In brief
- Darleen Tana, a former Green MP, exposes the limitations of thorough vetting processes, as issues only surfaced after she was in office.
- Real-world observation is needed in assessing an employee’s suitability, showing the necessity of 90 day trial periods.
- Better still, why is this trial period concept needed in NZ when it does not exist in many other jurisdictions?
- The Greens’ opposition to 90-day trial periods is challenged by their own need to potentially use the similarly-principled “waka-jumping” law to remove Tana from Parliament.
In reality, only on-the-job observation may determine an employee’s suitability
While the previous government’s elimination of 90-day employee trials were aimed to protect employees, these sorts of employee-centric laws do not account for the unpredictable nature of human behaviour. Yet, there appears to be a general perception amongst many that extensive vetting should prevent any hiring mistakes, but this is just not the real world.
Employers need a trial period to make informed decisions about their hires. And it is not one size fits all in terms of time needed for reasonable on the job assessment. Mandated short trial periods can also work against the employee in certain cases. For instance, it may not be enough time for a person to settle into a role effectively.
This is evident in both the political arena and the general workforce.
MP Darleen Tana is a perfect example
Politicians, even after rigorous vetting (more so than most other people), can still prove problematic once in office. The case of former Green Party list MP Darleen Tana illustrates this point.
Despite extensive vetting, Tana faced serious allegations of migrant exploitation after becoming an MP, leading to a lengthy investigation. Her credibility came under fire as her story reportedly shifted multiple times.
Despite this poor performance, Tana remains in Parliament, exposing the limitations of vetting processes and how on-the-job performance and conduct can reveal issues.
Ironically, the Greens may have to ‘fire’ Tana
Furthermore, this case presents an ironic challenge for the Greens, particularly when juxtaposed against their strong opposition to trial employment periods.
The previous government’s reduction of this period to zero for larger employers raised concerns about fairness and practicality of these laws.
In March 2024, Green list MP Teanau Tuiono wrote an opinion piece for The Herald calling out the coalition government for re-instituting 90 day employee trial periods.
“The only thing 90 day trials achieve is to make it cheaper and easier for employers to fire people – and that is what this is all about. The relish and speed with which this government has unwound people’s working rights is chilling,” he wrote.
By July, Tuiono was standing by at the presser as co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick “begged” Tana to resign from Parliament entirely. The party is now in the midst of considering using the “waka-jumping” law to “fire” Tana from her seat altogether.
Given the Greens’ longstanding opposition to the party-hopping rule—consistent with their stance against 90-day trials—invoking this law now would appear hypocritical, despite the serious allegations against Tana. However, Tana’s continued presence in Parliament forces the Greens into a position where they may have to act in a way that seems at odds with their principles.
Yet, even if the law is invoked, Tana may be able to seek an injunction through the courts, but like any dissatisfied employer, the Greens undoubtedly want Tana gone as soon as possible.
