On the bike lane to hypocrisy

Can you really claim to be against the waka jumping law you helped put on the books when you are contemplating taking advantage of it when it suits you?

Photo by Jonathan Kalifat on Unsplash

Denmark has an interesting history with capital punishment. The country abolished it in 1933 but then brought it back after World War II to execute war criminals. After the war criminals had been executed, it was abolished again.

Until they bring it back? Can you really say you’ve abolished something when you're willing to reinstate it for specific cases? Doesn’t that mean you’re only selectively opposed to something, rather than being opposed as a point of principle?

I thought about this when reading about the Green Party scheduling a membership vote on whether to use the current “waka jumping” law to expel current list MP Darleen Tana from Parliament.

There is a trollish cliche about the Greens no longer being the party of Rod Donald and Jeanette Fitzsimons. This rightly sets the teeth of Green members on edge, because it’s not as if Donald and Fitzsimons were complete moderates without a radical bone in their bodies. The criticism resonates, in this case, however, because the current party position on waka jumping has become so convoluted and self-contradictory that the contrast could not be clearler.

The Greens were once staunchly against waka-jumping laws, denouncing them as undemocratic. Donald called the 2001 version of the “the most draconian, obnoxious, anti-democratic, insulting piece of legislation ever inflicted on this Parliament.” The party opposed the renewal of the law when it came up for a vote again in 2005.

The compromising started in 2017, when the party decided it wanted to have its cake and eat it too. Labour could only take office with the support of the Greens and NZ First and it was a bottom line for Winston Peters to have a waka jumping law as the price of that (for pretty much all the reasons the Greens claimed to oppose). The Greens caved but, while voting for the law, said that it still opposed it as a matter of principle.

After the 2020 election NZ First was no longer in Parliament. A vote on the waka jumping law came up once more but Labour decided it wanted to keep the law even if NZ First was not around to demand it. The Greens voted against the law but because Labour held a majority of Parliament this was a symbolic stand that didn’t result in any actual outcomes.*

And this brings us to Darleen Tana.

Tana, a Green MP, resigned after an investigation found she likely knew of worker exploitation linked to her husband’s business but refused to vacate her seat, instead remaining as an independent MP. In other words, she jumped wakas. Given the Green Party's vocal opposition to the waka-jumping law, you might think they would let the matter rest there.

Instead, the Greens decided to hold a Special General Meeting to vote on whether to use the waka-jumping law to expel Darleen Tana. This meeting was put on hold when Tana challenged the decision in court. The High Court rejected her request for an injunction, clearing the way for the Greens to move forward. Now, the meeting is rescheduled for 17 October.

For those trying to keep track, the Greens’ position seems to be this:

Waka-jumping laws are fundamentally undemocratic and wrong—except when a coalition agreement forces us to support them, after which we will vote for their repeal to affirm our opposition, but then consider using them ourselves if a rogue MP becomes an embarrassment. We remain against them in principle, except in situations that demand practicality, which we will still oppose while acting upon them, so long as 75% of our members agree.

The National Party has, by contrast, been a model of consistency. They, too, opposed the waka-jumping law and so declined to use it when Jami-Lee Ross defected and caused serious turmoil. Ironically, NZ First - the party most in favour of the law - took Ross’s proxy and promised to vote in alignment with National which looked like a pretty transparent attempt to stymie any potential use of the law by National if it changed its mind.

Of course, National’s track record is not perfect, since it agreed not to challenge the law in their post-2023 coalition deal with NZ First. But compared to other parties it has been a model of consistency.

The same can’t be said for Labour. After NZ First was booted from Parliament in 2020, they kept the law on the books claiming it was essential for preserving the sacred proportionality of Parliament. Yet when Meka Whaitiri defected to Te Pāti Māori in 2023, they chose not to invoke the law. This made completely clear that the law is being used as a convenient option rather than a principled tool.

The Greens have long portrayed themselves as the most principled and morally superior party in Parliament, lecturing others on the high standards they claim to uphold. And this was obnoxious enough. In recent years, however, the party’s sanctimony has turned into sheer hypocrisy, revealing them to be not the party of principle they proclaim, but the party of self-serving contradictions.

Postscript: Why the Waka-Jumping Law Is Fundamentally Flawed

The waka-jumping law is problematic even for list MPs, who do not swear allegiance to their party but to the Crown, representing all New Zealanders. Party lists are not mechanisms to appoint loyal party servants; they are a means to elect members of Parliament who serve the public.

There’s no guarantee that a party will remain more faithful to its voters' interests than a list MP. Parties break faith with promises all the time! In those cases, it may well be the rogue list MP’s desire to keep faith with the voters that leads them to break away from their party.

---

* The technical term for this is “Green Party policy”.