Tana is waka jumped

Written By: - Date published: 8:53 am, October 18th, 2024 - 54 comments
Categories: greens, Parliament, political parties - Tags:

The Greens have clearly struggled with what to do about Darlene Tana.

They have for some time opposed the Waka Jumping law. They have taken a principled view, that the law gives to the leadership of a party too much power and that it has a negative effect on dissent. When your boss can say to you “don’t come Monday” the level of deference tends to increase.

And the law has a distorting effect on who makes it to Parliament. When being able to navigate Wellington politics and gaining favour is more important than winning an electorate seat and building up a local organisation politics has a problem.

But I cannot fault the Green Party’s process.

They had the allegations that Tana was involved in the exploitation of migrant workers investigated by Barrister Rachel Burt. Her conclusions were pretty clear. It was likely that Tana knew about allegations of worker exploitation at her husband’s business and did not disclose them to her party. Burt also drew adverse inferences from Tana’s evidence and contrasted Tana’s claim that she was not involved in the management of her husband’s business with other evidence.

Tana then chose to resign. Refusing to use the Waka jumping law to protect a non member is stretching the principles previously expressed to the breaking point.

The High Court ruled that the report was neither unreasonable nor unfair. And the Green Party delegates have unanimously chosen to use the Waka jumping law.

Their justification, that Tana was not taking a principled stance on a matter of conscience, is clearly the situation. And the concerns about the potential concentration of power in the party leaders’ hands had been addressed by the Greens by seeking the approval of their delegates and securing a unanimous vote.

The essential allegation, that Tana knew about exploitation of migrant workers in her husband’s business and did not disclose them are politically very damaging to the Green Party and totally against the party’s kaupapa.

The Party have given Tana plenty of opportunities and time to resign. I am not surprised that it has finally decided to take the steps that it has. Tana’s presence in Parliament would have sucked up a lot of resources that the party could otherwise use and her presence was clearly not forwarding Green Party interests.

It is now up to the Speaker to formalise the situation. I don’t think we will wait long for him to respond.

[lprent: corrected some errors and a hanging paragraph].

54 comments on “Tana is waka jumped ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Ad 1
    18 October 2024 at 9:06 am

    Big congratulations to Chloe and team for holding their nerve.

    Politics sometimes is just one damn thing after another: over the last 12 months with resignations, dramas, replacements, death, and sustained whole-of-government attack on the only Green Mayor in NZ.

    But together with Hipkins' inability to inspire anything, we haven't had an effective Opposition. So NZ is being walked all over because nothing is uniting to resist it.

    Get back on the horse Greens and damn well ride.

    • Bearded Git 1.1
      18 October 2024 at 10:22 am

      +100 Ad.

      Swarbrick has handled it as well as was possible. Of course she was ahead of Winston in the preferred PM stakes in last week's Taxpayer Union poll by 9.9% to 8.4%.

      Time for Labour to appoint a more inspiring/proactive leader.

      • Darien Fenton 1.1.1
        18 October 2024 at 5:46 pm

        Groan.

        • mike 1.1.1.1
          18 October 2024 at 6:54 pm

          Something to note re: 'waka-jumping".

          Johnathon Milne at Newsroom.

          ……the crudely nicknamed waka-jumping bill. (Crudely, in my view, because ‘waka-jumping’ is a phrase that was first used to disparage Māori MPs like NZ First’s Tau Henare, Rana Waitai and Tuku Morgan, the Alliance’s Alamein Kopu, Act’s Donna Awatere-Huata or Labour’s Tariana Turia – at least one of whom left their party on a matter of undeniable principle).

  2. Mac1 2
    18 October 2024 at 9:28 am

    List MPs are there because of affiliation to the party they espoused when they went into the election. If they leave, or are asked to leave, then that changes the situation.

    In either event, the voters have the say at the next election as to whether things were appropriately handled.

    It also again reinforces the need for parties to bring forward candidates who are competent, honest, compatible, trustworthy and properly motivated.

    After all, the party put them there……

    • Jimmy 2.1
      18 October 2024 at 9:43 am

      Yep, that waka jumping law is not so bad after all.

      • AB 2.1.1
        18 October 2024 at 11:42 am

        Not intrinsically. It can be used in a principled way or an unprincipled way. The Greens characteristically have done the former.
        Their historical distrust of the law is well-founded and the great care they have taken with the process of using reflects that.
        So hard luck Jimmy – no intellectually sloppy cheap shot at the Greens is on offer.

    • Rodel 2.2
      18 October 2024 at 9:47 am

      Yep. Agree with you about list mps being there just because of party affiliations but can't help thnking she's been hard done by because of her husband's failings.I may be wrong.

      • Anne 2.2.1
        18 October 2024 at 10:48 am

        I understand that the Greens stance had nothing to do with her husband's failings per se, but rather Darleen Tana's dishonesty about them. She claims she didn't know anything but that claim beggars belief.

        Edit: I see Belladonna has outlined the details of her dishonesty at 4.1

      • Swampy 2.2.2
        18 October 2024 at 8:42 pm

        You're wrong. Rachel Burt's conclusions were pretty clear. She likely knew and never told the party.

    • mikesh 2.3
      18 October 2024 at 10:56 am

      “After all, the party put them there……”

      And it was the voters who voted for the party (with her in it). If she was pushing worthwhile ideas and policies, and was only being pushed out of her party because those policies were at odds with her party's line, then Brownlee should decline the party's application. However I think this would not apply in this case.

    • georgecom 2.4
      18 October 2024 at 11:01 am

      Indeed. I see a difference between an electorate MP and a list MP. If you win an electorate then the constituency has voted for you as a person/candidate. For whatever reason they chose you as the named person over others. A list MP benefits from people who voted for the party, not the candidate. A list MP who walks away or quits the party absolutely distorts the representation in parliament. It devalues all the voters who gave their party vote to that party and denies them full representation of their vote.

      • Descendant Of Smith 2.4.1
        18 October 2024 at 1:00 pm

        I'd limit that to only the first 2.5 years of a term. I'm quite OK with forming new alliances, becoming independant, etc ahead of an election if a list member feels a party has moved too far from where they once were (or them themselves have)

    • gsays 2.5
      18 October 2024 at 12:52 pm

      Totally agree with last two sentences Mac1.

      That has to be the biggest area of concern/remedy.

      Now for our khaki cousins to get stuck in to opposing this rabble.

  3. Tiger Mountain 3
    18 October 2024 at 9:37 am

    Well done Greens. Your brand is strong, which seems to be baffling for some of the paid pundits.

    In politics there are always inner party factional and ideological struggles, versus what is presented to the public. But the Greens do tend to be more up front than some others from what I have observed over the years.

    Be interesting to see if the Speaker does his job and rules, or is subject to interferrence.

    • Belladonna 3.1
      18 October 2024 at 9:58 am

      My understanding is that the Speaker has no alternative, once there is a request in writing from the leader of a Party. He has to invoke the waka jumping legislation.

      • Bearded Git 3.1.1
        18 October 2024 at 10:25 am

        Agreed Bella-according to law professor Andrew Geddis on RadioNZ last night Brownlee has no alternative under the law-he must chuck Tana out.

      • mikesh 3.1.2
        18 October 2024 at 11:02 am

        That was why the Greens were not in favour of the WJ legistration in the first place. Brownlee should have the option of keeping her in parliament, unless it would materially upset the proportionalities.

        • Belladonna 3.1.2.1
          18 October 2024 at 11:57 am

          I don't know that it makes much difference in the 'fairness' stakes.

          It just removes the risk of 'playing politics' from the party leader/s to the Speaker.

          I'm sure we can all envisage situations where it would be to the advantage to the government to have an embarrassing ex-MP remaining in parliament as a drag on another party. And therefore a temptation to a Speaker to keep them there.

          It's difficult to see any way that an MP defecting or choosing to be an independent does not upset the proportionality of the House. It may not unseat the government, but it affects the ability of parties to operate in Parliament (fewer speaking opportunities, less representation on select committees, reduced funding, etc.)

    • James Simpson 3.2
      22 October 2024 at 11:47 am

      Interference from whom? What are you suggesting?

      Anyway as of just now the Speaker has removed her as an MP.

  4. Rodel 4
    18 October 2024 at 9:48 am

    Yep. Agree with you about list mps being there just because of party affiliations but can't help thnking she's been hard done by because of her husband's failings.I may be wrong.

  5. Belladonna 5
    18 October 2024 at 9:57 am

    Very interesting discussion re Tana and the political process towards waka jumping within the GP on Nine to Noon

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018960316/darleen-tana-s-future-now-with-parliament-s-speaker

    One, very interesting take was – that despite what could be regarded as a horror year – with personal stories about their MPs outweighing the political commentary they'd much rather be hitting the headlines with – the GP support hasn't dropped. They've remained over 10% (usually comfortably over 10%) – throughout the whole year.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_New_Zealand_general_election

  6. tWig 6
    18 October 2024 at 10:45 am

    I think the waka jumping legislation is OK for a switch in party loyalty, but should differentiate between electorate and list MPs. I think there should be the opportunity for independents to sit in the house based on their own merits. This will become more important if we move to a 4-year term. Watching the UK, where Starmer has strongly punished his own caucus recently, for even vote abstentions, and for questioning the direction of his Labour government, we do need a system where MPs can develop an independent line on critical political issues.

    Sitting parties should not have a stranglehold on caucus members without allowing internal debate, and the waka-jumping legislation is this stranglehold. So I can understand why the Greens were, and are, against it.

    Where someone has been caught out behaving badly and lying, as Tama has, in a way the waka-jumping legislation is kind of inappropriate. Being expelled from the party, not for political differences, but, in her case, for alleged criminal behaviour followed by witholding the facts from her party, are two different things.

    Becoming an independent voice as a sitting MP can have real value in the democratic process (although, not always, of course).

    A waka-jumping electorate MP who switches parties or moves their confidence-and-supply position to the Opposition, should face a by-election immediately. If they are popular and seen as effective by their electorate, they can then then keep their seat for the remainder of the government term.

    A list MP, elected to their position on the list by a party committee or by party members, should face the vote of that same group who placed them in a position to become an MP. If voted out, they will be replaced by the next on the list.

    Both processes should occur within a short timeframe of 3-4 months, so that unscrupulous members like Tama, cannot spin out the process to keep collecting their salaries.

    If an electorate MP decides they can no longer support the political or economic direction of their party, but agree to retain confidence-and-supply for their elected party, they should be able to be an independent MP for the rest of the term. Not the same for list MPs, who are there solely at the party's discretion.

    Otherwise we have effectively stifled the breeding ground for new political parties to develop naturally on the field of political public opinion. I guess I'm thinking of Jim Anderton and New Labour here.

    • Belladonna 6.1
      18 October 2024 at 12:16 pm

      we do need a system where MPs can develop an independent line on critical political issues.

      The NZ parliament is one of the most tightly 'whipped' in the Westminster system. We have nothing like the freedom that backbench MPs have in the UK to express opinions which are divergent to their party leadership, and even vote against their party with minimal consequences.

      I would like to see a much greater degree of independence – especially of back bench MPs to speak and vote their conscience – in NZ.

      Any MP who moves further away (unable to support their party on critical platform issues, etc.) – should no longer be associated with that Party (either by their own or the party action). Thinking here of cases like Jim Anderton or Winston Peters.

      Confidence and supply is meaningless, when it comes to Opposition MPs. Removing an MP from a party total has a whole lot of implications (number of speaking slots, membership on select committees, funding, etc.). Any change upsets the proportionality of Parliament.

      If you can't support key platforms of your party, and want to be an independent – then you have to go to the electorate for a mandate.

      Those MPs will almost invariably establish a mini-Party (there are significant rewards for this in the parliamentary system) – but are effectively independent MPs. Those with a strong support base (Anderton) will return. Those without (Sharma) will not.

      List MPs are a different matter. While Tana argues that there was support for her as an individual (vote Tana for Green). The reality is that list voters have no way of knowing whether their actual vote is for Davidson, or for Tana (it depends on how far down the order you go, before your vote is counted).
      I'd support a process where the group which approved the 'List' is consulted and votes on whether the MP remains as an independent, or is replaced.

      As a list MP, If you can't support key platforms of your party, and want to be an independent – then you have no mandate, and should resign (or be required to leave).

      I agree that the timeframe of this has been ridiculously long (as it was with Sharma and JL Ross) – and that much more prompt action is required. Not least because of the amount of political and media attention involved in what is essentially a sideshow.

      • tWig 6.1.1
        19 October 2024 at 8:52 am

        Starmer 'removed the whip', suspending for 6 months from the party caucus, 7 MPs for voting with an SNP amendment to remove the 2-child limit on child support payments for families who are on benefits.

        So, no, in Starmer's Labour, there is no easy voting against his policies. Reeves is his Richard Prebble, I am guessing.

        • Belladonna 6.1.1.1
          19 October 2024 at 12:07 pm

          Whereas the back-bench Tories, in the last government, seemed to almost have free reign.

          I do think there is a different 'level' of acceptable disagreement for people who are senior members of the party (including whips). But back-benchers can hardly be being seen to articulate the party policy.

  7. Dennis Frank 7
    18 October 2024 at 11:58 am

    I expect Winston to acclaim the decision along these lines: "Circumstances have forced the Greens to tacitly concede that I was right. You can count how many years it took them to measure the extent to which they are slow learners."

    A 2013 Fairfax-Ipsos poll found that 76% of those surveyed oppose MPs staying in Parliament if they leave their party.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waka-jumping

    Such a hefty whack of public opinion supporting Winston's initiative puts Aotearoa well and truly behind NZF and the Greens – the other parties, as far as I'm aware, remain in the slow-learner category…

  8. James Simpson 8
    18 October 2024 at 12:24 pm

    A sensible decision but contrary to the long held view of the party.

    Can someone closer the party than me comment on why the long held opposition changed, on the very first occasion that the party had to confront the issue.

  9. Psycho Milt 9
    18 October 2024 at 12:46 pm

    "Tana then chose to resign."

    That's the clincher, I think. If you're a list MP and you resign from the party whose list you were on, you're depriving that party's voters of their legitimate MP share. That seat is for the person in position X on the Green Party list, it's not the personal possession of the person occupying it.

    • gsays 9.1
      18 October 2024 at 1:03 pm

      I agree.

      However, according to Tana's lawyer, Tana is claiming she/they was/were forced out of the Greens rather than retiring.

      This is part of her/our appeal to the Supreme Court.

      Should be an Olympian the size of the bow she/they is/are drawing.

      https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/middayreport/audio/2018960342/greens-should-wait-for-ruling-before-ousting-tana-lawyer

    • weka 9.2
      18 October 2024 at 2:32 pm

      I disagree (mostly). If the principle of opposing the party hopping legislation is to allow for MPs to disagree with their party on important matters of conscience, then resigning from the party isn't the key issue. The ability to disagree with the party is. Think Marilyn Waring.

      Nearly all Green MPs have been list not electorate MPs, and at least some have done constituency work (don't know if this is still a thing in the Greens). Because nearly all have been list MPs, the party is not a classic FFP origin MP. List MPs aren't add ons, or there because of party 'affiliation', they're central to the party and how it functions both in the party and in the community and nation.

      If I was a swing left voter I might choose the Greens over Labour because of the list candidate from my area (or vice versa). Or the local person's integrity on x issue. I might not want the next person on the list to take their place. That list person doesn't own the position either.

      My understanding of MMP and lists, was that it was to increase proportionality and the purpose of this was representation. I'm not convinced that the country or GP voters are served by 'next cab off the rank' thinking.

      • weka 9.2.1
        18 October 2024 at 2:33 pm

        the thing that makes me think Tana should go is the fact that she stayed even when it was damaging the party. Kind of a catch 22 for her, but sometimes it's better (and more ethical) to walk away.

      • Psycho Milt 9.2.2
        18 October 2024 at 2:49 pm

        MMP's purpose of ensuring proportionality is my concern here. I and others voted such that the Greens are entitled to 15 MPs. It's not up to any of those MPs to decide that actually we can only have 14. I may not like the next person on the list and might prefer them not to be in Parliament, but above all I want the system we put in place to ensure proportionality to ensure proportionality.

        • weka 9.2.2.1
          18 October 2024 at 2:55 pm

          what's the purpose of proportionality?

        • weka 9.2.2.2
          18 October 2024 at 2:56 pm

          and tbf, Tana didn't decide, the Greens did. She didn't want to leave the party as far as I can tell.

          • Belladonna 9.2.2.2.1
            18 October 2024 at 8:19 pm

            Then why did she resign?

            Not saying that the GP might not have kicked her out. But there was no opportunity for that to occur (and, I'm sure it would be a lengthy and consultative process). It was short-circuited by her resignation.

            She's now claiming that it was effectively constructive dismissal. But her protests are becoming more and more thin.

            • weka 9.2.2.2.1.1
              19 October 2024 at 10:42 am

              I don't know why she resigned, but the GP would certainly have ejected her from the party so maybe she decided it was better to jump before she was pushed.

              From memory the expulsion of the two MPs in 2017 was done quite quickly, a decision for the caucus and exec in that case I think, because of the need to act quickly in that situation.

      • tWig 9.2.3
        19 October 2024 at 8:58 am

        Doubt very many people pick their party vote based on the subtleties of the lower party list or even the higher.

        • weka 9.2.3.1
          19 October 2024 at 11:03 am

          sure, lots of people don't pay much attention when they vote. But for those that do and want to argue principles, this is a gnarly issue.

  10. Mike the Lefty 10
    18 October 2024 at 1:34 pm

    The Greens have always been resolutely opposed to immigrant exploitation, whether inside or outside the workforce. Tana must have known about how her husband's business was doing this (how could she not have known?) but continued to deny all knowledge and then resorted to legal technicalities to entrench her position as a list MP without a moral mandate.

    If anyone is guilty of hypocrisy it is Tana bringing disrepute to the Greens Party so she can pocket a year's parliamentary salary whilst doing nothing for the people who voted for her (indirectly). Will she apologise to Greens Party list voters for discarding their values for a pocket full of gold?

    She should show a shred of honour and resign voluntarily, but very likely she won't and will drag it out by legal filibustering. The Greens are right to use the legislation to get rid of her, albeit they see it as a last resort.

    No more meetings, no more discussions, no more chances, just do it Chloe!

  11. Anne 11
    18 October 2024 at 3:43 pm

    She wants the Greens to delay action until after court proceedings have been completed.

    She's gonna keep that salary rolling in come hell or high water:

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/531208/darleen-tana-wants-more-time-after-greens-vote-to-waka-jump-her

    And naturally Pip-squeak Seymour has to climb into the debate even though it has nothing to do with him. What a little squirmimg snake he is.

  12. Belladonna 12
    18 October 2024 at 8:26 pm

    I find it noteworthy (in a good way) that the only occasions where the waka jumping legislation has been invoked is cases where the MP has behaved in a matter unbefitting a member of parliament. Awatere accused (and later convicted) of fraud; Tana accused of exploiting migrant workers.
    It has not been invoked where there are matters of political disagreement with an MP, or where the relationship has just broken down (Sharma, and Ross – although the subsequent behaviour of both did them no credit).

  13. thinker 13
    19 October 2024 at 6:51 pm

    I guess the Greens should learn from this and change their rules to allow for a binding members referendum if and when necessary.

    The odds are this will happen again.

    Would have saved the country a lot of money and the Greens some kudos.

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.