Rodney Hide's refused to be drawn on why precisely Roy was rolled, with Stuff reporting it thus:
But Hide today refused to explain why Roy had been voted out of her role.Given that Roy's demotion within her caucus also means she had to tender her resignation as a Minister don't we, the public, deserve a bit more transparency and explanation about why she went?
Free and frank discussions in caucus should not be dragged out in to the public, Hide said.
Remember, we still don't know why Richard Worth was stripped of his ministerial warrant, all those months ago. Key refused to say at the time and doesn't appear to have been seriously questioned about it since. I don't think this is good enough, in a transparent democracy. When Ministers go we need to know why.
Of course, all the speculation is that Roy went because last year she mishandled a coup attempt against Hide, when she was backed by Roger Douglas to confront her leader about his travel perk problems and see if caucus would wear a co-leader arrangement between them. This failed miserably*. But why move against her now? And why not, as Russell Brown tweeted, also move against Douglas, who after all was widely known to be behind it?
Roy's now on two weeks' leave, sent home by her leader to reflect on her future. In an everyday employment environment this'd be referred to as suspension, usually. If Roy decides her future lies outside ACT then assumedly the next List MP, Hilary Calvert of Dunedin, comes in to replace her, keeping ACT's gender ratio at 20% female (1 out of 5). Hide and Douglas will then be the only ACT MPs who have been in Parliament before 2008. Interesting times ahead.
Update: Seems The Herald's John Armstrong also thinks the lack of explanation around Roy's rolling is unacceptable.
* First rule of politics: learn to count. When you only have to count to 5 it really shouldn't be that hard to get it right.