Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Another twist in the Greens Tana saga.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
We are being careful about the statements that we are
making publicly. The best way to minimize all further harm
and any further collateral damage is for Darling Tanna to
take accountability and responsibility and to resign.
Speaker 1 (00:14):
She's gone and applied for an interim injunction to stop
the party meeting this weekend, asn't the Green Party. University
of Battago lawd Professor Andrew gets with us on this morning.
Speaker 3 (00:21):
Yeah, good morning to you.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
Make Just work me through a layman's view of this.
She isn't in a party. How can a person go
to court to ask somebody to do something that they're
not even a part of That doesn't seem to make
any sense to me.
Speaker 3 (00:32):
Well, that'll be what they'll be trying to convince a
court acts even listen to. So she's resigned from the party,
but she's asking the court to tell the party they're
not allowed to have a meeting where the party will
discuss whether or not she should be kicked out of parliament.
I could only assume she's going to ide something along
the lines or she says a right to natural justice
that she should be able to be heard at that meeting.
(00:54):
But that's a real stretch. I find it very high
to see how she's going to make that stand up.
Speaker 1 (00:58):
Is this what you call in the lead Fraternity novel?
Speaker 3 (01:02):
Yes, yep, yep, it's great. It's There have been cases
before where MPs have gone to court to try to
establish their cases in front of with regards to their party.
Winston Peters did it with a national party, but this
one where you're not even a party member and you're
challenging the party's actions. Never seen it before.
Speaker 1 (01:22):
Also that we don't need a meeting to talk about
the Waker jumping law because that's a parliamentary thing, isn't it.
Speaker 3 (01:29):
Yeah, exactly. So the meeting in the weekend is basically
the Greens giving themselves political cover to say, hey, hey, hey,
the membership are happy for us to do this. It's
not actually a part of the legal process to get
it kicked out of parliament. So yeah, she's trying to
stop it because without the meeting, the Greens don't have
that political cover. It'll be hard for them to practically
use the law. But in terms of actual legal steps
(01:51):
it's not necessary.
Speaker 1 (01:52):
Could she if she can get to court about a meeting.
Can she get to court about a parliamentary move even
when that waker jumping law is invote.
Speaker 3 (02:01):
That will be trickier for her because the actual parliamentary
side of it, at the giving of a notice to
the Speaker to actually trigger the law. Because that occurs
within parliament, it may well be covered by parliamentary privilege,
so the courts might actually be blocked from looking at that.
This might be her attempt to get something in front
of the court before it gets into the parliamentary realm.
Speaker 1 (02:21):
Okay, her chances are what apart from zero?
Speaker 3 (02:25):
Well, yeah, we lawyer loyally types are always very reluctant
to say never, but I would say virtually never in
this case. I just can't see how she's going to
make this fly me neither.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
All right, appreciate your expertise. Andrew Getz with us this morning.
For more from the Mic Asking Breakfast, listen live to
news talks it'd be from six am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio.