to invoke that law + force the 2 MPs from the House, that's a major (and irreversible) harm to them!

It’s more than four times larger.

True. But there were only 16,524 students at all Universities in 1960 (population of 2.3 million). There's more than that at Otago alone today.

It includes claims like this, which seem hugely overblown to me. And it notably fails to quote anyone who actually was "triggered".

I've come to view the whole "exam shock!" news story based on the immediate responses of a handful of individuals with a VERY large pinch of salt.