The decision paves the way for party delegates to meet and decide whether to use the waka-jumping law to oust Tana from Parliament, where she now sits as an independent MP.
The Greens had been all set to decide Tana’s fate, with a Special General Meeting of delegates scheduled for last month, however Tana sought to prevent them from doing so by taking legal action.
Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick said she welcomed the court’s ruling “that our decision to pursue an independent investigation into the actions of Darleen Tana, and ultimately request her resignation as a Member of Parliament, were well within the bounds of our Party constitution”.
In July, Swarbrick effectively put the question to members who discussed the matter in branches up and down the country and appointed delegates who will debate and potentially vote on what to do in a special meeting.
That meeting never went ahead, thanks to Tana commencing legal action.
It is unclear whether today’s victory will see the party reconvene that meeting and move to oust Tana permanently.
Tana sought declarations in court that the independent inquiry was flawed and her “ousting” from the Green Party was “unlawful, unreasonable and unfair”.
In his judgment, Justice Johnstone considered whether the inquiry into Tana was “unlawful, unauthorised, unreasonable or unfair” as the MP claimed.
He did not accept any of those claims. Justice Johnstone also considered whether Tana was “ousted from the Green Party”, as she had claimed.
However, he concluded that Tana “was not pressured to resign as a party member”.
“The pressure that she is likely to have felt related to her position as an MP. The result is that Mrs Tana simply cannot have been ousted as a party member.”
Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick, with whip Ricardo Menendez March. Photo / Mark Mitchell
Justice Johnstone said in light of those findings, Tana’s application was declined.
Tana claimed that she was “ousted” from the Greens based “on her evidence that she was both told to resign from the party and found herself unable in the circumstances to resist”, the court judgment said.
But Justice Johnston pointed to an email informing Tana that the Greens caucus would be meeting.
It said the co-leaders would be “process leads for the MP conduct process” and wanted to let Tana know they would ask the caucus to approve a request for Tana’s resignation”.
The judgment said that this email, seen in context “can only have been understood as confirming Ms Swarbrick’s advice that she would be seeking a mandate to request Mrs Tana’s resignation as an MP”.
The judgment said the meeting was of the parliamentary caucus, which was involved with parliamentary side of the party, and not with “controlling admission to or removal from party membership”, which was the matter Tana was trying to litigate.
”The email expressly referred to the co-leaders’ capacities as process leaders for the MP Conduct Process, as the capacities in which they would be seeking their mandate.
“While the co-leaders were not, strictly, acting pursuant to that process, the reference to it confirms the meeting was directed to Mrs Tana’s status as an MP,” the judgement said.
Justice Johnstone also said that if the discussion had been about Tana’s resignation as a party member, it would not have address the question of her status as MP, which he believed the party would wish to address.
