Greens Mess, By By Shaw

explains it well.Thank you.

I have never voted or even looked at a Green candidate list.Just stood out like dogs balls last night.No offence to dogs

haha, that's awesome, they really are the gift that keeps giving!

Just up on kiwiblog, looks like they'll use the law to were so vehemently against.  Absolute gold!

But even better, they'll be able to explain why their use of the law they voted against, was ok to use, coz why?  Well coz we're the left and we're special of course...

I'm loving every minute of this! 

www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2024/07/looks_like_greens_will_waka_jump_tana_out_of_parliament.html

Looks like Greens will waka jump Tana out of Parliament

Stuff reports:



The Green Party leadership has told former MP Darleen Tana their refusal to quit Parliament is “distorting“ the party’s representation in the House.



Co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick said on Sunday they had written to Tana about the issue and called a Special General Meeting of the party in September to discuss their response.



“Today, Marama Davidson and I wrote to Darleen Tana to inform them that it is our view that by resigning from the Green Party but refusing to resign from Parliament, they have 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,” Swarbrick said.



The co-leader said they advised Tana they have 21 working days to respond to matters raised in the letter.



It looks almost certain they will use the waka jumping law to expel her from Parliament.



The letter they have sent is designed to comply with the law that states:



The statement must be in writing and signed by the parliamentary leader concerned, and must 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


Further:



advising the member that he or she has 21 working days from the date of receiving the notice to respond to the matters raised in the notice by notice in writing addressed to the parliamentary leader



So 21 working days from Monday will be around 27 August. Then from that date the caucus can vote by two thirds majority to notify the Speaker that Tana be expelled.


Edit - a chop licking thought from the comments section below the article.

Designed to comply with the law…..



The legislation says “he or she”, yet the Greens in their written material referred to Tana as “they”. While there is no doubt a legal route around this, it would be hilarious is they screwed this up because they didn’t use the right pronoun

Just thinking a bit more on this.

What is so funny is that the PI component are basically calling Dame Chloe a savage colonising racist...

I'm sure it's water off a ducks back for her though.

Here is a great summary of the gangrenes by Graham Adams.

theplatform.kiwi/opinions/chloee-swarbricks-education-in-disaster-management

Chlöe Swarbrick’s education in disaster management

Darleen Tana is only the latest chapter in an annus horribilis.



Graham Adams

Contributing Writer

July 26th, 2024

When she was recruited by the Greens in 2016, Auckland Central MP Chlöe Swarbrick probably never imagined that when she was finally promoted to co-leader it would mean a very public baptism in disaster management. Now having achieved her longstanding ambition to climb to the pinnacle of Green politics, her most immediate challenge has been to stamp out the smouldering fires among the ruins of the party and to somehow restore its battered reputation as its annus horribilis grinds on.



This year, the party’s ranks have been seriously depleted or damaged through death, defection and disgraceful behaviour.



In February, Efeso Collins, regarded as a future leader, died. In March, James Shaw — widely seen as the most reasonable of the Green MPs and certainly the most acceptable to the wider electorate — stepped down as co-leader, enabling Swarbrick’s ascension. In May, Julie Ann Genter crossed the floor of Parliament to shout in frustration at National’s Associate transport minister Matt Doocey, for which she has been referred to the Privileges Committee. In June, former justice spokesperson and party darling Golriz Ghahraman was sentenced in the Auckland District Court for stealing very expensive clothing from boutique stores.



And, of course, the weeping wound that is the Darleen Tana saga continues to suppurate as she took up residence this week at the back of Parliament as an independent MP after resigning from the Greens, despite clear instructions by Swarbrick to leave the premises.



A headline in May for TVNZ’s Q&A hosted by Jack Tame summed up the problems facing the new co-leader — presumably in order of public interest: “Chlöe Swarbrick on Julie Anne Genter, Darleen Tana, and methane targets.”



Nevertheless, for the intensely ambitious Swarbrick, there are silver linings. With her co-leader Marama Davidson absent while she is treated for breast cancer, Swarbrick has been given the opportunity to deal single-handedly with the Tana saga, which revolves around allegations of migrant worker exploitation at her family’s e-bike business. That has gifted Swarbrick valuable media exposure, in which she has exhibited barely concealed fury mixed with the usual pieties about caring for “the planet and people”. She has also expressed her personal disappointment in someone she says she “loved” while assuring voters that none of the options for removing Tana will be ruled out. In short, repeated displays of an iron fist in a thin velveteen glove.



And Swarbrick’s firm hand on the party’s tiller during her co-leader’s absence from Parliament will leave little doubt about who will be seen as first amongst equals when Davidson returns, although her pre-eminence has been evident for some time.



Long before she became co-leader, she featured in preferred prime minister polls. And in the 1 News Verian poll released in late June she was at six per cent — ahead of Winston Peters and David Seymour, both on four per cent.



However, by any assessment, the party Swarbrick has come to rule is in spectacular disarray. Although it is still riding relatively high in the polls — and regularly higher than its election result of 11.6 per cent — a chunk of that support will undoubtedly peel away once Labour rolls Chris Hipkins and replaces him with someone less tainted by a deep connection to the Ardern years.



The more pertinent question perhaps is how durable the Greens’ electoral appeal will be in the years ahead. The unfortunate truth for Swarbrick is that she has assumed the mantle of co-leader when some of the party’s most cherished ideological stances — and ones she enthusiastically promotes — are looking decidedly ropey.



Even popular political parties can wear out their welcome as the public’s preoccupations change. Social Credit, which was dedicated to monetary reform, has long slipped into political obscurity. Yet it was New Zealand’s third party from the 1950s to the 1980s; at 1981’s general election, it reaped 20.55 per cent of the vote.



The issue Swarbrick has elected to pursue most energetically is what she refers to variously as the “climate crisis” and the “climate emergency” — upgraded over recent years from the more anodyne “climate change”. Now in some quarters it is being described as “global boiling”, which is a significant advance on the earlier “global warming”.



The ramping-up of emotive rhetoric has been in inverse proportion to the electorate’s diminishing appetite for more climate doomsterism. Whatever the merits of the science behind the apocalyptic predictions, the Greens face a similar problem to any religion or cult proclaiming an imminent Armageddon. What to do when prophecy fails?



By being part of the global climate change lobby that has been preaching doom from the early 1970s, the Greens are widely seen as crying wolf far too often. Repeatedly rescheduling global disaster and warning of “tipping points” wears every bit as thin as endless promises of Christ’s Second Coming and the apocalypse.



Although the mainstream media prefers to hide the fact, scepticism about anthropogenic climate change is widespread. Social media shows that there are plenty of people who remain unconvinced that every devastating storm or flood is a result of global warming or that replacing their always-raring-to-go fossil-fuelled car with a slow-to-charge EV will make a jot of difference to the climate.



After the devastation wrought by Cyclone Gabrielle and floods early last year, the public mood has swung sharply away from the importance of reducing emissions and towards mitigating the effects of severe weather. Swarbrick’s repeated accusations that emissions are rising under Luxon’s coalition government are beginning to sound simply quaint — and as plaintive as the heading for a recent column by the NZ Herald’s Simon Wilson: “From buildings to bicycles to oil and gas, why do we ignore the climate crisis?”



The Greens have also undoubtedly exhausted the public’s patience with their quixotic campaign to lace New Zealand’s cities with expensive cycle lanes on which cyclists are so often noticeably absent that the dedicated strips have become a byword for the triumph of eco-romaticism over human nature. Even the increased availability of e-bikes — touted as having the ability to flatten hills — has failed to convince many drivers they should expose themselves to the country’s undulating terrain or the vagaries of the weather. Traffic congestion is obviously a price most are willing to pay for convenience, even as they grumble about it.



Transgender ideology — an issue dear to the Greens’ hearts — is swiftly waning in public acceptability too. The tide has turned sharply after the release of the Cass Review in April that heavily criticised the use of puberty blockers, along with the leaked WPATH Files a month earlier, which exposed a shocking lack of ethics and medical integrity among proponents of gender transitioning.



The idea that men can become women by merely wishing to “transition” between the two sexes will increasingly be seen as a form of mental derangement and prescribing puberty blockers a form of child abuse. It is fast becoming an issue that will severely harm any party that continues to champion one of the West’s most pernicious medical experiments.



Senior Green MPs, of course, enthusiastically supported the mobbing of middle-aged women last year in Auckland’s Albert Park before female rights activist Posie Parker and others even had a chance to speak — and Swarbrick played a leading role in reinterpreting the event as one of “love and affirmation”, despite images of the violence meted out by trans activists going viral.



In fact, the Greens’ policies resemble an incoherent grab-bag of contemporary “social justice” issues, including “honouring te Tiriti” and implicitly calling for the destruction of Israel, even while the party condemns “hate speech”.



The Greens’ contradictions were no more apparent than when Ghahraman appeared in court in late June for sentencing for theft. With her shoulders draped in a keffiyeh in support of the Palestinians, she was in a perverse way carrying water for the Iranian regime that arms, trains and funds Hamas — a regime she claims to despise and from which her family fled to New Zealand when she was a child.



Her thefts involved expensive items of clothing, some worth thousands of dollars each. For a party that casts itself as champions of the poor and fierce critics of inequality, its representatives seem to have awfully expensive tastes. And after an earlier court hearing, she was ushered into an enormous, three-litre, diesel-powered, double-cab ute, and not the modest, environmentally sound EV you might have expected to see as a Greens getaway vehicle.



That is what poses the biggest existential threat to the Greens: the growing perception they are — despite their lofty rhetoric about principles and morals — first-class hypocrites.



It doesn’t go unnoticed that they are intent on thwarting mining in New Zealand while driving vehicles that require vast mines to build. And that they tap out their communiques to the faithful on computers and other electronic devices that require metals such as gold, antimony and lithium to function.



It is clear they are happy for New Zealand to outsource oil and gas production to other nations with lower environmental and labour standards than us, even if it means importing vast quantities of Indonesian coal to help charge the EVs they want everyone to adopt.



Perhaps it is their overwhelming self-righteousness that makes them so often blind to their hypocrisy. In June, Green MPs Julie Anne Genter and Tamatha Paul faced a storm of criticism after their staff asked to use off-street parking belonging to nearby retailers for a party-related event held at their new Wellington electorate office. Green-led cycleway initiatives had removed on-street parking on the street.



An OIA request showed that Paul had raised the issue of a lack of short-term parking near the electorate office with a city councillor at the Greens’ office opening party in April. Yet, in 2021, as a city councillor herself, Paul had enthusiastically promoted a $226 million Wellington cycling network.



And now a new list MP who is no longer a member of the party seems to feel no more obligation to leave Parliament than list MP Elizabeth Kerekere did last year when she resigned after being accused of bullying colleagues and staff.



Swarbrick has, of course, left open the possibility of using the “waka-jumping” legislation to evict Darleen Tana from Parliament, despite the Greens being deeply opposed to it in principle.



It doesn’t really matter, however, whether the Greens decide to use the law’s provisions or not. The fact Swarbrick is even willing to contemplate that course of action as a way to rid herself of the rogue MP shows her principles to be entirely flexible — aptly summed up by Groucho Marx’s immortal line: “Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them... well, I have others.”

I googled Tauiwi and it means other non-Maori people, perhaps referring to gay Mexicans or Afghans.

My mate who was a Green party electorate candidate a few cycles ago has nothing good to say about the gay Mexican, he has openly stated that he is corrupt. And that is coming from a long term Green Party member and candidate.
A professional colleague of mine of high standing in the industry has previously done a project that involved Julie-Anne Genter. He did not have a nice thing to say, if I recall the comments were that she was thick as pig shit, rude and aggressive. Noting he made those comments several years ago and well before Genter went nuclear in the House of Parliament, screaming in the face of another MP.

When I ask my mate and his missus why they are still members, they say it is so they can vote the 'crazies' down the list. Don't think they are doing a very good job. To be fair, I think my mate's heart is with the old Green Party, with Rob Donald, Kennedy Graham and Jeanette Fitzsimons. You didn't have to like their politics, but at least they had some integrity.
It is interesting to note that James Shaw was the last white male in the Greens, and now he's gone (although his policies were hopeless, they are great compared to the current disaster).

I think the current state of the Greens is just sad. I used to describe them as the watermelon party, now all you can say is the only environmental part of the Greens is the mental part.

"but they appear to be subject to a different set of rules"

That pretty much sums it up all over New Zealand

Finally
goodoil.news/green-mp-julie-anne-genter-found-in-contempt-of-the-house/
opens
Another day and yet another bad headline for the Green Party. This time it is Julie Anne Genter who was found to be in contempt of the house when she went and stood over National MP Matt Doocey.

Self interest always goes ahead of partee interest so Dame Chloe will def give darling Tarleen the arse imo.

There is no way she wants that stench hanging around until the next election.

After reading this I think they shouldn't sack her.

It's interesting that, apart from winstonfirst, it's the left that love a good dictatorship and it's those on the right that think DT shouldn't be ousted.


The Greens need to decide if they want a more conformist Parliament

Bryce Edwards

Aug 8




Most New Zealanders want the Green Party to invoke the waka jumping law to eject MP Darleen Tana from Parliament. According to poll results reported yesterday by RNZ, 62 per cent of those surveyed by Curia Research were in favour, with only 16 per cent being opposed (and 23 per cent were unsure).



It’s not hard to understand why people are so keen to banish the errant MP from Parliament. All available evidence suggests Tana is a reprehensible and self-serving politician, and she no longer has a mandate to continue representing the party that elected her.



Yet just because there is near-universal agreement that Tana deserves some kind of punishment and should leave Parliament doesn’t mean that forcing her out of Parliament against her will is the best way of dealing with the problem. More importantly, by endorsing the waka jumping legislation – after an honourable history of opposing it – the Greens will help embed a draconian rule that has incredibly detrimental impacts on how the New Zealand political system operates.



A Conformist Parliament

The so-called waka jumping provisions of the Electoral Act 1993 mean that party leaders can direct the Speaker to remove any of their MPs from Parliament. Such an authoritarian rule exists nowhere else in the Western world because it’s fundamentally an anti-democratic concept. Once a politician has been elected, it’s a basic feature of representative democracy that only the voting public should be able to remove them from elected office, even under a proportional representation system.



The other major reason that democrats oppose mechanisms like the waka jumping law is because they make politics more conformist. Having a rule in which any MP can be removed from power if they dissent from the party line means that politicians are strongly discouraged from disagreeing with their leadership or status quo in the party.



With this weapon up their sleeves, party leaders can discourage rebel MPs and suppress debate and differences. Policy innovators or anyone with a political imagination finds that Parliament is an unwelcome place. Ideas are suppressed, and rebel MPs are filtered out of the system.



Hence, the days of nonconformist MPs are over in the New Zealand Parliament. The likes of Jim Anderton, Marilyn Waring, or Tariana Turia seem long gone. In fact, someone like Anderton would not have survived as a critic of Rogernomics within the Fourth Labour Government if an anti-party hopping bill had existed then – he would have been threatened with expulsion as soon as he started building a movement within Labour in 1985 against Roger Douglas.



Ironically, Winston Peters – now the key instigator of anti-defection laws – would also never have been able to rebel against the National Party if the waka jumping legislation hung over him when he was in that major party.



So while Darleen Tana is hardly any sort of principled dissident who has left the Green Party over a point of policy, she is an example of the price we pay for a system in which true rebel MPs might be allowed to prosper.



New Zealand’s Parliament has turned beige

The Greens have historically been the main opponent of laws to eject waka jumping MPs from Parliament. This has partly been because New Zealand’s political system already gives extraordinary power to party bosses to control their MPs, preventing them from dissenting. The discipline enforced on MPs in every party – from Act through to Te Pati Māori – is significantly greater than in comparable countries. Elsewhere in the world, MPs are freer to debate, disagree, and provoke new ideas.



New Zealand’s highly centralised political party power, which has been concentrated further under MMP, means that party bosses and the leadership dominate their caucuses of MPs. Unfortunately, the effect of this is to undermine diversity of thought. It means that New Zealand MPs toe the party line, rarely dissent against their parties, and especially don’t vote in Parliament against what the party whips insist.



Of course, there’s always a need for some degree of stability and cohesion in political parties, but New Zealand’s have become highly conformist. We, therefore, lack politicians willing to stand up against groupthink or speak out on issues of principle. Our system suffers from this beigeness, with policy development impacted by a lack of innovation and imagination.



Green Party opposition to the waka jumping laws

The ability of anti-defection laws to encourage conformity is why former Green Party co-leaders have been so staunchly opposed to them. The late Rod Donald, for example, explained his opposition in 1999, saying, “Anti-defection legislation is designed to gag outspoken MPs and crush dissent… It is vital that MPs are not turned into party robots.”



Donald was talking about the first incarnation of the waka jumping law, claiming it was “the most draconian, obnoxious, anti-democratic, insulting piece of legislation ever inflicted on this parliament”.



Donald’s co-leader at the time, Jeanette Fitzsimons, also spoke out strongly against the latest version of the law shortly before her death. She said in 2018 that “it offended the freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and freedom of association”. Fitzsimons believed that the “authoritarian” law represented everything the Greens opposed.



Similarly, the late Keith Locke said that the waka jumping law is “misnamed” and “should be called the Party Conformity Bill because it threatens MPs with ejection from Parliament if they don't conform to party dictates”.



Former Green Party MP Sue Bradford has put additional arguments against the law, pointing out that it will “stifle democracy”, making it even harder for new political parties to form. She said in 2018, “At the moment it is virtually impossible for a new party to break through from nothing to the required 5% unless there is at least one sitting MP among the ranks”. Bradford argued that the Greens would betray their principles if they joined those who wanted to inhibit the development of new minor parties that might compete with existing incumbents.



Even just a few years ago, during their coalition government with Labour and NZ First, the Greens’ opposition was so strong that, after being forced to vote to re-introduce the party-hoping law co-leaders James Shaw and Marama Davidson wrote to their party organisation requesting that a constitutional change be made to Green Party rules to prevent the leadership from ever being tempted to invoke the rule to expel any MP. Unfortunately, this was never carried out.



The Greens are going down a “dark path”

Under Chloe Swarbrick’s leadership, the Greens have now decided to go down the path that others said was unconscionable. Swarbrick, together with Davidson, has initiated the provisions of the waka jumping law by writing to Tana, informing her and giving her 21 working days to respond. Swarbrick has then asked the party to convene a special general meeting in three weeks to get the membership’s approval to expel Tana from Parliament.



Swarbrick’s strong push to fire Tana from Parliament will, therefore, have significant consequences. It means that the Greens effectively cease to oppose the waka jumping law.



Until now, they have been aligned in opposing the law with the National and Act parties. National’s opposition is such that it wouldn’t even use the law to eject Jami-Lee Ross from Parliament in 2018 when he brought chaos to and inflicted incredible damage on the party. The leadership argued it would be unprincipled to use a political weapon they opposed.



Act is also still firmly opposed. Leader David Seymour has recently advised the Greens not to succumb to its use: “I'm also a very strong believer that the only people who should be able to drive an elected Member of Parliament out of Parliament is the voters at an election. As soon as you go down the track of allowing Members of Parliament to push other Members of Parliament out of Parliament, you can get to some very dark places.”



Some in Labour have concerns about the rule. David Parker, when he was Attorney General, warned that “the prospect of facing an enforced departure from Parliament will have a chilling effect on the expression of dissenting views by MPs”.



Electoral experts also continue to advocate against the use of the waka jumping law. For example, Andrew Geddis, who specialises in electoral law at the University of Otago, has described the legislation as a method that will allow party leaders to expel difficult MPs from Parliament and generally act to make parliamentarians more conformist. He says, “this approach puts an awful lot of power into the hands of a party leader”. For this reason, last month, Geddis wrote, “there’s no way the Greens could use it”.



Other experts say the rule is a “constitutional outrage” and that it’s used by leaders who want to increase their monopoly on power. Given the New Zealand political system has very few constitutional safeguards or “checks and balances” against power being misused, it would be unfortunate to see this weapon being picked up by the Green leadership.



There’s a good reason that other proportional representation systems, such as Germany or Scotland, have distinct constitutional protections for an individual MP’s freedom of conscience. There are, however, countries such as Angola, Rwanda, Namibia, the Congo, and Uganda that do have similar anti-party hopping laws.



Pressure on the Greens to use the waka jumping law

Conversely, many influential public figures are encouraging the Greens to invoke the waka jumping provisions to get rid of Tana. Labour leader Chris Hipkins has said the Greens would be “justified” in using the law. Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters has pressured the party to do so, saying the Tana case shows why the law must exist.



Talkback hosts and broadcasters have also encouraged the party to take the opportunity to rid themselves of Tana. Not only Newstalk ZB’s Mike Hosking but also Jack Tame has spoken out – saying: “The Greens have swallowed a rat in the past. After all, they voted to pass the waka-jumping bill into law. But I actually don't think many people would resent them if they swallowed another in this case. If Darlene Tana won't quit on her own accord, and they believe in the integrity of the report, the Greens should cop a few days of criticism for their hypocrisy, push her out, and move on.”



Green Party supporter and blogger Martyn Bradbury has also urged party members to let co-leader Chloe Swarbrick eject Tana from office: “Chloe has asked the Party to be trusted with this power, they should accept because Chloe is probably the best politician of her generation.”  


On the right, political commentator Ben Thomas has recently urged the Greens to do a U-turn and accept that a waka jumping bill is now a vital constraint, keeping MPs in line. He says that unlike in the early days of MMP when dissenting MPs were needed, especially to start new political parties, that time has passed.



The Temptation for an easy fix for the Darleen Tana problem

There is no doubt that there is significant public opprobrium towards Darleen Tana – just as there has been to many other such maverick MPs that have switched sides in recent years. For example, last year, the Green MP Elizabeth Kerekere left the party over bullying claims, and Labour’s Meka Whaitiri decamped to Te Pati Māori.



Voters view Tana and these other MPs as self-interested prima donnas. It’s not surprising that voters embrace the prospect of punishing such MPs. The public has shown in numerous surveys that they believe political parties have brought low-quality MPs into Parliament without sufficient vetting. The Greens are just the most recent – and a rather extreme – example of this trend.



The question is, therefore, how to fix this quality problem. And it’s far from clear that the best answer is to just give party leaders the ability to fire MPs via the waka jumping law. David Farrar puts forward an alternative point of view: “Allowing a party to just quietly dispose of an MP whose past turns out to be problematic, reduces the incentives for them to do more rigorous checks on their candidates. If they have to sit through 30 months of Darlene Tana sitting in the House as an Independent MP, they will be much more motivated to ensure this doesn't happen again.”



The Big Green decision

The Greens are holding a special general meeting on 1 September in which party delegates will decide whether to agree with Swarbrick’s proposal to get rid of the Darleen Tana problem via the authoritarian waka jumping provision in the Electoral Act. She needs to convince three-quarters of the delegates before she can get her way.



Already, Swarbrick has made her case to Green activists, appealing to them to move on from past principles to grow the party into something bigger and more powerful. At the recent party conference, she painted opponents of using the waka jumping law as being stuck in the past. In her conference speech, she challenged members to “look at ourselves in the mirror and consider whether we want to evolve as a party”.



It's a sign of how the party is now evolving, that its principles are so flexible that they are considering doing such a somersault on such a core issue. Under Swarbrick, the Greens are challenged to embrace power and pragmatism and move away from the era of protest and principles. Therefore, it’s also a test of their integrity. Party activists must ask themselves whether they want to be responsible for creating more parliamentary poodles and making Parliament even more beige.



In deciding whether to eject Tana from Parliament, the decision for the membership mostly boils down to how they feel about the presence of dissident MPs in New Zealand politics. How much leeway should they be given? Should they be encouraged or discouraged? Should rebel MPs be clamped down upon or given some freedom to diverge from party lines, perhaps even to the extent of leaving their parties?



In considering whether to invoke the legislation, the Greens should forget the arguments on the rights and wrongs of Tana wanting to stay in Parliament and instead consider the consequences of the rule for dissent and difference amongst MPs in Parliament. In this sense, it’s not about waka-jumping at all – it’s about whether party leaders should be given the right to eliminate troublesome or non-conformist MPs from Parliament against their will.



Instead, perhaps it’s time for Green Party activists to reject Swarbrick’s pragmatism and embrace the original and democratic ethos of the Greens, and therefore fight to get rid of the hated waka jumping law. After all, if the Greens had just done this in 2018 and refused to pass the Labour-NZ First law, it wouldn’t be in the situation that it is now, of having to swallow a dead rat once again. But more importantly, for the sake of having less conformity and more diversity of debate and ideology in our political system, the Greens must join up with Act and National to kill the waka jumping bill.