Darleen Tana’s extraordinary run as a Member of Parliament looks set to continue for some time yet. Now that the High Court has dismissed Tana’s application for an injunction to prevent the Green Party invoking the so-called party-hopping legislation, the party will be able to proceed with their proposed meeting to determine her fate.

That meeting is now scheduled for 17 October – just over a year after the general election at which Tana was elected to Parliament. If more than three-quarters of the participants agree, the Green Party will then seek to apply the legislation to finally oust Tana from Parliament.

But it may not be quite that simple, nor a resolution of this distraction that rapid. For a start, there must still some doubt that the planned 17 October meeting will in fact occur. Tana is reportedly considering whether to appeal the High Court’s decision and has until 2 October to decide whether to do so. If previous practice is any guide Tana will delay that decision until as late as possible. Should an appeal be lodged, it is unlikely that it will be disposed of in time for the Green Party’s proposed 17 October meeting to proceed, further slowing down an end to the saga that has already been dragging on since March.

But even if the meeting does proceed as planned, and the 75% support threshold the Green Party’s rules require for seeking to evict Tana from Parliament is achieved, there are still more steps to be taken before Tana’s political execution can be carried out.

Under the Electoral Integrity Act 2018, there is a deliberate process for expelling a Member of Parliament who has left the party for which they had originally been elected. It is triggered by a letter from the Member’s party leader to the Speaker formally advising that they have left the party for which they had been elected.

The Act requires that notice to the Speaker to state “that the parliamentary leader reasonably believes that the member of Parliament concerned has acted in a way that has distorted, and is likely to continue to distort, the proportionality of political party representation in Parliament as determined at the last general election.” The letter must also confirm that the party leader has written to the Member of Parliament, advising them that the party is seeking to apply the legislation, and setting out the specific reasons for its decision to do so. The Member of Parliament then has 21 working days to respond to the party’s charges. The party leader is then required to advise the Speaker that the party’s caucus has considered the Member’s response and that a minimum of two-thirds of its membership has supported the application for the Member’s expulsion proceeding. It is then over to the Speaker to determine the outcome.

Therefore, should the Green Party meeting scheduled for 17 October proceed and give the party the mandate it requires to seek Tana’s expulsion, the party leadership will then need to apply the processes set out above. Assuming no slippage, the absolute earliest date on which the party will be able to confirm with the Speaker that it has followed the procedures set out in the Act and that Tana should be expelled from Parliament is 18 November.

However, given the history of this case so far, that deadline seems extremely unlikely to be met. From the outset, Tana’s entire strategy has been to drag things out for as long as possible to inflict maximum embarrassment on the Green Party, while continuing to collect her Parliamentary salary and allowances.

That approach hardly seems likely to change at this late stage. Even if Tana decides not to appeal the recent High Court decision, there remains the likelihood of further Court action at any point from here on, especially if the Green Party does not tick correctly all the provisions of the Electoral Integrity Act. There is also the more unlikely possibility that the Speaker may feel unconvinced in part or in whole by the submission the Green Party eventually makes to him.

If the 2003 case of Donna Awatere-Huata’s expulsion from the ACT Party is any guide, the Tana case may therefore only be at its middle stages. In July 2003, the ACT Party leader advised the Speaker of his party’s wish to invoke the Electoral Integrity legislation then in place to expel Awatere-Huata from Parliament. Subsequent legal action from Awatere-Huata challenging this move went through several Court processes, before being finally resolved in ACT’s favour by the Supreme Court over a year later in November 2004.

A repeat of that legal marathon might appeal to Tana but is the last thing both the Green Party and the public would want. Nevertheless, based both on experience and Tana’s conduct to date, it is a potential outcome both should brace themselves for.

After all, political revenge is at its best when it is drawn out!

It is often said that timing is everything in politics. Sometimes the timing is fortuitous, a case of being in the right place at the right time, and sometimes it is the precise opposite.

This week, the Labour leader heads off to Britain, taking up the traditional annual taxpayer funded overseas study trip, available to the Leader of the Opposition. He will be away until the start of October, attending the annual conference of Britain’s new governing Labour Party and “meeting with think-tanks, economists and writers both in Liverpool and London”. Hipkins says it is an opportunity “to take stock of what is happening internationally and discuss our direction with other policymakers.”

It all sounds very reasonable and plausible and not likely to be in any way controversial or newsworthy to anyone but the most ardent Labour aficionado.

However, the timing of this trip might come to prove awkward for Hipkins. Earlier this week, a Taxpayers Union-Curia poll showed support for his leadership plummeting. According to the poll, Hipkins’ net favourability rating with voters has suffered a large fall of 16 points to -10%, since July. The net favourability rating is the gap between those poll respondents who like a leader, and those who do not. In this poll, just 31% of respondents said they had a positive view of Hipkins, while 41% said they had an unfavourable view, a difference of -10%.

Whenever there is concern within a political party about its leadership, the absence of the leader abroad always seems to prompt the opportunity for discontent with that leader to come to the surface. The infamous, but ultimately unsuccessful “Colonels’ Coup” against Sir Robert Muldoon in 1980 was hatched while he was out of the country. It failed because Muldoon aggressively and forcefully stared down his critics upon his return to New Zealand.

In 1997, supporters of Dame Jenny Shipley worked during the absence overseas of Jim Bolger to secure the numbers for her to replace him as leader of the National Party and Prime Minister. Senior Minister, Sir Douglas Graham, was then deputed to meet Bolger at the airport upon his return to acquaint him with this unpleasant new reality. Bolger stood down a few days later, without provoking a direct contest with Shipley.

There was another feature of the Taxpayers Union-Curia poll that should be of concern to Hipkins as he sets off overseas. The poll showed the governing parties increasing their lead over the Opposition, with the Labour Party going slowly backward, now polling marginally less than its percentage at last year’s General Election. The combination of this, and Hipkins’ plummeting personal support, will undoubtedly have set some alarm bells ringing within the Labour Caucus.

Of course, it is unwise to read too much into one poll – the longer trends are more important – but the Taxpayers Union-Curia poll confirms a trend that has been apparent since the election ten months ago.

Under Labour’s Caucus Rules, the position of party leader must be considered at the first Caucus meeting of the year preceding a General Election. So, Hipkins’ position is up for review next February anyway. Normally, this is a formality if the leader is seeking to carry on – the last time Labour voted out a sitting leader was in 1965 when Norman Kirk replaced Arnold Nordmeyer by 25 votes to 10.

But Hipkins, given Labour’s currently indifferent performance and his own declining public support, will be under pressure to make his intentions clear well before then. Since last year’s election defeat, he has been adamant that he wants to lead Labour into the next election campaign, and there have been no apparent challenges to that. Two names frequently mentioned as leadership contenders, Kieran McAnulty and Barbara Edmonds, have both persistently and emphatically (at least so far) ruled themselves out of contention.

Hipkins’ forthcoming absence overseas will give the Labour Caucus – and Hipkins himself for that matter – an opportunity to reflect on the party’s poor performance of recent months and the extent to which Hipkins as leader is responsible for that. It will give each the chance to consider whether it is credible for things to carry on as they are, or whether Labour’s prospects might improve if someone else was at the helm.  

If there is a move afoot within the Caucus for change, Hipkins’ absence will give any challengers the opportunity to quietly canvass Caucus support and then to assess the mood of the Party overall. Whatever outcome is reached, nothing is likely to happen publicly before next February’s first Caucus meeting.

However, an early clue might be provided by who – if anyone – turns up to meet Hipkins at the airport when he returns on 1 October.

Back in 2013 then Prime Minister Sir John Key raised the ire of Wellingtonians when he told a Takapuna business audience that “Wellington is dying, and we don't know how to turn it around. All you have there is government, Victoria University and Weta Workshop.” His comments provoked such outrage in the capital that he was quickly forced to “unreservedly apologise” for any offence he had caused, adding “Wellington's an extremely vibrant place; there's lots of things happening here, lots of activity “and “I should have chosen my words better.”

This week, as more and more hospitality and downtown Wellington businesses close their doors, blaming public sector job cuts, the cost-of-living and more people working from home, the current National-led government has been adamant the city is not dying. Finance Minister Nicola Willis has insisted that “there is so much entrepreneurship and excitement still in Wellington … we have vibrant exciting businesses; they are Wellington's future.”

A similar tone is being reflected by the Wellington’s newspaper, The Post. It has been running a series of comments from local people in recent issues extolling the advantages of living in Wellington and why they live there, even including the weird comment from a local MP that he regularly swims in the harbour, unbothered by pollution or sewage discharge warnings.

These upbeat comments are all very well – no doubt the besieged people of Kiev will be doing likewise at present – but they do nothing to overcome the basic problem Wellington is facing. According to Kiwibank’s Regional Insights 2024, most New Zealand regional economies are performing better than last year and are projected to improve again next year. Wellington, however, is the exception – it has been the worst performing region since 2022 and that is not expected to change any time soon.

The easy answer is to blame Wellington’s recession on the current government’s public sector funding and redundancies, but that overlooks the long-term nature of the city’s decline. After its halcyon days from the 1980s through to the late1990s (remember Absolutely Positively Wellington?), Wellington has been in steady economic decline since the early 2000s. Attempts by successive city councils to revitalise the city have been unsuccessful, with the current dysfunctional council’s disastrous Reading Centre redevelopment plan and inner-city transport proposals reeking of incompetence and making Wellington a national laughing stock.

The one potential bright light on the horizon is the current government’s still developing plans for region and city specific development deals. However, the dismissive attitude of the Minister of Local Government to anything emanating from the Wellington City Council and the Mayor’s seeming loathing of everything the Minister stands for are major stumbling blocks to local progress. Both are equally intransigent, ignoring what each has to say, as they continually talk past each other.

While that mutual antagonism continues, there will be little progress, and Wellington looks set to be well down the queue for negotiating a regional deal with the government. And, in the meantime, the city’s slow but steady economic and social decline will continue, no matter how many pro-Wellington articles The Post runs.

A circuit breaker is clearly needed. Wellington’s future is bigger than the egos of the Minister of Local Government and the Mayor. Unfortunately, Wellington lacks a champion at the national level – its three local MPs (two Greens, one Labour) are not part of the government and are therefore largely unheard and ineffectual. The Minister of Regional Development, who blusters about so many other parts of the country, does not appear to even know the city exists, and the two former Wellington Mayors who are now regional list MPs (one Green, one New Zealand First) have disappeared from public view altogether.

Given her earlier comments, Wellington’s best hope at the national level might now be Nicola Willis. As a regional list MP, she certainly fully understands Wellington’s problems, and as Minister of Finance is well-placed to do something about them. While her Ministerial workload will almost certainly preclude her from taking on singlehandedly the herculean task of sorting out Wellington and restoring some sanity into its management, she might be just the person to bring her colleague the Minister of Local Government and the Mayor together and knock some sense into their working relationship.

When I first went into Parliament in the early 1980s, there was in place something called the capital city planning committee, which comprised the local MPs, the Mayor and senior councillors, and relevant government and council officials to work together on issues affecting the city and its development. Major projects like the development of Te Papa, the centralisation of the Courts near to Parliament and the redevelopment of the Wellington waterfront, which contributed so much to Wellington’s growth in the late 1980s and 1990s, all had their genesis in discussions in this committee. Unfortunately, it fell into disuse in the 1990s, after the Ministry of Works and Development, which serviced it, was abolished.

But perhaps now is the time to re-establish a similar body and for Nicola Willis to play the broker’s role in bringing it together. Without a move in this direction, current circumstances mean there is little prospect of effective collaboration between the government and Wellington on important issues of common interest.

Something clearly must give. Carrying on the same way as the last few years will do nothing to arrest Wellington’s decline. Rather than throwing rocks at each other – the way the Prime Minister when he spoke at the recent Local Government conference and criticised the venue, Wellington’s new convention centre, Takina, as “lavish” – the government and the city’s civic leaders must start working together, if the ailing capital is to be revived. 

Unfortunately, “mood-lifting” frothy newspaper articles will not do it.

Sir John Key got it right when he told the recent National Party conference we need to "take the temperature down" on race relations. But that is not to say that the critical issues around at present should be swept under the carpet or ignored altogether.

In an open society as we profess to be, the right to hold different opinions should be paramount. There should also be the capacity to debate those differing viewpoints, on their merits, without rancour or bitterness. But sadly, that is rarely the case.

The current debate about the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi is a good example. Debate about the application of the Treaty and the principles which underpin it has been going on since it was signed 184 years ago. ACT’s proposed Treaty Principles Bill is but the latest in a long of moves attempting to define the contemporary relevance of our founding document. And, with every other party in Parliament now pledging to vote against ACT’s Bill, it is doomed to fail.

But despite that near inevitable outcome, this obviously political stunt is being accorded a measure of credibility it does not deserve. What is becoming more worrying is the amount of unnecessary heat the argument around this dead-duck policy is generating, on both sides. Tolerance and perspective are quickly giving way to sensational, unfounded accusations. And with it, the very right to hold and promote diverse views is being challenged.

Left unchecked, such bitter debates cause tensions which can lead to extreme political outcomes. It is no coincidence that the rise of far-right politicians across Europe, from Marine Le Pen’s National Rally in France, Vicktor Orban’s Fidesz Party in Hungary, and most recently the neo-Nazi Alternative für Deutschland (AFD) in the eastern German state of Thuringia are in large part due to the wave of Islamophobia that has swept across Europe in recent years. New Zealand is not yet as polarised a society as those countries, but the risk is that the two xenophobic parties currently in Parliament, alongside more extreme fringe groups outside, could exploit a deterioration in race relations here in just the same way, to the detriment of our overall social cohesion.

Here is where Key’s warning to the National Party conference delegates (and also by extension to the country as a whole) a few weeks ago assumes its true relevance. He was not suggesting that we should shy away from debating difficult and controversial issues, but that we should be careful as we do so not to inflame further already tense situations.

I had alluded to the same point in a column earlier this year where I argued debate around the Treaty of Waitangi and its place in today’s society should be both ordered and reasoned, and not allowed to degenerate into seriously racially divisive acrimony. I suggested there were two people who had critical roles to play to ensure this did not happen

The first was the Prime Minister, by virtue of his position as the head of the government whose policies are at the heart of much of the current controversies. The other was Kingi Tūheitia, following his conciliatory remarks at the national hui he had called together earlier in the year, and reinforced by his speech at the Koroneihana, just days before his recent death.   

It has been noteworthy that many of the tributes paid subsequently to Kingi Tūheitia have hailed his unifying approach as a hallmark of his leadership. The Prime Minister also clearly acknowledged the late Kingi’s role in seeking to bring people together. While it is too early to know the stance of the new Kuīni, Ngā Wai hono i te pō, hopes are high within the Kingitanga and elsewhere that she will maintain the direction and approach of her father.

New Zealand today is a heterogeneous nation of many differing strands, built on a strong bicultural tradition. As Kingi Tūheitia said just last week, we are nevertheless all paddling in the same waka. However, there will always be differing perspectives on the issues of the day, and how to resolve them. But they should not be seen as threats to our social fabric. Rather, they should be welcomed for the opportunities they provide to help us better define who we are and what it means to be a New Zealander today.

In the wake of the sentiments expressed at Kingi Tūheitia’s tangi, and the goodwill his reign engendered, the Prime Minister and the new Kuīni, Ngā Wai hono i te pō are now well-placed to work together to guide and shape that way ahead, if both are of a mind to.