In 1988, our National Housing Commission declared, “New Zealand does not have the huge, insoluble problems of homelessness and substandard housing which confront many other nations.”

This was the final report of the then disestablished commission, which to that point had reported detailed data every five years to keep the country and policy-makers informed about what we had once considered the foundation of stable society — a home for New Zealanders to call their own.

I was born six years after that report, and in those years and across my lifetime, deliberate political choices — specifically, political choices by people sitting in Parliament — have shredded that once-guaranteed housing dignity and stability.

They traded it for a game of Monopoly, which, the pecuniary interests register tells us, also happens to disproportionately benefit around half of the “representatives” in there with interests in more than one property (notably, approximately just 2 percent of the general population are landlords).

This dire situation is the direct consequence of political decisions, and it is disproportionately hurting the 1.4 million renters in this country that our Parliament, by majority, and as an overwhelming majority of comfortable homeowners, continues to structurally disempower.

In spite of this, we have made some slow progress. In 2017, the Greens worked with Labour to introduce Healthy Homes Standards and a slate of amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act, removing no-cause evictions and allowing renters to take claims to the Tenancy Tribunal anonymously.

Some standards, we obviously agreed, were better than nothing. A set of rules means it’s clear how a game should be played, but those rules become pretty meaningless if there’s no consistent referee monitoring and enforcing them.

Compliance not tracked
Unfortunately, that’s what the Healthy Homes Standards have become. My parliamentary written questions last year showed the government isn’t tracking how many private rentals are compliant.

It doesn’t know how many landlords and property managers have decided to self-exclude their properties from compliance. It has no tabs on the cottage industry of companies that have cropped up to verify these standards, let alone the variance in their approaches.

This leaves the third of New Zealanders who rent left to shoulder the burden of enforcing these basic rules which are supposed to protect them.

It’s a funny thing that whenever the Greens mention renters, we’re immediately shouted down and told that the problem is, somehow, that landlords aren’t given enough free rein. That the solution is more commodification of basic human rights.

Ironically, this is exactly what the National Housing Commission warned against back in 1988, that shifting of responsibility from the state to the private sector would, “add little to the total housing supply while allowing private landlords and property speculators to make even higher charges for a non-expanding supply of housing… rais[ing] the purchase price of land and rented property”.

We now know, viscerally, how right they were. Whatever metric you choose, we have the most expensive housing in the world.

The Accommodation Supplement, once rationalised in the state-housing sell-off to help support lower income New Zealanders pushed into the private sector, is now paid out to the tune of $2 billion a year with evidence showing it primarily serves to just bid up rental prices and effectively subsidise private landlords.

Special tax preferential
We remain one of the only countries in the developed world that continues to provide special tax treatment and preference to properties, incentivising the flow of capital into unproductive property speculation, or what University of Auckland researchers called, “a politically condoned, finance-fuelled casino”.

In less than 40 years, political decisions have not only made housing one of the major drivers of poverty and inequality in this country, but one of the major determinants of both physical and mental health, not to mention education achievement and school attendance.

So, who pays the cost?

Most immediately, it’s the 1.4 million renting New Zealanders, who Statistics New Zealand tells us spend more of their income on older, smaller, mouldier, lower quality housing.

Renting is no longer a transient state — unless you’re talking about the literal transience which sees renters in this country maintaining their tenancies for, on average, just 16 months at a time.

Almost all of us will know families with children and friends in their 30s and 40s who are flatting. A quarter of retirees don’t own their own home.

This didn’t happen overnight. It happened within a generation of political decisions that sold our human right to housing to the highest bidder.

As depressing as that may be, it makes clear that the status quo is not an inevitability. It can and must change if we want any hope of a fairer society.

The good news is the Greens have unveiled our plan to fix it all.

Chlöe Swarbrick is the Green Party MP for Auckland Central. This article was originally published in The New Zealand Herald and is republished here with the author’s permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Imagine being a Green Party activist at the moment. You joined the party because climate change is an existential threat and truly radical change needs to be undertaken immediately. You’re deeply upset by inequality. You think that conventional politicians are part of the problem.

However, you begin to realise that your own party is part of that problem. Your team has finally got hold of power, and has the ministerial responsibility for climate change and homelessness. Yet these, and other, problems are getting worse under your watch.

In fact, you start to suspect that your own politicians are as guilty of “greenwashing” as any government – pretending to be doing something about those big problems, but really just altering the status quo a little. As a Green Party activist you might suspect that by trying to get your own party elected you are now part of the status quo.

It’s no wonder divisions are opening up in the Green Party, and there are reports of dissent reaching such a level that a “no confidence” motion has been prepared against the leadership at this weekend’s Annual General Meeting. Members of the Youth wing of the Greens are said to be so angry with co-leader James Shaw that they want to roll him. Media reports even say that activists “hate” their leader. The knives are out.

Shaw continues to remain outwardly unruffled by internal dissent and manoeuvres against him. He said this week that he’d had that the whole time he’s been in the Greens, humorously stating “there has been a small group of people who have been wanting to see the back of me ever since they saw the front of me”.

What has Shaw done wrong?

James Shaw has long been seen as the more moderate, or even rightwing, faction leader in the Greens. Coming from the corporate world, and much more National-friendly than other Green MPs, he’s viewed suspiciously by some activists who believe he has pushed the party further into the middle of the political spectrum.

As a minister in the last parliamentary term, Shaw disappointed many on the left, culminating in the 2020 scandal over his allocation of government funding for a private school, contravening party policy.

But it’s in his role as Climate Change Minister that Shaw has really disappointed his own side, including leading environmental campaigners. Since taking up the role in 2020, Shaw has proved to be less focused on fulfilling the desires of environmentalists for radical change, and more on creating across-the-board buy-in from more conservative forces.

To him it’s a question of strategy, in which small steps are taken that endure and lay the path for bigger achievements in the future. But for his leftwing and environmental critics, it’s about selling out and compromising on the most crucial issue of our times.

The final straw for many Greens, and what is now causing a growing movement to sack Shaw, is Shaw’s recently announced Emissions Reduction Plan. The announcement was so business and farmer friendly that Matthew Hooton, who is a lobbyist, wrote at the time: “New Zealand farmers are the world’s best but their lobbyists are even better. While it’s not true today’s Green Party is a wholly owned subsidiary of Fonterra, it’s understandable some environmental activists are starting to think so.”

This was accurate in the sense that all the industry vested interests came out in support of Shaw’s plans, and all the leading environmentalists came out in outrage. For example, environmental academic Mike Joy proclaimed that Shaw’s plan shows that the Government has been “captured” by big business and agriculture. Former Green MPs also weighed in, horrified by the much-anticipated climate plan.

Will Chloe Swarbrick replace James Shaw?

Although Shaw isn’t likely to be rolled anytime soon, it’s become obvious that he’s on his way out, with speculation about when the co-leader will step down and what role he might then pursue.

Matthew Hooton has recently reported accounts from Green insiders, saying: “The growing pressure on Shaw is understood to be causing him to wonder if it is worth carrying on to the election.”

Furthermore, Hooton says life in the Greens is getting uncomfortable for Shaw: “he spends his days getting told by his party activists and most of its MPs that he is not green enough, too right wing, a sell out, insufficiently woke, the wrong sex, the wrong gender, the wrong colour, the wrong ethnicity, the wrong class… and so on.
With his climate-change work done, and unlikely to achieve anything more, who wouldn’t understand if he decided to throw in the towel”.

Although Hooton’s gossip can be dismissed as the ravings of a rightwing commentator, it’s worth noting that he’s very often been proven correct in his forecasts about Green internal politics. For example, when the Greens recently changed their constitution so that both co-leaders could be female, but there couldn’t be more than one male, it was Hooton who revealed in his Herald column that this was about to occur.

The Herald’s Thomas Coughlan also reports today that it’s not just dissidents who are thinking Shaw’s days are coming to an end: “Even members on the ‘James side’ of the party mused that it might be time for a co-leader who was more obviously onside with members, and more aggressive in challenging Labour’s gravitational centrism.”

So, when Shaw eventually goes, who’s being lined up to replace him?

The smart money is clearly on Auckland Central MP Chloe Swarbrick who is already significantly more popular than either Green co-leader. Some have speculated that the recent change of the party’s co-leadership identity rules was designed so that she could replace Shaw while keeping Marama Davidson in place.

Some believe Swarbrick is the pick of Shaw himself. In this regard, Hooton wrote recently that his replacement by Swarbrick “is also believed to be Shaw’s preference, either before or after the 2023 election.”

Who else could replace Shaw?

Swarbrick’s ascension is assured. One problem is that she is also viewed by many Green activists as being similarly centrist – although she occasionally uses radical language, at her core she’s more of a moderate than other options. And certainly Shaw’s endorsement of her would cement this impression.

There’s also another moderate option – former parliamentary Chief of Staff, Tory Whanau. Although she’s not currently an MP, there are no rules to stop her being elected as co-leader, just as in 2006 the party elected Russel Norman leader before he was an MP.

Whanau is currently running for the Wellington mayoralty, but this is widely seen as a manoeuvre to increase her national political profile in order to launch a political career rather than a serious bid to become mayor. For Green activists, a bonus of making Whanau the co-leader alongside Davidson is that they would then have a “double wahine Māori leadership” (or DWML). When the party changed their co-leadership rules recently, they also made it compulsory that one of the leaders be Māori. But obviously having two would be seen as even more progressive, as historically the party has been very white.

The more leftwing or radical options for co-leadership are MPs Teanau Tuiono and Elizabeth Kerekere. Electing the latter would also produce the desired DWML. Kerekere is also very well regarded in the party at the moment due to her successful leadership of their campaign to have gay conversion theory banned.

Interestingly, Kerekere has spoken out this week on the party’s internal leadership debates, telling 1News that Shaw was “on the more moderate side of our membership” while herself and Tuiono are “more on the activist side of the membership”.

While Kerekere was amplifying the internal factional divisions and clearly positioning herself in these for public view, co-leader Marama Davidson has been on a media spree in the last week, doing interviews to defend Shaw’s leadership and try to turn around the growing notion that the party hasn’t achieved much in government this term. She says they need to communicate more about how hard they work.

Today’s AGM has suddenly been moved online, due to Covid. But the fact that it was to be held in Christchurch had some suggesting this was a way for the leadership to regain control over activist dissent, and blunt any challenges to Shaw’s leadership.

Shaw has replied that any theories of this sort are “ridiculous”. But he would have been more convincing if the leadership hadn’t also now banned any media from observing the conference. As the Herald’s Audrey Young said yesterday, the party is now “running the least open AGM of any political party”, which is a problem for a party which used to present itself as a champion of political transparency.

Other divisions this weekend

Questions about future leadership aren’t the only issue troubling Green Party activists this weekend. There are a couple of remits that are also apparently causing division.

One relates to decisions over future government coalition agreements. In the past, the membership has had to very quickly make a call on whether to accept post-election coalition agreements, with a sense that they were expected to just rubberstamp what the leadership had agreed with the Labour Party. Supposedly in 2020 the membership only had fifteen minutes to read the coalition proposal before voting on it.

The party’s Green Left faction has put forward a remit that would insist on a ten-day period for the membership to consider a coalition arrangement. But James Shaw is leading the charge against this, apparently circulating a paper to the AGM explaining how difficult this would make coalition negotiations. He argues it would weaken the power of the Greens.

Thomas Coughlan reports today that a second contentious remit to be considered this weekend is over internal power in the party. The proposal would “adjust the way that party delegates, powerful members with voting rights on things like governing agreements, are allocated to party branches. This will tilt the delegate balance in favour of cities (the Wellington Central branch’s delegate count will double), which is where members are concentrated.”

In general, there might be broader discussions this weekend about the ideological direction of the party. In an interview today with the Herald’s Michael Neilson, Marama Davidson has spoken about her vision of making the Greens more about “social issues”, which she believes would make the party more popular.

The party is unlikely to make any significant headline-making decisions in their online meeting this weekend – certainly James Shaw isn’t about to be rolled – but some of these decisions and divisions about the party’s future could be extremely consequential. If the party shifts in the “wrong direction”, there’s always the chance that they will slip below the 5% threshold, and that would significantly reduce the chances of a Labour-led government being returned in 2023.

Further reading on the Greens today

Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Greens debate question that could decide next government (paywalled)
Michael Neilson (Herald): Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson says social issues way to more power, ahead of online AGM today (paywalled)
Jo Moir (Newsroom): Davidson ready to fight her co-leader’s corner at AGM
Chris Trotter: Poverty is indivisible, Ms Swarbrick

Other items of interest and importance today

PARLIAMENT, GOVERNMENT AND ELECTIONS
Audrey Young (Herald): Labour at the wheel without any handbrake – how far have they come? (paywalled)
Luke Malpass (Stuff): Labour mans the inflation stations as a long winter beckons
RNZ: Government advertising spending out of control – National
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Winston Peters gives his version of how the Government was formed (paywalled)
Toby Mahire (Spinoff): Revealed: the books most borrowed from New Zealand’s parliamentary library

NZ FIRST FOUNDATION HIGH COURT VERDICT
Katie Bradford (1News): NZ First Foundation donations accused found not guilty
Adam Hollingworth (Newshub): Winston Peters says NZ First could have returned to Parliament if not for SFO bombshell announcement
Ian Llewellyn (BusinessDesk): SFO is considering high court dismissal of its case against the NZ First Foundation (paywalled)
Ian Llewellyn (BusinessDesk): Peters attacks after foundation verdict (paywalled)

HEALTH
Jaime Lyth (Herald): The state of our health system – how did we get here and how do we fix it? (paywalled)
Paula Lorgelly (The Conversation): Despite what political leaders say, New Zealand’s health workforce is in crisis – but it’s the same everywhere else
Damien Venuto (Herald): What could alleviate massive strain on the health sector?
Jim Tucker (Stuff): Any country’s health management needs public scrutiny
1News: GPs confront Little over ‘crisis’ level doctor shortage
Luke Kirkness (Herald): The case for making nursing a trade and having apprentices (paywalled)
Tova O’Brien (Today FM): Our nurses are “tired to the bone”, “tearful” and “unheard”
Sean Plunket (The Platform): I can’t praise them enough for the remarkable care I received

ECONOMY, COST OF LIVING AND INFLATION
Zarina Hewlett (Today FM): National’s Nicola Willis says Labour needs to ‘take responsibility’ for soaring cost of living
John Roughan (Herald): Government needs to make savings to beat inflation (paywalled)
Tom Peters (World socialist website): New Zealand workers hit by surging living costs
Bernard Hickey (Interest): Sharing the blame doesn’t make it go away
Susan Edmunds (Stuff): Is Reserve Bank hiking interest rates too far?
Janine Starks (Stuff): Trajectory of a recession depends on the direction NZ chooses
David Hargreaves (Interest): The Monetary policy experiment of 2020-22
Peter Wilson (RNZ): Week in Politics: Opposition wants inflation to decide the next election
Rachel Smalley (Today FM): Delving into ACT’s cost-of-living plan
Jamie Ensor (Newshub): New Zealanders receiving benefits is down, but Opposition says Government could be doing more during worker shortages
Jamie Ensor (Newshub): ACT MP Damien Smith says New Zealand is ‘like North Korea without the nukes’ in terms of foreign investment
Claire Trevett (Herald): Act’s cost of living remedy: Scrap tariffs on wine, choc biscuits and let supermarkets set up shop
Herald: Cost of living crisis: Australian TV pundit claims Kiwis are eating snails
Aimee Shaw (Herald): Missed opportunity: $3 billion lost in NZ each year due to lack of productivity, research finds

THREE WATERS
Blanton Smith (Stuff): Taranaki district councils all say no to Three Waters reform
Aden Miles Morunga (Local Democracy Reporting): Three Waters funding announcement leaves Waikato council wanting more detail
Matthew Martin (Stuff): Taupō council lowers planned rates rise, comes out swinging against Three Waters
Chris Keall (Herald): Getting Three Waters-ready: Dunedin City Council spends millions on Internet-of-Things system (paywalled)
Jennifer Eder (Stuff): Te Tauihu iwi and councils team up to oppose Three Waters boundaries

IMMIGRATION CHANGES
Andrew Dickens (Newstalk): Does the Govt know their new visa policy hurdles are too high?
Tim Dower (Newstalk): We need a proper long-term immigration programme
Heather du Plessis-Allan (Newstalk): Is speaking English really important for offshore investors who want to move here?

EUTHANASIA
Damien Venuto (Herald): Complex questions about NZ’s euthanasia laws
Grady Connell (Today FM): Concerns raised about number of patients denied assisted dying
Isaac Davison (Herald): Worst fears about legal euthanasia have not come true, but possible battle brewing over broadening the law (paywalled)

JUSTICE, LAW AND ORDER
Mike Houlahan (ODT): It is not just MPs who help shape our laws
Tom Pearce & Finlay Moran (Herald): Gang crackdown isn’t a patch on real solutions (paywalled)
Whatitiri Te Wake (Māori TV): Justice inquiry told equitable access to legal aid needed
Katie Todd (RNZ): 400% increase in ram raids, few prosecutions – police data

HOUSING
Glenn McConnell (Stuff): KiwiBuild will be more expensive, but housing experts say that’s actually good
Jayden Holmes (Today FM): Housing Minister Megan Woods is ‘building houses, not whinging’
Tim Dower (Newstalk): We might have done better on new builds if we’d gone this way from the start
Katie Harris (Herald): ‘It’s the prices’: Young professionals ditch Auckland and Wellington for Christchurch’s cheaper houses

A comprehensive new report by The Aotearoa Circle’ s Sustainable Finance Forum looks at how New Zealand can reform its financial system to help deal with the climate crisis.

Auckland University of Technology academics Dr David Hall and Alec Tang have been on the technical working group for the past two years that has helped to shape the Sustainable Finance: Roadmap for Action 2020 and its recommendations.

“Climate finance is one of the most neglected, yet most important, drivers of the transition to a low-emissions economy,” said Dr Hall.

The roadmap is an initiative involving major banks, insurers and other financial sector players. It builds on an earlier report co-authored by Dr Hall, Climate Finance Landscape for Aotearoa New Zealand, which was launched at AUT in April 2017 by the Minister for Climate Change James Shaw.

That was New Zealand’s first report on domestic climate finance, and several recommendations have since been implemented, including the establishment of the $100 million Green Investment Finance Ltd, a publicly-backed green investment fund, and the adoption of the mandatory climate risk reporting and disclosure requirements for all major New Zealand businesses.

The new Roadmap for Action 2020 takes this to the next level, publishing a series of commitments by financial sector actors to achieve more sustainable outcomes through their activities.

“Collectively, we need to change the way investment and lending decisions are made, so that environmental, social and economic factors are integral and negative impacts, both immediately and over the long term, are avoided,” the report says.

Dr Hall said the Sustainable Finance Forum sought to achieve this through changing mindsets, transforming the financial system, and financing the transformation.

Republished from AUT News.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Joe Biden is almost certain to be the next president of the United States, ushering in a welcome return to engagement with the climate crisis after four years of denial. Great news for the Pacific.

In contrast with Donald Trump’s premature declaration of victory and desperate calls to “stop the count”, Biden is modelling patience, with around 10 percent of ballots still to be tallied.

But he let his confidence in the eventual outcome show with a tweet promising his White House will rejoin the Paris Agreement, 77 days after the official exit of the United States, reports Climate Change News.

That is the easy part. Much harder will be delivering emissions cuts, after disappointing Senate results for the Democrats.

They could yet scrape a majority — subject to a January run-off in Georgia — but do not have the 60 seats needed to pass a framework climate law.

A Biden administration will have to get creative to submit a credible 2030 climate target to the UN next year, as required under Paris.

Biden made climate change a cornerstone of his vision to recover the American economy from the impacts of covid-19, with a US$2 trillion plan to drive green investments and create jobs, reports Chloé Farand of Climate Change News.

Blue wave never materialised
But the blue wave Democrats hoped for in the Senate has failed to materialise, dampening Biden’s prospects of passing climate legislation.

While Democrats are confident they will retain control of the House of Representatives, the Senate election is down to the wire, with both sides having 48 seats as of Friday.

The contest is so tight, the Senate majority could be determined on January 5 in a hotly contested special election for at least one, and maybe two seats in Georgia.

Even with a slim majority in the Senate, Biden would need some Republican support to pass climate legislation. Under US Senate rules, policy changes beyond spending and taxation require at least 60 of the 100 senators to agree to move the issue to a vote.

Bipartisan backing will be required to introduce a clean electricity standard, for example, which would mandate a transition to zero carbon electricity generation by 2035 and help deliver on a campaign promise. So would a carbon pricing mechanism.

“Control of the Senate will have a huge impact on climate policy in the US,” said Jamie Henn, cofounder of US environmental group 350.org.

“There’s little hope for passing sweeping climate legislation if [Republican majority leader] Mitch McConnell keeps his claws on the gavel. There’s a lot the president can do through executive authority, but to really rise to the scale of this crisis, we need the votes in the Senate.”

Without congressional backing, “a sweeping economic regeneration policy… will not happen in the next two years,” said Nathan Hultman, director of the Center for Global Sustainability at the University of Maryland.

“Then we have to look at it as a stage process.”

Republished with permission from Climate Change News.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The Greens are at a crossroads. The direction they take in the next few days may have significant consequences, not just for the country and the shape of the Government, but also for the future of the Greens themselves.

Currently, the Labour and Green negotiating teams are behind closed doors coming up with a deal, which will then be taken to Green Party delegates on Friday night to endorse or reject. This requires 75% of Green delegates to agree.

It’s high stakes, because any deal taken to members is non-negotiable and likely to put the Greens either into government (with ministers outside of Cabinet) or afford them a looser arrangement with less responsibility. Rejecting Labour’s offer would put the Greens outside of government power. Whatever option is chosen will come with both costs and rewards, and will likely open up divides within the party membership.

Why Labour wants the Greens

There is an assumption that Labour doesn’t need or want the Greens as part of the Government because Jacinda Ardern already has a majority of votes in Parliament. Any inclination to include the Greens in a Labour-led government is being viewed by some as magnanimous or kind. For the best explanation for why this couldn’t be further from the truth, see John Armstrong’s latest column, Don’t mistake Ardern’s talks with Green Party for kindness.

According to Armstrong there are two reasons that Labour strategically wants the Greens within the government: “First, [Ardern] wants to keep the Greens in the position she has reserved for them – namely, firmly under her thumb. Second, as much as it is the desire of any Prime Minister to be freed to run a single-party Government unencumbered by minor party partners and the constant compromises that entails, opinion polls have revealed that up to half of the electorate are averse to all power residing in just one party. It is therefore in her interests to convey the impression she is sharing power.”

Armstrong points out that Jacinda Ardern is generally ruthless when it comes to the electoral interests of her party, and this was often in evidence during the election campaign. And ultimately any offers from Labour to the Greens will be underpinned by Labour having all the leverage, with Ardern saying “take it or leave it. It is important to Ardern’s self-styled image as a consensus-building politician that she be seen to make an offer. If the Greens don’t accept it, then too bad. She won’t be losing any sleep.”

What is likely to be offered to the Greens

Essentially the possible offers boil down to either ministerial positions outside of Cabinet, or some looser arrangement that involves less governing power for the Greens but also with more independence for the minor party.

The latest speculation is that Labour will only offer two ministerial positions: for co-leaders James Shaw and Marama Davidson. Having Davidson with ministerial power would be very useful for selling the deal to party activists, who generally want to see Davidson have greater influence, especially because they trust her more to keep to the more radical traditions and principles of the party. So, it would be an apt move by Ardern to offer a promotion to her.

Such an offer would be less than what the Greens got after the last election, and would mean current ministers Eugenie Sage and Julie Anne Genter would be demoted. David Williams writes about this today, saying a demotion for Sage, while retaining Shaw, would suggest that Labour wanted to shift more towards the centre in this new term: “Showing Sage the door, however, would speak volumes about our next Government’s potential embrace of pragmatism and incrementalism” – see: A tale of two Green ministers.

Williams’ argument is that Sage, as Minister of Conservation and of Land Information, has been prepared to “rock the boat”, while Shaw has been more centrist: “Where they differ, perhaps, is Shaw’s willingness to cut a deal – seemingly against Green ideals. This time last year, Shaw backed an agreement with farm leaders for the agriculture sector to self-manage its methane emissions. As political website Politik put it, Shaw staked his political reputation on it, as he defied his own party’s election manifesto and a recommendation from the Interim Climate Change Commission.”

In another article, Williams also reports the view of Kevin Hague (former Green MP, now head of Forest & Bird), who says this about the dangers of Sage being dropped: “Whoever they put in would have 10 percent of the experience, knowledge, and skill that Eugenie Sage has in that portfolio area. So imagine that minister’s next three years if Eugenie Sage is not in the government and is instead critiquing what the government’s doing. If you start thinking through the practicalities, it’s strongly in Labour’s interest to actually do a deal that works.”

One option supposedly being considered by the Labour-Green negotiators is what Ardern has called a “consultation agreement”, which is what the Greens signed up to with Helen Clark in 2005. This “saw the Greens not committed to supporting Labour on confidence and supply but consequently without any Ministerial positions” – see Richard Harman’s Greens’ high stakes game carries a big risk. In this arrangement, “The Government promised to consult with the Green Party on a range of issues”.

For more speculation on how the negotiations are going, see leftwing blogger Martyn Bradbury’s The latest from the Green-Labour negotiations. He suggests the talks aren’t going so well, with Labour currently offering little, and the Green membership getting ready to reject it.

Why the Greens should stay out of the new Government

It might be in the interests of the Green Party to stay out of Labour’s new government. This point of view is well explained by David Williams in his article, Why standing apart is good for the Greens. He suggests the party will be more able to “keep their distinctive voice, and can raise their voice when they disagree”. And he reports the view of former co-leader Russel Norman (now of Greenpeace) who says “You can influence things from the outside” and he’s highly critical of what the party achieved during the last coalition by being inside the tent: “They were in the Government and achieved very, very little.” He argues that the party also had to “defend the indefensible” such as keeping farmers out of the emissions trading scheme.

Long-time leftwing commentator Gordon Campbell has also put forward the arguments for the Greens retaining their independence: “The Greens barely survived this last term in government. Signing up again could well be suicidal, long term. It might have made sense if the voters had delivered a sufficient number of Green MPs to make them essential for Labour to govern. But that didn’t happen. Instead, the Greens are just an optional extra. That’s a major problem” – see: On why the Greens shouldn’t join the government.

Campbell sees the Greens in Government being swamped and silenced, and getting the blame for the shortcomings of the next three years: “Arguably, the Green Party can (a) better defend their principles, (b) retain their identity and (c) be a more feisty advocate against Labour timidity and Act Party populism alike, from a position outside of the tent.”

He believes the Greens risk becoming a party of insiders, disconnected from their community activism, and that the lessons the Greens should be taking are instead from the significant victory in Auckland Central: “Chloe Swarbrick won Auckland Central by running on the track carved out by the Green Party of old – as an outsider against two machine politicians from two virtually indistinguishable parties of the mainstream. She didn’t run as an insider promising incremental change. If the Greens turn their back on the Auckland Central example and settle for relative impotence inside government they will put themselves right back in the MMP danger zone again in 2023.”

Blogger No Right Turn also says that the last term in Government wasn’t a successful exercise for the party, and by going into government again they risk simply “implementing and overseeing Labour policy” – see: The Greens and Labour.

This all comes at a cost: “Being a good team player means not criticising your political partners, and in particular, not spending the next three years reminding Labour’s supporters and voters generally of what the government could or should be doing. Which is fine, if you’re actually getting real policy out of it. But its not something you give away for nothing, or next-to-nothing (which is what the Greens arguably got last term).”

Former Green MPs are also speaking out publicly to warn the party not to fall into the trap of government. Keith Locke told RNZ that they should “remain critical of Labour while also working constructively with it” – see: Green Party should avoid Cabinet positions and remain an independent, critical voice – former MP. According to Locke, inside government his party “would not have any leverage and there would be an implicit understanding that the Green caucus would soften its criticism of the Labour government.”

Similarly, Catherine Delahunty went on RNZ to say: “I think the greens should go hard for independence right now and not become subsumed into any form of deal with Labour that actually mutes their ability to speak out” – see: Greens better off independent – Former Green MP Catherine Delahunty. The former MP believes the party shouldn’t take any ministerial positions and should instead focus on pressuring the Government to be more transformational: “She said the Greens became too risk-averse in the previous term when the party was part of the government and what she wants to see is some radicalism from the new MPs.”

Party activist Justine Sachs says entering into government would mean “selling out the party’s soul”, and they are better to focus on work outside of Parliament and government: “Let’s focus on building power, not just electorally but in unions and social movements. Labour has a mandate, but its pivot to the right suggests that the mandate will not be spent on the kind of transformative change necessary. It is up to the Greens to push Labour left, and this will be far easier to do from the outside in opposition, where they are allowed an independent and critical voice” – see: The Green party should think twice before accepting a deal with Labour.

The difficulty of the decision was clearly outlined by Matthew Hooton on the day after the election. He suggested the party is in a bind, as it either has to throw its lot in with the “Ardern juggernaut” and potentially neutralise itself, or stay out of government and be powerless – see: Triumphant Greens face difficult choice on Government role (paywalled). The decision is highly fraught: “if the Greens get the decision wrong, in last night’s triumph may well lie the seeds of a disaster in 2023.”

Here’s Hooton’s case for the Greens staying out of government: “The radicals will rightly point out this also involves existential political risk. When push comes to shove, the Greens will still have no real power over Labour, but their ministers will be bound by Cabinet collective responsibility, obliged to publicly support decisions they don’t agree with. Green ministers will be in danger of doing little more than applying a Green stamp to Labour’s agenda, to the extent it turns out to have one.”

Why the Greens need to be part of the new Government

In the above column, Hooton also makes the case for the Greens taking up a role in government: “Outside the Government, they are no more than a taxpayer-funded pressure group with the use of Parliament’s platform. That may be enough for the radical side of the Green coalition but its other supporters want outcomes. For wiser heads, the Greens have no real choice but to opt for a more formal agreement with Labour, assuming Ardern offers one. To have any real power at all, they need to be ministers who operationally control departments and budgets, and attend Cabinet committee meetings as equals with their Labour rivals.”

BusinessDesk’s Pattrick Smellie acknowledges there is a risk for the Greens in entering government by having ministers outside of Cabinet, but says there are also risks with abstaining: “if the Greens sit on the cross-benches without influence and snipe for three years, they risk just as much being blamed for failing to exert maximum constructive influence without being suffocated in the embrace of a formal coalition. After all, if the climate emergency is so urgent, how is it served by three years of tactical and ultimately impotent Opposition? On balance, it is very difficult to see how the Greens can do other than seek ministerial posts under arrangements that will look very similar to the confidence and supply agreement reached after 2017” – see: Labour and the Greens: an inevitable embrace (paywalled).

Journalist Selwyn Manning argues there is a need for the Greens to fulfil the mandate of voters who want them to take up positions in government and carry out their policy promises – see: Of negotiations, opportunities and an obligation to voters to govern.

Manning’s main point is that abstentionism would jeopardise the newfound position of Green power: “to shy away from an opportunity to assert its core environmental and climate policies, to abandon the ability to inject itself into the new Executive Government’s priority policy settings – then it would relegate itself into legislative insignificance and potential political oblivion by 2023. It would also pay-waste to the ministerial experience, gains and momentum that its members of Parliament established during the 2017-20 term.”

Similarly, see Rod Oram’s What the Greens could bring to a two-party government. He argues that the “Greens could play two important roles in a two-party government: more innovative ideas than Labour has offered, and strong ministerial talent”.

Finally, for a detailed constitutional take on the various potential governing options for the Greens, through the lens of dating and relationships, see Andrew Geddis’ What sort of relationship might Labour and the Greens agree on?.

There’s a mood circulating among some circles that it would end badly for the Green Party in 2023 should it negotiate a part within a now-powerful Labour-led government.

The argument goes; that should the Greens negotiate roles within the new Government, that their voice and policies would be watered down, rendered irrelevant by the large, expanded, Labour Party. That Labour’s success in being able to govern alone would mean the Green Party’s place and purpose would be seen to be irrelevant.

It boils down to a resistance to govern for fear of being seen as mediocre.

But the counter-argument suggests: should the Green Party bow to the above narrative – to shy away from an opportunity to assert its core environmental and climate policies, to abandon the ability to inject itself into the new Executive Government’s priority policy settings – then it would relegate itself into legislative insignificance and potential political oblivion by 2023. It would also pay-waste to the ministerial experience, gains and momentum that its members of Parliament established during the 2017-20 term.

It can be argued, the Greens have proven that the Red-Green tag-team works. Unlike Winston Peters’ New Zealand First, the Greens have experienced an increased share of electoral and party list support, despite one-spectacular own goal, and despite being in government as a smaller party within the 2017-20 Labour-led Government. That is redefining MMP history.

Let’s examine that phenomenon.

Traditional Green support (that withdrew in large numbers during the 2017 election campaign) returned in part in 2020 perhaps to assist their Green Party to survive. The effect: the Green Party avoided the sub-five percent dry horrors and indeed secured a generational-shift with Chloe Swarbrick’s impressive win in Auckland Central.

As such, the Greens have made history, defining a maturing of New Zealand voter behaviour where, as a third party, have increased voter support after presiding over significant ministerial portfolios in partnership with a large party-led government.

The Greens should avoid the cautious, strategic trap. Should the Greens shy away from negotiating, then they will likely commit themselves to a future of legislative irrelevance. That scenario would see its natural partner party Labour – under Jacinda Ardern, an environmentally and climate change sensitive leader – hoover up good and sound Green Party policy and make it its own.

It appears, Labour does not want to do that.

Labour leader and Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, indicated on election night and over the weekend, her wish to embark on consensus building. Her call on Sunday to Greens co-leader James Shaw set out a pathway ahead toward negotiations. While refusing to get ahead of herself on the elements of discussions between Labour and the Greens, she clearly indicated an intention to develop a consensus around policy, and use common ground as a basis of dialogue. Those are strong negotiation points that the Green leadership, caucus and membership can leverage from.

Also, both Labour and the Greens share a need to cement in a consensus-driven red-green bloc, a movement of significance, that could reshape Aotearoa New Zealand society, policy-sets, and the political and economic environment for the next two Parliamentary terms. This was a bloc of significance in determining the make-up of Government in 2017, it played a significant part in Labour’s connection to environmentalism in 2020, and will prove absolutely necessary once Labour’s main opponent, the National Party, re-invents itself to campaign as match fit and as a centre-right cabinet-in-waiting in future election cycles.

This, one get’s a sense, is what drives the Prime Minister’s pursuit of consensus building at a time of absolute power. That, in turn, offers the Green negotiators a powerful lever beyond what the numbers would suggest – ie; mutual interest.

It’s likely, Labour knows the 2020 election result is the zenith of its political successes.

Labour is not a broad-tent party. In Jacinda Ardern, it has exceptional leadership. In Grant Robertson, it has solid, assuring, strategic financial leadership. It has a deep and deepening pool of political talent in ministers that stretch well beyond the top-five. It has a ministerial line up that now has significant ministerial experience. It has a pool of caucus members ready to express their commitment to Executive Government representations. One gets the strong sense it is the party, with the politicians, with the policy sets… for this time. Interventionism, Keynesian economics shaped for the 2020 decade, and a Government with the energy to get things done. The most enduring criticism of the Ardern-led Government is the pace of incrementalism. And that, is something that the challenges of these times can demand be addressed. It is also an idiosyncrasy of which the Green Party can challenge with considerable honest broker-ship. One gets a sense that the elements of a unified red-green bloc could well sustain voter enthusiasm through this term and potentially 2023-2026.

Labour’s Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern’s post-election media stand-ups demonstrate she knows this.

Jacinda Ardern’s wish to build consensus across the centre-centre-left, acknowledges the success of the Green Party’s election campaign. She also has indicated an interest to have discussions with the Maori Party should special votes shore up its election night win in Waiariki. Her comments appear to signal to Maori that the Ardern-led Labour Party wants to work with, and cooperate with, every Maori MP that the Maori electorate voters send into Parliament.

So is the host of Green Party MPs really reluctant to join their successes with Labour’s landslide?

It appears not.

While significant debate is occurring within the party’s membership – again that should the Greens enter into a coalition, then that will end badly for them in 2023 – the Green leadership has indicated an eagerness to negotiate.

Co-leaders James Shaw and Marama Davidson have been clear, there is much work yet to do beyond what they achieved during the 2017-20 term (despite New Zealand First’s centre-right hand-break) and are keen to have their ministers and caucus talent play their rightful part.

Additionally, Chloe Swarbrick’s impressive performance winning Auckland Central demands recognition of significance. A strong signal of resolve and commitment to the generation Swarbrick represents, would be to promote her to the executive so as to initiate her to the demands of ministerial politics and governance. One get’s the sense Chloe will become a highly significant element of future governments, and now would be the perfect time for her to engage in that journey.

Meanwhile, after specials, with a slightly expanded caucus (potentially including the impressive activist Steve Abel) the Greens can definitely broker relevancy on party-based constituency issues, principles, while rolling their collective sleeves up to develop policy throughout the term. Indeed with a larger slice of a Parliamentary Service research budget, the Green caucus can truly embrace opportunities for fact-based environmental activism, and work with like-minded ministers to get real gains for their voters, members, and Aotearoa New Zealand.

Such opportunity does not call for reticence. In other words, the opportunity is reality, the dangers are, at this time, abstract. With political planning, such perceived dangers can be rendered irrelevant and relegated to very last-century thinking.

After all, voters do vote for a party’s policies on the understanding that should they be able to inject those policies into government then real change will be achieved. To shy away from that democratic mandate would be an abuse of the support that the Green Party has been given.

When New Zealand Health Minister Chris Hipkins recently quipped that the Green Party is “to some extent the conscience of the Labour Party” he was not simply referring to polls suggesting Labour may need the Greens’ support to form a government.

Hipkins was also suggesting Green policies help keep Labour honest on environmental and social issues. So, what difference has the Green Party really made to New Zealand’s political debate?

Drawing on a study of 57 million words spoken in Parliament between 2003 and 2016, our analysis shows the presence of a Green party has changed the political conversation on economics and environment.

In the recent Newshub leaders’ debate, both Jacinda Ardern and Judith Collins agreed that “growing the economy” was the best way to respond to the economic crisis driven by covid-19.

Their responses varied only on traditional left-right lines. Ardern argued that raising incomes and investing in training would grow the economy. Collins suggested economic growth should be advanced by increasing consumer spending through temporary tax cuts.

By contrast, Green parties in New Zealand and elsewhere have long questioned the impact of relentless growth on the natural resources of a finite planet.

Green thinking is informed by ecological economics, which aims to achieve more sustainable forms of collective prosperity that meet social needs within the planet’s limits.

The language of economic growth
The impact of this radically different view can be observed in New Zealand parliamentary debates. When MPs from National and Labour used the word “economy” they commonly talked about it in the context of “growth” (“grow”/“growing”/“growth”).

On average, National MPs said “growth” once every four mentions of “economy”. Labour MPs said “growth” once every six mentions.

Green MPs used “growth” once every 20 mentions of “economy”. When they did mention growth it was primarily to question the idea and to present alternative ideas about a sustainable economy.

Our analysis of the most recent parliamentary term (2017-2020) is ongoing.
However, while Labour has recently introduced “well-being” into discussions of the economy, it is striking how the covid crisis has reinvigorated the party’s traditional focus on growth economics.

The research also shows Green MPs mention “economy” primarily in relation to the environment, climate change, sustainability and people, rather than in relation to growth. Their distinct focus is on the connections between the economic system and the environment.

From Labour to the Greens
Despite criticism that the Greens have not focused enough on “environmental” concerns, Green MPs used words related to environment, climate and conservation more frequently than Labour or National MPs over the 13-year study period.

For example, after controlling for the number of words spoken by each party’s MPs in parliament, Green MPs mentioned “climate change” four times more than National or Labour MPs.

This represents something of an historical shift. Atmospheric warming and CO₂ were first talked about in parliament by Labour MP Fraser Coleman in 1979. And Labour’s Geoffrey Palmer was the first prime minister to place climate change on parliament’s agenda.

But it has been the Greens who have maintained the momentum, using their speaking opportunities in the House to hold governments to account, including progressing legislation on the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act 2019.

Making women’s voices heard
The Green Party has also made a difference to who speaks. By institutionalising gender balance in their leadership and party organisation, and in the way they select their party list for each election, the Greens have consistently elected a higher proportion of female MPs than the other parties.

Historically, female Green MPs have contributed significantly to debates and policy action on inequality, child poverty, Treaty of Waitangi issues, gender equality and action on domestic violence.

This is significant. Analysis of political language globally, particularly on social media, has shown that politicians who identify as women and people of colour are subject to far higher rates of verbal abuse than their male counterparts. This is also the experience of female MPs in New Zealand, including women representing the Greens.

‘Quantity of life or quality of life?’ A 1972 election ad from the Values Party, political ancestor of the Greens.

A history of disruption
Minority parties often struggle to maintain their identity in coalition arrangements with larger parties, but the Greens have retained a unique position in New Zealand.

In 1972, the Values Party became the first “green” party to contest a national election anywhere in the world. Former Values activists, including the first Green Party co-leaders Jeanette Fitzsimons and Rod Donald, were later successful in taking the Greens into Parliament.

The language of green politics in New Zealand and the questioning of growth can be traced back to these origins. Language and words are significant as vehicles for articulating new ideas and provoking transformative action.

Linguistic analysis therefore shows how influential the Green Party has been in presenting alternatives to the idea that economic growth based on unlimited use of New Zealand’s natural resources is a sustainable option.

If Chris Hipkins is correct and the Greens are Labour’s conscience, it is because
they have effectively disrupted a historical near-consensus among the major parties that economic growth is the only driver of prosperity.

Dr Geoffrey Ford is lecturer in digital humanities and a postdoctoral fellow in political science and international relations, University of Canterbury; Dr Bronwyn Hayward, is professor of politics, University of Canterbury, and Dr Kevin Watson, is dean of arts and associate professor of linguistics, University of Canterbury. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Was it just a terrible stuff-up? Or a reflection of the political direction the Green Party is shifting in? The announcement this week by co-leader James Shaw that he had secured nearly $12m for a private school has angered educationalists and raised significant questions about the Greens and what they now stand for.

The decision to give this huge amount of money to an environmental school in Taranaki is further evidence for many that the Greens have either lost their way, making poor and unprincipled decisions in power, or are simply shifting towards a more “green capitalism” approach.

Anger from the education sector

In a time of heightened concern about economic inequality and the run-down state of New Zealand schools, the decision to put such a large amount of money into a new for-profit school was always going to be controversial. It’s not surprising to see the whole of the public education sector speaking out angrily against Shaw’s funding announcement.

One of the strongest reactions has come from a Decile 2 school in the same area. New Plymouth’s Marfell School acting principal, Kealy Warren has written an open letter to the Prime Minister saying: “This action makes the rich richer and says loud and clear that you have little regard for the state school system. You have given to those who already have so much and yet again left us hanging” – see Rachel Sadler’s New Plymouth principal writes scathing letter to Jacinda Ardern over ‘elitist’ funding for private school.

The letter also says: “This is totally unacceptable, elitist, and completely inequitable. It is a clear statement that you value the rich while actively keeping the low socio-economic schools in their place at the bottom of the heap.”

RNZ reports this principal’s reaction upon hearing the news: “I felt physically sick, I wanted to vomit. I could not believe we were being so disrespected in favour of an elitist private school” – see Jo Moir’s Pressure on Green co-leader James Shaw to pull support for Taranaki Green School.

The problem for Kealy Warren is that her school, like many others, has leaky classrooms, and fixing these isn’t being prioritised. The article also quotes Shaw himself, perhaps making it worse, saying “This is an area I think that New Zealand should be frankly ashamed of in terms of our continuing underinvestment in this area.” But his own defence is that his decision was not about schools, but about jobs: “In terms of the infrastructure spend, it is in many ways just another construction project.”

The New Zealand Educational Institute (NZEI) representing 50,000 teachers, has also reacted with disbelief at the Green decision, with national secretary Paul Goulter saying “We just can’t understand why the Government would go ahead and fund a private school with public money at a time when public schools in the Taranaki region are crying out for this type of investment” – see Thomas Coughlan’s Greens caught bending party policy to grant $11.7m to private school in Taranaki.

The union points out that the Government’s current programme for improving ageing public school infrastructure has a cap of $400,000, and this grant to the private school “would be enough to fund nearly 30 schools at that rate.”

The Principals’ Association in the region has also hit out at the lack of fairness, saying: “We’ve got state and state-integrated schools all around our province and the country screaming for funding for leaky buildings, modernisation projects and lots of overcrowding issues and we’re just a bit worried this going to set a precedent” – see Robin Martin’s Taranaki education leaders furious at govt funding for private school.

This article also reports the Post Primary Teachers’ Association saying “New Zealand education is about equity. They’re big on equity and I don’t think we would see this as equitable for all our people.”

In another article, the PPTA’s regional chair Erin MacDonald says “it’s a kick in the guts” and that other schools have “shovel-ready” projects urgently needing funding: “Colleagues all over the region and country are teaching in libraries, in hallways and in damp and mouldy rooms” – see Newstalk ZB’s ‘Gutted’: Outrage after money allocated to private green school.

Other schools in the region are also angry – Brianna Mcilraith reports that special needs education in Taranaki is currently under-threat through lack of funding, with one programme being forced to close next year – see: Parents of special education facility fighting for survival disgusted at Govt’s $11.7m funding to private Taranaki school.

Dismay from within the Greens and the political left

Not only are educationalists and political opponents appalled at the Green decision, embarrassingly, party activists and former MPs are also publicly revolting. Jo Moir’s article reports: “Sue Bradford described the move as incredible, and a total hand-out to the wealthy. Mojo Mathers took to Twitter to say she was furious, while Denise Roche warned the party’s credibility was being ruined by such a move. Catherine Delahunty, who was a Green MP for nine years – holding the education portfolio for many of them, says she’s astonished. ‘This is a mistake, fix the mistake and the electorate will respect you for it. Don’t fix it and they will lose faith in you, it’s that simple’.”

The problem is that the Green decision goes directly against the party’s core policy of opposing private education. They have campaigned strongly that the party would “phase out funding for private schools” not increase it.

The party’s Young Green wing has denounced their leaderships’ decision, putting out a statement to say they are “appalled that James Shaw took the stance of allowing funding to be given to a private school when there are so many low-decile and kura kaupapa Māori that would greatly appreciate this sort of funding… This is not what the party stands for. This is not creating access to free, high-quality, and accessible public education” – see Alice Webb-Liddall: Green Party under fire for $11m public funding of private ‘Green School’.

Many on the political left are also aghast that the party is responsible for transferring money to private schooling. Blogger No Right Turn sums the funding up like this: “This is a private school, providing exclusive education for the rich. Having ‘green’ in the name and an ecological focus doesn’t change that” – see: The Greens are supposed to be better than this. He concludes that it’s “another example of how being in government has changed the Greens, how power has corrupted them”.

Not everyone is critical of the decision. Writing on the pro-Government blogsite The Standard, Greg Presland gives his sympathy not to the state schools missing out, or disillusioned Green members, but to the party leadership: “I feel for Shaw. Politics is difficult and when you have a pandemic and a major economic hit and you need to shovel lots of money out the door into projects that have to be ready to go you can quickly get yourself into awkward positions” – see: Kia kaha Greens.

Reaction from the right

Not surprisingly, the political right is pushing strongly against the Green decision, with a variety of objections to it. National’s education spokesperson Nicola Willis called the $11.7m funding “eye-wateringly generous” and questioned why an “exclusive private school has been granted such an extraordinary amount of money” when there’s such need in state schools.

Some on the right argue that the funding of this particular private school is questionable. This is best put in David Farrar’s blogpost, Outrage over Greens taxpayer funding of private school. He says he supports the current “modest” funding of private schools (“$1,500 per student subsidy”), but believes that $12m is “horrendous” for an untested “school hand picked by Green Party Ministers because it shares their name and ethos”.

Farrar also points out that the new school will be one of the most elite and expensive in the country, for the use of the wealthiest 1% in society. In terms of fees charged, he says “If a child attended the school for all 13 years of primary and secondary it would cost the family $317,300.”

Not all on the right see the shift in policy from the Greens as a bad thing. Former Associate Minister of Education and Act MP Heather Roy has blogged her admiration: “Congratulations James Shaw! I never thought I would be complimenting the Green Party co-leader for his support of school choice for parents and students” – see: Green Party hypocrisy good for school choice.

Pressure on the Greens to reverse the decision

Since the backlash, Shaw has come out with some ambiguous statements about his regret over the decision. Talking to party members on Friday night on a Zoom conference call, he apologised for the controversy, saying he was aware that it has jeopardised support for the party. According to a report on this, “he would not make the same decision if given another opportunity. He told the group of 460 people he had thought of the project as a building and construction project rather than an education one” – see RNZ’s James Shaw apologises for signing-off on funding for ‘green’ private school.

But talking publicly, Shaw has since been less clear in his apologies, taking responsibility but not necessarily saying it was wrong. On Newshub The Nation he said that if faced with such a decision again “I probably would have taken a second look” – see Anna Bracewell-Worrall’s Greens co-leader James Shaw takes the blame over private school funding ‘hypocrisy’.

Will the Greens and Government reverse the private school funding? There is certainly mounting pressure for them to do so. A petition has been launched calling for this, which currently has 10,500 supporters – see: Reduce the Green School Grant.

The principal of New Plymouth’s Marfell School, Kealy Warren, has reacted to Shaw’s apology by questioning exactly who he is apologising to, suggesting he’s only worried about the impact on Green support: “When he says he caused damage, does he mean to his party and himself? Or is he acknowledging the principals, the children, the schools, the teachers, and the families of Taranaki and the damage he’s caused us?” – see Stephanie Ockhuysen’s James Shaw invited to see mouldy, leaky state schools after million-dollar grant to private school.

Warren wants Shaw to withdraw the funding and focus on fixing state schools. Shaw is reported as looking for another solution. Meanwhile, Finance Minister Grant Robertson has come out against reversing the decision, saying “I think the Government’s got to act in good faith here with an applicant and so I’ve got no intention to do that”.

Coalition partner NZ First also wants the decision to remain, with the Minister in charge of the Provincial Growth Fund, Shane Jones, saying it’s not so easy to do a U-turn on the funding: “I understand that there are members of the Green Party who are warning of buyers’ remorse but quite frankly this is not a situation where it’s a pig in the poke” – see Amelia Wade’s Green School funding: Infrastructure Minister Shane Jones says controversial project isn’t a ‘pig in the poke’.

This article reports both NZEI and the National Party wanting the decision reversed and pressuring the Government to explain why it can’t do so. National’s Nicola Willis wants more transparency on the issue, and believes the “Government should be asking Crown Law for advice on whether it was too late to back out or if they were locked into a contract which they had to honour.”

Damaging for the Greens

A number of commentators point to the potential damage for the Green Party, as they are precariously close to the 5% MMP threshold, The scandal might help push the party out of Parliament, especially if leftwing voters are disillusioned by the political direction the party is heading in.

Unfortunately for the Greens the controversy has undermined one of the party’s key strengths – it’s reputation for being principled. This is explained well by a Stuff newspaper editorial, The perils of having a political conscience: “The fear since 2017 is that the Greens would be somehow tainted by the proximity to power. No one minds too much when other parties flip-flop on their principles. We almost expect it from some. But the Green brand is based on a holier-than-thou sense of moral purpose. If that seems unfair, it is an image they courted.”

The must-read column on the matter comes from Stuff political editor Luke Malpass – see: Hypocrisy, thy colour is Green. He argues that the Greens are in trouble, because they trade heavily on their ideals, but this controversy makes them look like any other party.

More so, it reveals what the true political nature of the party is and which economic interests they serve. Malpass argues that: “The leader of the Green Party, which purports publicly to be the party of the downtrodden and dispossessed, has inadvertently revealed itself for what many think it actually is – a party that mostly serves well-heeled Kiwis in secure and well-paid employment that care about the environment, climate change and want to go cycling and tramping on the weekend.”

Malpass says that Shaw’s political credentials with the left are now badly tarnished: “The key political takeout of this confirms what many in politics have thought about James Shaw both within and without the Green Party: that he is a ‘tree Tory’ who is out of touch with a lot of the Green Party’s ‘watermelon’ base.”

Finally, New Zealand’s semi-official poet laureate, Victor Billot, reflects on the Greens’ shift towards environmentalism for the rich – see: A(nother) poem for James Shaw.

Socialism versus Progressive Capitalism

I was disappointed that the Green Party continues to reject a distributive Universal Basic Income (UBI) in favour of a redistributive and polarising Guaranteed Minimum Income (GMI) model. GMI is the antithesis of UBI. The essence of UBI, through flattening income tax, is the creation of a dividend – a return on collective capital – that is received by every economic citizen of a country. Universal Basic Income should represent progressive capitalism, not socialism.

(I plan to develop the concept of economic citizenship in this space next week. But the essence of the concept is that everyone over a certain age – most likely 18 – is an economic citizen of one and only one country; and that immigration can be understood as a transfer of economic citizenship. Many of the people discussed in my Foreign Lives Matter are in fact economic citizens of New Zealand.)

The essence of the Green policy is to extend New Zealand Superannuation to all working-age adults who are not ‘fulltime workers’. And the graduated income tax scale is steepened, not flattened as per the requirements of Universal Income Flat Tax. The Greens’ GMI is to be funded by redistributive income and wealth taxes.

The Green Party’s recently announced policy divides New Zealand’s working-age population into two distinct groups – a beneficiary group and a working group – and relies on heroic assumptions around the working group’s willingness to transfer huge amounts of income to the beneficiary group. And by replacing the present poverty trap with a ghetto trap. Precarious workers – who are a substantial minority of all workers, and who straddle the two abovementioned groups – would face even more impediments to having their needs addressed.

(The ‘ghetto trap’ referred to can be summarised as high EMTRs – effective marginal tax rates – faced by people who would normally wish to transition from the beneficiary group to the working group.)

This policy announcement confirms, in the minds of most people, that the Green Party is a socialist party – like the former New Labour Party that formed the core of the 1990s’ Alliance – unlike the progressive party that seceded from the Alliance in 1999.

Taxes and Behavioural Change

Taxes may be imposed for two distinct reasons. One reason is to raise public revenue. The other is to modify behaviour; to address ‘negative externalities’ in economist language. The Green Party has always been confused in this regard, seeking to tax bad behaviour in order to raise public revenue. The perfect behavioural modification tax raises zero revenue. When the taxed behaviour – such as vehicle speeding – ceases, then the tax raises zero revenue. Today the Green Party wishes to both raise revenue from asset speculation (what they call ‘wealth taxes’) and to eliminate asset speculation. If they wish past property speculators to become a stable future tax base, then they will need to find policies which will ensure that property prices remain unaffordably high.

The other obvious social change that would result from the implementation of the Green policy would be the reversal of fifty years of shifting from one-income to two-income families. In practice, this will mean a substantial shift of women from the labour force (from the ‘working group’ abovementioned) into beneficiary status.

The policy is generous to one-income families, and quite ungenerous to low-wage two-income families. Based on these incentives, we could expect working class mothers to exit the labour force, and to withdraw their children from childcare. Further, if the fathers are not earning much – or are in precarious employment – they would become dispensable as household providers.

I presume that Child Support would continue much as it does at present. That would mean that – where possible – benefits paid to single or repartnered parents would be funded in the first instance by non-caregiver parents. This would push low paid working non-caregiver parents into quitting their jobs – ie joining the ‘beneficiary group’ in order to avert bankruptcy.

In general, this policy does little for the present crisis of hardship faced by people in work, and could be expected to aggravate the existing disconnect between working class – who now largely vote National – and the beneficiary classes.

The Covid-19 Pandemic and Asset Prices

I suspect that most of the work on this Green policy was done pre-pandemic. The costings – heroic at best – are unlikely to make any sense in the present pandemic environment. During the current emergency, any policy to raise taxes is tone deaf. All initiatives in the emergency need to be funded by new money.

The asset valuations used to estimate revenues from wealth taxes are largely fictions, based on the assumption that demand for these assets remains high, and that selling of assets is restrained. Assets can only be correctly valued when those assets are realised (ie sold). The inflated ‘paper’ valuations are dependent on few realisations (sales) taking place. Any situation that prompts increased sales of financial assets would lead to substantial reductions in asset prices, unless those prices were to be propped up by a willingness of the Reserve Bank to bail out asset-holders by purchasing assets (ie printing money) at inflated prices. These fickle assets are by no means the “rainy day savings” that their owners can assuredly “fall back on in hard times” (quoting from the policy document). In unmitigated hard times, nobody has economic security.

Learn from the 1930s

The Great Depression of the 1930s brought to light the cruelty of a welfare system based on providing private charity only to the ‘deserving poor’. The result was a strong public groundswell in favour of universal benefits, and away from the intrusive processes of household means-testing and character evaluation.

The First Labour Government was elected in 1935 on the basis of promises to deliver a universal welfare state. This meant free education and hospital care. And it meant access to decent social security benefits with minimal intrusive bureaucracy. And it meant universal superannuation for persons over 65 who did not qualify for an age benefit; and the promise of a universal family benefit, payable to all mothers.

(It is important to note that, while Labour won the 1935 election in part on this promise, it also benefitted from a union with the monetary reformist ‘social credit’ movement – very strong in the provinces – and from a split in the then governing coalition; a split that lead to the formation of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party played a spoiling role in the 1935 election, much as the New Zealand Party did in 1984.)

In practice politics post-1935 was not so simple. While a plan for universal welfare was formulated in 1936, Labour’s left-wing preferred a redistributive welfare state much as the Green Party want today. Labour’s right-wing – mesmerised by compound interest – wanted to establish actuarial (contribution-based) welfare funds; funds that promised to pay big future benefits to higher earning working men.

For most of the next three years, the Labour government’s factions tore at each other over which was the best way to dishonour their 1935 promise. In early 1938, it seemed very likely that Labour would lose, when all it had to do to win was to implement the reforms it promised in 1935. Labour’s position was rescued by its leader – Michael Joseph Savage – who belonged to neither faction, and had the ability to read the public mood. (It was Savage’s leadership at this moment which made him, in the evaluation of many, the New Zealander of the twentieth century.)

Savage went to the people with a policy on universal superannuation that united rather than divided the people. The 1938 result was the biggest electoral victory for a single party in New Zealand’s history. The universal superannuation began in 1940, initially at the modest amount of $20 per year, but with a formula to raise that amount annually, with the long-run aim that it would reach the level of the Age Benefit, and then combine with the age benefit.

(That convergence eventually happened, though the merging of the two benefits only occurred in 1976 under Robert Muldoon. Roger Douglas – a descendant of Labour’s actuarial school – abolished universal superannuation in 1974; Muldoon, again reading the public mood, reinstated it.)

The inchoate public mood is for a Universal Basic Income based on the Universal Income principles that I have outlined; an inclusive rights-based payment. The political problem is that five sets of gatekeepers keep the proposal off the immediate agenda. These gatekeepers include the ‘redistributive left’ and the actuarial ‘financial literacy’ right; essentially the same groups who opposed the 1938 reforms. They also include mainstream journalists (some of whom still do not get MMP, let alone UBI), career academics, and career bureaucrats; people whose careers are more enhanced by having problems than by resolving them.

(I recommend ‘The politics of social security: the 1938 Act and some later developments’ by Elizabeth Hanson, published in 1980 by Auckland University Press.)

Conclusion

The Green Party tax-welfare policy represents an example of orthodox redistributive western socialism. It is divisive left-wing politics. While the Green Party knows that such a policy will never be implemented, it nevertheless represents a gambit designed to put pressure on Labour to produce a ‘lite’ version of the same policy. (The Act Party has used use the same stratagem re National.)

There are alternative policies that unite people rather than divide them. In 2020 we need to focus on people’s basic economic rights, just as in the 1890s we focussed on people’s political rights.

The Greens have shaken up the election campaign with the announcement of their radical poverty and action plan to reform welfare provision and introduce a new wealth tax for millionaires. It’s a big-thinking, controversial policy and has generated a lot of disagreement over how radical it is, whether it could work, and what it might mean for the election. 

For the best reporting on the announcement, see Henry Cooke’s Green Party’s $8b plan would guarantee income of $325 a week, and pay for it with a wealth tax on millionaires. This explains how the Greens’ wealth tax would apply a 1% levy on people who have net assets above $1m – exempting the first $1m – and this would rise to 2% for subsequent wealth over $2m. There would also be new higher marginal tax rate of 37% for earnings over $100,000 a year, and 42% for earnings over $150,000. The increased revenue would be used to pay a “guaranteed minimum income” welfare payment of $325 to all those not in full-time work (including students, unemployed, part-timers, retired).

Praise from the left

Leftwing blogger No Right Turn is incredibly happy with the policy, saying: “Its bold, its progressive, it would make us a better, more equal society” – see: The Greens’ opening bid is transformational change.

Although the blogger would prefer a land tax rather than a wealth tax, which he suggests is easier for the rich to evade, he says a lot of the quibbles with the policy – such as whether the rich will simply be able to avoid the tax – are unfounded, as these can be fixed in the implementation phrase. However, he’s disappointed that the Labour Party appear to oppose the policy, which he puts down to too many in the party owning investment properties and generally being a force for the status quo.

Leftwing commentator Chris Trotter is also deeply disappointed by Labour’s apparent opposition to the policy, and suggests it’s typical of the party’s general moderate orientation in a time that requires boldness – see: Labour will not win with a yeah-nah strategy.

Trotter believes the Greens’ new policy “has the capacity to get young, poor voters up off the couch and into the polling booths.” He foresees the party possibly rolling out a similarly radical suite of policies which might “offer the voters something pretty close to a complete re-prioritisation of all the activity that makes up the New Zealand economy”.

Fellow Daily Blog writer Martyn Bradbury, is also a big supporter of the new policy: “For the first time in 3 years, the Greens finally give a reason why New Zealander’s should vote for them, and I’m genuinely surprised and pleased. The middle class woke identity politics, which has been so toxically alienating for the Greens and is why they have been floundering in the Polls, has been sidelined in favour of genuine social justice in welfare and a real economic philosophy of taxing the rich” – see: Finally a reason to vote for the Greens!

Newsroom’s editor Tim Murphy also praises the Greens’ policy for its radicalism and vision, saying the party deserves praise for being “the first party to offer a big, detailed and transformative policy in response to the economic tornado that is Covid-19. This is what political parties should be doing, 80 or so days out from a general election in the context of a major economic downturn” – see: The Greens’ cunning plan. He adds, “The Greens have shown us a medium to longer-term response to the economic crisis that challenges current political limits.”

Here’s Murphy’s main point: “the value in the Greens going early and going hard with such a sweeping policy is that the party has offered a response to the biggest crisis since the Great Depression that offers change beyond an orthodox, vast Government stimulus and infrastructure build. The party will be betting New Zealanders shaken by the rapid and comprehensive threat to jobs, incomes and futures will be open to a new, collectivist and non-judgmental platform where Kiwis accept they need to pay more from any wealth they have above million and two million dollar limits to help their sisters and brothers. Is there a new normal in compassion and sharing the burden?”

Critiques from the left

How radical is the policy? Leftwing playwright and satirist Dave Armstrong is generally supportive of the new policy but warns against seeing it as some kind of socialist nirvana: “So when we look at the Greens’ ‘far Left’ wealth tax, we have to remember that it is a slightly Left-of-centre party big on the environment and with the Right-wing ‘realist’ faction of the party firmly in control. To pay the Greens’ wealth tax you have to own an asset worth more than a million dollars. Even then you only pay a small amount of tax based on the amount over a million. So all those residents of leafy Wellington suburbs, mine included, can relax – especially if you co-own a house. Even if you own a million-dollar house and a million-dollar company, you’ll more likely be paying your accountant more per year than the wealth tax” – see: Greens’ wealth tax will appeal to Labour’s Left-wingers.

Armstrong points out that not only will the wealth tax be “about as potent as a shandy in global terms”, the resulting increased welfare payments will still be inadequate: “For many of us, living on $325 a week would be incredibly difficult. It’s hardly largesse.”

The Greens, Armstrong argues, are actually in broad alignment with all the parliamentary parties, who largely agree on the basic taxation settings: “Our five parties have an unspoken consensus that corporate tax must stay low, that indirect taxes must rise and direct taxes must fall, that our crippling – for the poor – GST rate of 15 per cent must remain, and that corporate tax be modest.”

However, the Greens’ policy will be useful for Labour, Armstrong says, because it means that they will be able to “come up with a wishy-washy centrist scheme to address child poverty and inequality and when there are howls of outrage from the anti-beneficiary Right, Labour can say, ‘it’s very moderate – nowhere as radical as what the Greens were proposing’.”

Leftwing blogger Steven Cowan is dismissive of the new policy, largely because it amounts to a band aid rather than a solution for inequality and poverty, which is actually produced in the economic system rather than the welfare system. He complains that the Greens are only willing to treat “the symptoms of the disease itself” as a way of avoiding the necessity of fundamental economic transformation – see: Treating the symptom and not the disease.

Like Armstrong, Cowan argues that the Greens’ proposed $325 per week isn’t enough to live on, and in fact is much lower than what the current government has deemed is necessary for those who lost their jobs during the current recession (they get $490/week). And because the Greens haven’t so far pushed Labour to be transformative during the last three years, Cowan finds it hard to imagine them doing it in the next term – hence he sees the policy as dead in the water.

Critiques from Labour and the right

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has poured cold water on the Greens’ policy, saying the wealthiest New Zealanders would simply change how they structure their assets in order to pay much less tax than the Greens have calculated. She has complained that the Greens have included some “fairly heroic assumptions” in their calculations that the proposed new tax would raise $8bn – see 1News’ ‘Significant behaviour change’ needs to be factored into Green’s proposed wealth tax, says PM.

Here are Ardern’s main points: “Some of the assumptions around people’s change in behaviour, they aren’t necessarily factoring in a significant behaviour change which often tax amendments like this would drive… Also the fact that people would change the value of their assets in order to avoid tax, the fact that people will often move funds offshore and also I’m interested in the underlying modelling which is not necessarily something I’ve had access to.”

On the political right, others have made some similar arguments about the weaknesses of such a wealth tax. National-aligned blogger David Farrar says the wealthiest can afford to use accountants and lawyers to hide their wealth: “Of course the super wealthy will pay nothing. They will have all their assets in trusts. This asset tax will just affect the prudent retired person or small business owner who has managed to save some money, but don’t have fancy lawyers to hide everything in trusts” – see: Greens want to tax, tax, tax.

Evaluations of wealth taxes

For an in-depth and thoughtful examination of the general pros and cons of wealth taxes, it’s worth reading Henry Cooke’s The crucial feature of the Greens’ wealth tax that would exempt most family homes. He explains why such taxes are not commonly advocated for in New Zealand: “There is a reason we tax income more than wealth in this country. Taxing wealth is very hard – both politically and logistically. It’s fairly easy to clip the ticket on someone’s pay packet every week, but a lot more difficult to ascertain exactly what they own, what it’s worth, and whether the public morally thinks that worth should be taxed at some level.”

Cooke also outlines how the Greens’ version of a wealth tax is actually rather moderate, and says it is difficult to see how it would raise as much revenue as the Greens suggest. This is because the tax only applies to the marginal income above a very high threshold, and assets such as houses are divided in value between the various owners – with each owner getting a $1m exemption.

So, for example, even if a couple owned a $2.1m home and had no mortgage, they each would only pay $500 a year in the tax. And, in fact, such couples might have the potential to reduce this further by making their children co-owners of the home: “it isn’t clear what would happen to stop people just putting their kids on the title of their home, spreading the wealth around a family and avoiding the tax.”

Similarly, Thomas Coughlan has written about how a wealth tax fits within the broader tax system, again pointing to the complexities of introducing this type of taxation – see: Taxing wealth: a necessary step, or unachievable pipe dream? He argues the benefit of the current system – which relies heavily on tax on incomes, spending, and corporate profits – is its effectiveness: “This ensures high rates of compliance because there’s no great reward for the costly practice of stashing your income somewhere the taxman can’t get at it.”

Coughlan interviews Robin Oliver, formerly the IRD’s deputy commissioner of policy and a member of the Government’s tax working group, who argues that such a wealth tax will have problems with valuing assets. He says a land tax would be preferable: “A land tax would be relatively more easy to implement as land values were independently calculated for rating purposes.” Oliver says: “All we’ve really got in New Zealand in assets is land… What we have is land, what’s untaxed is land.”

How the Greens’ policy might impact the election

Is there growing public interest in a wealth tax? Richard Harman thinks there might be, and he also points to growing international interest in such taxes – see: Ardern shuns Greens’ wealth tax; Nats mount scare campaign.

The problem, Harman says, is that the Labour Party will have very little desire to implement such a policy, making it “more or less dead on arrival”. And with Jacinda Ardern being so opposed to implementing a capital gains tax, she is “hardly likely to agree to a capital gains’ tax’s lesser cousin, a wealth tax.”

The Greens could yet get their plan implemented according to Barry Soper, who points out that with NZ First likely to be out of the picture the Greens might have the ability to make the policy a bottom-line for post-election negotiations – something the Greens aren’t ruling out – see: Is the Greens’ poverty plan a flight of fantasy? Think again.

For this reason, Soper suggests Labour’s best bet is to totally rule out the Greens’ proposal, otherwise it will give National and NZ First a strong campaigning message: “Smiling all the way to the ballot box if that doesn’t happen will be National, which will be out selling what a Labour/Greens coalition could look like. And so too will be handbrake Peters, who’ll be out there reminding the electorate of what he stopped Labour from doing”.

Similarly, Heather du Plessis-Allan urges Labour to unequivocally rule out the policy, lest it chase away centrist voters – see: Why the Green Party’s wealth tax is bad for Jacinda Ardern.

Here’s du Plessis-Allan’s main point: “Labour clearly hasn’t learned from the capital gains tax fiasco last election. Remember how that played out? As soon as the PM promised a CGT, her polls started falling. This time, it might not be her policy, but if it’s coming from a party she is most likely going to need, it’s close enough for some voters. Unless she rules this out, there is the risk that this becomes capital gains tax 2.0.”

Finally, for more about the advantages of a wealth tax, details of how it might work, along with some of its challenges – it’s worth reading Max Rashbrooke’s January report for the Tax Justice Aotearoa NZ: The case for a net wealth tax in New Zealand.

Analysis by Dr Bryce Edwards – Earlier this year Greens’ co-leader James Shaw declared that if the capital gains tax wasn’t implemented then this Government didn’t deserve to be re-elected. With many other complaints at the moment about the lack of progress on important issues from the Government, and also the Greens role in government, the question might be asked whether the Greens themselves have done enough to be re-elected. There are certainly some signs that they will struggle to stay above the five per cent MMP threshold. 

The Greens’ annual conference in the weekend was supposed to promote the achievements of the party in Government, and convince supporters and activists that it will achieve more. Unfortunately for the leadership, the weekend raised more questions about the direction the party was going in, and whether the party is in trouble. And much of the discontent was coming from within the party.

The conference was deemed a failure by Herald political journalist Jason Walls, who writes today: The Greens had two jobs at their annual conference. They accomplished neither (paywalled). He says the party didn’t even come close to achieving their goals of soothing the concerns of their membership and giving the public an idea of where the Greens are going.

Walls says: “Instead of progressive policies and fresh ideas, the [leadership] pair rolled out an attack on the Opposition and a promise to negotiate a policy already in its supply and confidence agreement with the Government.”

In fact, the main focus became the discontent of activists in the party. Most notably, a senior Green Party officeholder resigned his position and declared he wouldn’t stand again next year for the party due to his disillusionment. He blamed the leadership, saying “I am concerned about the centrist drift of the party particularly under James Shaw’s leadership” – see Benedict Collins’ 1News report: Green Party candidate resigns over dissatisfaction with party co-leader James Shaw.

According to this report, “Former Green Party candidate Jack McDonald says he is fed up with what he says is James Shaw’s inept leadership”, and as an example of this he points to the negotiations that Shaw carried out in producing the watered-down Carbon Zero Bill currently going through Parliament: “He conceded publicly that he gave concessions to the National Party without even securing support for the bill and to me that’s just a failure of political negotiation”.

For more on McDonald’s protest, see RNZ’s High ranking Greens member pulls pin before election. According to this report, “He would also not be seeking re-election as the Greens’ policy co-convenor.”

McDonald believes Shaw and the party aren’t taking climate change seriously enough, saying “When the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] says we have 12 years to save the world from climate catastrophe, we simply don’t have time for centrism, moderation or fiscal austerity.”

In a Herald report, Jason Walls states “the party’s base is getting restless and the Herald understands members are becoming increasingly frustrated with the party’s direction. They are upset with the Greens consistently having to play second fiddle to New Zealand First – Labour’s coalition partner” – see: Green co-leader Marama Davidson is urging members to ‘stay loud’ ahead of the annual conference (paywalled).

Jack McDonald’s complaints about his party’s “continued drift towards the centrist politics and away from the party’s roots” is canvassed in this, too. And he also criticises the party’s more conservative economic approach. The article explains: “He is critical of the Budget Responsibility Rules (BBRs), which limit the Government’s ability to borrow and spend money. Shaw helped write these rules and signed up for them with Finance Minister Grant Robertson.” And McDonald says that these rules are “something that, to this day, have been deeply unpopular in the party”.

The article says co-leader Marama Davidson is aware of membership complaints that the MPs aren’t achieving enough, saying “We all agree – especially us in here on the Parliamentary side, we want to go stronger and faster.” And the article concludes: “In the meantime, Davidson is calling on the party’s members to keep its MPs, and ministers, accountable”, and then for election year she wants them to “Stay green; stay loud”.

It’s the disgruntlement of the party base that is a likely reason that this year’s conference was closed down to the media according to RNZ’s Jane Patterson – see: Transparency falters at Greens’ annual conference.

According to Patterson, the weekend’s event amounted to “the most closed-down annual conference in recent memory – for any political party.” She reports that even when journalists were allowed into the conference to witness one event involving the membership, “reporters have been told this is an ‘off-the-record’ event with no cameras or photos, and any members [have] to give explicit permission before being interviewed.”

Shaw explains in this report that the clampdown on the media’s reporting of the conference was “due to ‘a bit of a caricature’ of the party and some media looking for ‘hooks and angles to reinforce that stereotype’ and so the reaction was to allow media into big set piece events but keep “private” conversations, private.”

But Patterson says “That nervousness may also be driven by a growing narrative that the Greens are failing to deliver for their base.” She points out that although the party can claim some wins on environmental policy, “On the social justice side…the runs on the board have been few and far between.”

A big challenge for the party is to differentiate themselves more from Labour. Patterson points to the party’s strong stance in favour of the Ihumātao protesters as being the “kind of action [that] will be needed as the election draws nearer.” And she criticises the party for giving away their allocation of parliamentary questions to National, suggesting that the Greens could have used such questions to hold their own government more to account.

Writing before the conference, Collette Devlin looked at how the party leadership intended to use the conference to convince the membership that progress was being made in government – see: Green Party co-leaders set to tell members we want to do more with housing, inequality and climate change.

The key issue of polling comes up: “With the 2020 election creeping closer, the survival of the party will be front of mind for members. They will have gained some confidence in recent polling that sees the Greens remain steady at 6 per cent.” And co-leader Marama Davidson comments that the six per cent is “still too close to the five per cent threshold.”

This danger is a point also made by blogger Martyn Bradbury, who looks at the Greens’ declining vote: “The Greens have gone backwards in terms of Party vote every election since 2011, (11.06% in 2011, 10.7% in 2014 and then 6.3% in 2017), they over poll every election so today’s 6% can easily equate to 4.9% on election day” – see: Can Greens break 5%.

Bradbury suggests in this post that the party “has been captured by the cult of woke identity politics and they can’t see how alienating that has become”, and he provides colourful examples of what this means. He concludes that if the Greens continue down this path, “the narrative becomes ‘might the Greens fall under 5%’, it will become self fulfilling.”

Similarly, see his blog post, The pathetic ‘policy wins’ Green members need to grill the Party over at this weekends Dunedin conference. In this, he says “As a Green Party voter, I fear their hard core middle class identity politics has made them toxic and alienating. Their inability to see outside of Twitter is a strategic blindspot and their 6% suggests they could easily slip beneath 5% as they always over poll and they have gone backwards in the last 3 elections.”

Bradbury asks why the Greens aren’t doing better if the leadership thinks it’s achieving so much in government: “The Greens are in survival mode for this election, if all the amazing policy ‘wins’ were so amazing why haven’t they moved in the polls for 2 years and why are they still polling less than they actually gained on election night 2017?”

Could it be that the current Green MPs are less electorally attractive to voters? Chris Trotter makes this case – see: The Greens used to be so likeable – what’s gone wrong? He argues that the Greens simply reflect the changing nature of the political left, in becoming less libertarian and more authoritarian.

Here’s Trotter’s main point: “Marama Davidson, strobes identity politics in a fashion calculated to make a sizeable majority of the electorate feel decidedly queasy. Neither Shaw, nor Davidson, is likely to hold in place many voters not already completely sold on the Greens’ brand of identity politics. The party is fast taking on the character of a political cult: filled with zealots determined to enforce their policies on what we should be permitted to drive; what we should be encouraged to eat and drink, what it is acceptable for us to think; and what we should be allowed to say.”

The recent debacle over the party’s attack ad lampooning Simon Bridges’ accent could be seen as some sort of marker of how the Greens have become less friendly. But for a different take on this, see my column for RNZ about how the ad showcased that the party leadership has become very middle class, and therefore has a bias and a blindspot when it comes to issues of class – see: Greens’ sneer politics an unfortunate feature of our times.

Ironically, the Greens might also have a problem next year retaining some of its best MPs, because they are women. This is pointed out by David Farrar in his blog post that argues the best performing Green MPs are women, but some of them will have to be given lower list places to accommodate male candidates – see: How the female Green MPs are going to get screwed over by their gender quota rules.

Finally, for the most interesting and unusual answer to the Greens’ survival question, see The Standard’s Can the Greens rise like the liberal democrats? In this blog post, the argument is made that the Greens can have a revival like the British Liberal Democrat party is currently achieving, but to do this the Green Party must turn to rural New Zealand and make environmental issues relating to the weather more central to their policies and campaigning.

This can be seen in the fact that much of the praise for their recent achievements is coming from mainstream or conservative sources, unlikely to vote for the party, while the Greens’ more traditional support base of environmentalists and leftwingers are less than impressed with their new realism and respectability.

This conundrum is very well conveyed in yesterday’s Herald column by Heather du Plessis-Allan, in which she argues the more moderate approach of current Green MPs in government could prove counterproductive: “There’s the ongoing risk that this mainstreaming could lose supporters. The idealistic, radical supporters in the party aren’t there to incrementally save the planet” – see: Emissions, electric vehicles, CGT – Greens make pragmatic decisions (paywalled).

Du Plessis-Allan argues that the Greens have achieved three important policy wins in the last two weeks: the inclusion of farmers into the Emissions Trading Scheme, the adoption of a subsidy scheme for climate-friendly vehicles, and “a reasonably sensible road safety package.” But, on the other hand, she points out that the MPs have also given up three of their election promises: “the commitment to making New Zealand’s electricity 100 per cent renewable”, a capital gains tax, and their “commitment to New Zealand remaining GM-free outside the lab”.

She predicts there will be major friction on the latter, as the notion “That GM is evil is one of the 10 commandments of true believers of green politics in New Zealand.”

Also published yesterday, was Thomas Coughlan’s interview with the party’s two co-leaders, which focuses on whether the moderate direction of the Greens is going to lead to the party struggling at next year’s election – see: After a dreadful 2017, can the Greens do better in 2020?

It’s on core issues such as climate change that some environmentalists have been very critical of the Greens and the Government. For example, former Green Party co-leader Russel Norman has become one of their biggest critics, consistently pointing out the shortcomings in their climate change policies, and especially on the latest initiative to bring farmers into the ETS but only charge them five per cent of their emission costs. For the latest on this, see Katie Fitzgerald’s Climate Change Minister James Shaw fine with making Greenpeace mad.

As an indication of the problem of the Greens getting praise from who they might consider the “wrong” people, see John Armstrong’s recent opinion piece, in which he praises the party for its “new era of realism”, despite disagreeing with their spokesperson on foreign affairs and defence – see: Just as Greens start to shed ‘loony left’ rep, Golriz Ghahraman sets them back.

Armstrong argues that Russel Norman actually laid the groundwork for the party’s shift to the mainstream. And the infamous departure of co-leader Metiria Turei “swung the balance in favour of a more pragmatic modus operandi if only for the reason that the Greens’ very survival was suddenly at stake. What might be termed as a new era of realism helped condition the party to the compromises and concessions that its hierarchy accepted would be the necessary price to be paid in becoming a junior partner” in the Labour-led Government.”

He says “The Greens’ motto since then has been simple. The party can live with trade-offs.”

Similarly, on Friday Peter Dunne published a blog post praising the Greens’ moderation in Government, but warning it could weaken them – see: Greens timidity and impotence in government may see them neutered as a political force.

Dunne says that the expectations of the political right that the Greens would be a radical disaster in government has been proved wrong: “Rather than being extreme and wacky, the Greens, on the whole, have been responsible and mainstream. In part, this is due to the Greens’ leadership – particularly James Shaw who is both personable and reasonable – and Ministers like Eugenie Sage and Julie-Anne Genter keeping pretty much to the middle of the government’s road”.

Dunne says that the Green’s more middle class support base is therefore now more entrenched, but the party is in danger of losing the radicals: “their challenge is to appear radical enough to continue to attract the support and activism of the more hard-line environmental idealists on whom they have relied for so long. The Greens’ responsibility in government will be sorely testing their patience. This, coupled with the now traditional loss of support all government support parties suffer, means the Greens can no longer take their presence in the next Parliament for granted, the way they were used to before 2017.”

He foresees disillusionment setting in: “The question that now raises is how much more humiliation the Greens’ rank and file membership will be prepared to accept before walking away altogether, and simply transferring their support to Labour. Some will stay the course, appreciating that saving the Green brand ranks higher than temporary achievements in government, but others will become more disillusioned, and will start to question whether being part of government is actually worth it, or whether it is doing more harm than good.”

Therefore, the party’s upcoming annual conference in just over two weeks could be difficult for Green MPs and the party leadership. Due to possible rifts, and party activists potentially raising difficult questions and challenges to MPs, the conference has been closed off to the public and media. The NBR’s Brent Edwards reports that journalists won’t be allowed into the annual general meeting being held in Dunedin except to report on the co-leaders’ set-piece speeches and to “attend the ‘world café,’ whatever that is, with MPs and party members at 2pm” on the Sunday – see: Greens’ transparency doesn’t extend to opening their conference (paywalled).

Edwards is disappointed with the decision, and says it goes against the Green’s supposed belief in open democracy and the need for fostering political participation. He says the public should demand more from the Greens, and “political parties expecting their votes and taking their money should be open to wider and deeper scrutiny”.

He raises the question of whether the party has become simply another political machine like traditional parties – in which it’s “all about controlling the message”. Edwards suggests the Green Party is now in the thrall of “political strategists” for whom “playing the game of politics is all about leverage and setting the narrative, or spin, to their party’s advantage. It is not about informed debate nor about democratic inclusion.”

In another article, Brent Edwards reports that even within the party leadership there is some discontent with the way their own government is going – with co-leader Marama Davidson not entirely buying the “Wellbeing Budget”. She gives it a rating of only six out of ten, believing “it was neither transformational nor bold enough” – see: Green Party calls for bolder action in next year’s budget (paywalled).

This article reports that the party will be pushing for more: “In next year’s budget the Greens would be arguing for more money for beneficiaries, more public housing and to deliver on its confidence and supply agreement to set up a rent-to-own scheme.”

Similarly, yesterday Anna Bracewell-Worrall reported that the Greens still want welfare benefit levels increased, and seem to believe that Labour may have breached its coalition agreement in not increasing benefit levels already – see: Greens call out Labour over failure to increase benefits.

Finally, in contrast to some of the moderation currently on display in the Greens, in the weekend, the “rising star” of the Green caucus, Chloe Swarbrick has outlined her own radical politics and what she thinks her party is about, saying “Fundamentally the Greens are about economics, and that is what I am really interested in”, and “I think it’s been lost a bit because our name is Green and our colour is green, that we are fundamentally focused on dismantling an economic system that exploits both people and the planet” – see Mike Houlahan’s Fire in the belly drives young MP. She also says that she might not stand again for Parliament next year.

The solution has been relatively well-received, because it has an elegance in its “cost-neutral” approach of putting a penalty tax of up to $3000 on the purchase of new higher-emitting vehicles, and using the proceeds of that revenue to offer up to $8000 in subsidies for those buying new energy-efficient cars such as electric vehicles (EVs).

But is it enough? Does it really match the scale of the problem? And what negative consequences will it have for those who can’t afford, or aren’t able to use, electric and low-emissions cars?

A well-received policy

Newspaper editorials have been especially positive towards the Government initiative. Yesterday, the New Zealand Herald argued that the policy is a “clever” way to encourage greener car purchases, and that the public is likely to be highly supportive in the same way that the plastic-bag ban has been accepted – see: Clean cars the right road forward.

Similarly, the Otago Daily Times labelled it a “smart policy” because of its “moderate” and light-handed approach to changing consumer behaviour. The newspaper editorial emphasised that this meant the policy was likely to be enduring: “It is also sufficiently restrained to likely survive any change in government” – see: Nudging car fleet changes.

The paper praised the “nudge” component of the approach: “It is a variation of the ‘nudge’ theory, recognised in marketing circles and human psychology. Rather than use education, enforcement and over-the-top rules, it adjusts the costs of new and imported used vehicles. While how much impact that will have can only be estimated, the plan would lower one of the high hurdles to electric and hybrid ownership, the relatively steep purchase price.”

The Dominion Post has also praised the policy as “practical, maybe even elegant”, and has defended the scheme from critics who “lamented the Government’s lack of boldness” – see: Better late than never for a plan to lower vehicle emissions.

A number of other voices have been very positive about the proposal, including the motor industry. And even National is generally supportive of the subsidies for greener cars.

But attention has also been focused on those sectors of society that might be negatively affected by the cost of many cars going up – especially the poor, but also farmers and tradespeople – see Jason Walls’ National says the Government’s plan to get greener cars on the road could hurt NZ’s poorest.

National’s Brett Hudson says: “There is a risk that a feebate system could turn out to be regressive in its nature; that lower-income workers and working families might see themselves worse off compared to some people on better incomes”.

Similarly, the Taxpayers’ Union says “this is a tax on Otara vehicles to subsidies Teslas in Remuera” – see Rebecca Moore’s Government’s proposed vehicle tax taking from the poor to benefit the rich, Taxpayers’ Union says. Executive Director of the lobby group, Jordan Williams, says “Just because something is shrouded in environmental branding doesn’t make it any less nasty to the poor”.

Lacking boldness and ambition?

Is the new policy ambitious enough? After all, given the climate change emergency we face, is this policy sufficiently bold and radical to meet the challenge?

So far, environmentalists have been less than impressed. Greenpeace energy campaigner Amanda Larsson has welcomed the policy in general but questioned the penalties being imposed on the less-efficient petrol and diesel vehicles, saying that the upper level fee of $3000 is disappointing. She points out that the French equivalent is about $10,000 – see Jason Walls’ Greenpeace wants the fee charged on higher emitting vehicles to be a lot higher than $3000. Greenpeace is also calling “on the Government to set a timeline for banning the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles.”

This is a point also made by blogger No Right Turn: “As the Cabinet paper points out, a dirty car imported today stays on our roads for 19 years on average. So the quicker we turn off that tap, the better. But more importantly, we need to turn it off permanently. Other countries have announced phase-out dates for fossil-fuel vehicles, typically aiming to ban new sales in 2030 (and non-museum-piece registrations 5-10 years after). Such a date sets market expectations and helps drive the push for people to make their next car electric. But there’s no mention of one at all in the Cabinet paper – the necessary action seems like too much for the government to take” – see: Climate Change: Timid and unambitious.

The blogger also takes issue with the timeframe of the Government’s initiative, saying “the government needs to do more than this, and it needs to do it faster. They should be pushing this through the legislative process as quickly as possible, and implementing it immediately, rather than with a 5-year phase-in.” He points out that “the government is planning to apply a vehicle fuel efficiency standard Japan and Europe had five years ago in 2025”.

Drawing attention to Jacinda Ardern’s promise of a “nuclear-free moment” in combating climate change, No Right Turn says “contrary to the Prime Minister’s rhetoric, we’re not seeking to lead on climate change, we’re not even being a ‘fast follower’. Instead, our government is dragging its feet, just like its always done.”

On this issue of whether the Government is intervening enough, business journalist Liam Dann discusses why strong intervention is required: “Left to market forces alone, the widespread adoption of electric vehicles looks a long way off – too late for the world based on current predictions of a climate crisis. So if New Zealanders collectively want to hit current climate targets and reduce fuel emissions – it seems we need further government intervention. And that means big calls about the politics of who pays” – see: Kiwis are still too addicted to petrol, Govt had to act (paywalled).

In the end, the Government’s proposed scheme isn’t likely to make a huge difference in the take-up rates of EVs. David Linklater makes the case that current EVs simply aren’t yet very economical, even once discounted. For his “reality check” on the costs of buying an EV, and the costs of running them, see: Let’s not be fundamentalist about feebates and EV ownership.

He argues that to have a truly beneficial impact on the environment, car buyers need to be buying new EVs rather than second-hand ones, but at a cost of about $60,000 it’s hard to make the case that they are more cost-efficient over the long-term than the equivalent petrol-fuelled versions. For example, he argues that “it will take you 150,000km to recover the extra cost of a Leaf over a top-line Corolla”. Nonetheless, he says the new feebate policy isn’t designed to get everyone into an EV immediately, but just to nudge everyone into more efficient cars generally.

What is missing from the Government’s green vehicle policy?

The Dominion Post editorial, cited above, makes a recommendation for improving the Government’s green vehicle policy, suggesting that a serious investment in the infrastructure of public charging stations is required: “Charging stations remain an urban novelty, and are even rarer between some of the country’s cities and towns. That is an important next step, especially if the Government hopes to have its feebate running by 2021. We can’t afford another long wait for progress.”

Similarly, the Herald says: “There is also the issue of whether there will be an adequate network of charging stations to serve an increase in electric vehicles.

The Government also considered and rejected an array of other policies before announcing the latest green vehicle initiative. For example, a more generous subsidy for EVs could have been on offer, with the consideration of an extra $2000 being possible to reduce the costs – see Jason Walls’ article, Cabinet paper reveals the Government scrapped plans for a direct $2000 subsidy for EV buyers. The Government also decided against taking GST off electric vehicles.

Reporting on a Cabinet paper on the issues, Walls says the Government “is also exploring the possibility of a second-hand EV leasing scheme aimed at reducing transport costs for low-income households and supporting EV uptake”.

But why didn’t the Government decide to put some of their own money into subsidising EVs? In another article by Henry Cooke, the Associate Minister of Transport, Julie Anne Genter explains: “We just decided it wasn’t tenable to take away $100m from schools or hospitals or hip operations to subsidise new cars that wouldn’t work for a large amount of New Zealanders” – see: Government considered $2000 subsidy and age limit on imported vehicles instead of feebate.

According to this article, the Government also rejected a “variable annual licensing fee”, which would make registration more expensive for high-emissions cars.

Will New Zealanders really care about this EV subsidy? Talkback host Ryan Bridge suggests otherwise, arguing that “Kiwis don’t care about climate change. They say they do, but then they go buy a new SUV and have another child. They have choices already and they’ve voted big, loud, and gassy” – see: Climate change tax proposed for driving utes, SUVs.

He’s rather cynical about the policy, saying “Farmer Bob from central Otago with his Ford Ranger will be hit with a $3000 tax, while latte-sipping, lentil-eating Fabio from Ponsonby with his VW Golf Electric will get an $8000 discount.” And today’s Listener editorial on the topic adds to this, saying “there is in this policy a whiff of pandering to urban liberals at the expense of workers in the provinces.”

Finally, Judith Collins took to Twitter this week to ask: “Given that EV cars have a wee electric motor, why do the manufacturers charge so much for them?” And to explain that, see David Linklater’s article, Silly car question #53: if EVs have ‘wee’ electric motors, why are they so expensive?

The Greens were going to be the principled core of the Labour-led Government, but instead are regarded by many as having been largely ineffective and submissive in power. This is leading supporters and others on the political left to ask some difficult questions about the direction the Greens are going in, and whether they will start to have more influence over the Government.

Former chief spin doctor for the Green Party, David Cormack, is worried, suggesting in his Herald column yesterday that the party has lost its courage, visibility and radicalism in power – see: Do the Greens deserve to be re-elected?

Although largely an encouraging pep talk for the Greens, Cormack’s column is fairly brutal in pointing out that Green MPs “have largely rolled over and acquiesced” instead of pushing an agenda for leftwing or environmental change. And not only have they been weak and moderate, they have failed in their promise to hold the Labour-led Government to account.

This could all change, Cormack says, but only if Green MPs decide to “step up” and actually fight for change. He argues they have a lot of potential leverage if they are courageous enough. With Labour having sold out so much, he suggests “You’ve got the chance to be the only real leftist party. Do you have the courage to take it?”

Responding to this analysis, blogger No Right Turn asks: When should the Greens get their Winston out? His answer is that they should play hardball to get the Zero Carbon Bill passed: “That is the Greens’ reason for existence, what they are about as a party. They need to deliver, for their supporters, and for the planet. And if their partners refuse – if Winston uses his veto, or Labour collaborates with National to water it down into more time-wasting, ineffective bullshit, then I fully expect the Greens to pull the plug and topple the government. Because the future is at stake, and it cannot afford for us to piss about on this.”

Another Greens-friendly political commentator, Martyn Bradbury, has also become increasingly distraught at his party’s actions – or lack of action – while in power. Today he blogs to say that the party is “in serious danger of not being returned to power in 2020 which is an absurdity when you consider climate change is the most pressing issue our species is collectively facing. The Greens have gone backwards in the last 3 elections and always over poll before an election, so if they are at 6%, slipping below 5% is a real possibility” – see: 18 months till election 2020 – how is the NZ Political landscape?

Bradbury says “As someone who has voted Green my entire life, it will be a deep sadness to watch them squander their legacy so meaninglessly.” He proclaims “The experiment of Marama Davidson as leader has been a dreadful mistake while James Shaw is about as effective as a day old corpse in a deodorant advert.”

What’s the cause of the Greens’ intense malaise? For Bradbury, it’s their increasing focus on identity politics and causes other than the environment: “The alienating middle class woke identity politics is terribly popular on Twitter, but in real life the woke politics of proclaiming all men are rapists, demanding white bros delete themselves from social media, attacking lesbians for not accepting Trans demands, insisting white supremacy violence is the fault of all white people, arguing free speech is white cis male privilege and reclaiming the word cunt is about as electorally attractive as a cup of cold vomit.”

It’s poor leadership, Bradbury says, and he recommends the party goes back to a focus on climate change. See also his recent blog post, Forget National’s leadership meltdown – what about the Greens?

Economist, environmentalist and TOP leader, Geoff Simmons, has some similar criticisms about the effectiveness of the Greens in government, suggesting that James Shaw has become a very weak environmentalist: “he is forced to back the tentative actions of his Government on two of our biggest environmental crises, fresh water and climate change. Don’t even mention fishing” – see: Greens toothless and divided.

For Simmons, too, it’s the Greens’ preoccupation with “identity politics” that is their weakness: “Quite frankly I think we have bigger fish to fry with our housing crisis and polluted fresh water. Regardless, I’m not sure activism really moves the debate forward in that space. I’m sure it plays well to part of the Green Party base, but does it help our society change for the better? These sorts of debates currently end up being used to shut down constructive conversation, not encourage it. Reasonable people are too scared to even ask questions or voice an opinion, for fear of a social media pile on.”

As co-leader, Marama Davidson has become the leader of the activist Greens, and a counterpoint to James Shaw’s more Establishment-style. Thomas Coughlan recently interviewed Davidson for his profile: Davidson: very Green, very outspoken and a lot to prove.

Coughlan explains that Davidson won the co-leadership contest against Julie Anne Genter precisely because she was the MP to “put a halt to the apparently unstoppable inertia dragging the party to the centre”. Davidson “was popular with the party’s activist left, who lobbied strongly for her to put her hat in the ring in the hope she would counterbalance Shaw’s perceived corporate-ness and pull the party back to the left.”

This profile examines whether she has been successful in that goal. Coughlan relays that critics say Davidson has merely continued to distract the Greens from core campaigns, especially when she spoke out about her intentions to “reclaim the C-word” for the public: “Observers felt it showed a lack of focus from the Green leadership as the campaign drew ever more attention, diverting people from the party’s work elsewhere. Less time thinking about climate change, more time thinking about, well, the c-word.”

According to this interview, Davidson has pulled back from such campaigns, suggesting the fault lay elsewhere: “Brown women in politics have a certain double standard judgment that I’m not going to change that means I have to be extra mindful”.

Davidson is certainly campaigning to dump the Greens’ fiscally-conservative support for the Budget Responsibility Rules. This campaign might see the Greens move to the left. But, Coughlan says, this would present significant challenges: “The looming question for the Greens is whether or not they can force the larger party’s hand – getting them to release, or even loosen the purse strings in any future Government. Doing so would require some intense political posturing. The Greens would essentially ask Labour to risk tarring themselves with the brush of profligacy and fiscal irresponsibility — something the party has worked for years to avoid.”

Earlier this year Davidson came out with a strong statement against the Government’s fiscal policy settings: “We are sitting on a surplus, we have the lowest cost of borrowing in recent history, and our country has crumbling infrastructure successive governments have kicked the can down the road to future generations.”

She announced the Greens were having a review of these settings, which would continue for a number of months, resulting in a new policy for the 2020 election – see Henry Cooke’s Greens to review self-set debt rules before 2020 election.

For more on this, as well as a discussion of other ways the Greens might reposition themselves for next year, see Henry Cooke’s The Greens are looking forward to 2020 already, and the possibility of a world without Winston. According to this, “The election is next year, and the Greens are getting ready by staking out positions on the left.”

Really, the party is going to have to score some greater wins on environmental issues, and especially on climate change. Even the National Party is finding that it can try to out-green the Green Party, with Simon Bridges recently saying: “If you look at the current Green Party and the current government, you’ve got a situation where we’re not getting cameras on fishing vessels, they won’t do the Kermadecs… They’re not making sufficient progress. For those who voted for Labour and the Greens because they thought they would get a greener government, well I’m not seeing evidence of that today” – see Joel MacManus’ Simon Bridges: Green Party isn’t making ‘sufficient progress’ on the environment.

There will also be continued pressure from the fledgling Sustainability New Zealand Party, who will seek to point out where the Greens might be letting down the environmental cause. For example, Conservation Minister Eugenie Sage’s decision to rule out gene editing – which might otherwise be used as “a breakthrough science solution for predator eradication” is being criticised by the centrist rival party – see Finn Hogan’s Vernon Tava calls out ‘anti-science’ Green party.

Of course, the Greens have had some big wins. Richard Harman pointed these out at the start of the year: “the end to irrigation funding; the ban on offshore oil exploration; the move away from funding motorways; funding for conservation measures and a more aggressive scrutiny of foreign land purchases” – see: Once were radicals – the Greens in government.

According to Harman, the Greens first year in government has actually been very good. He says that their operating style is far from radical, but from his point of view that’s a plus: “Yet paradoxically for a party which has its roots in the protest movement and still likes to propose radical change, its approach to politics proved to be remarkably conservative. They are not given to big bold political gestures and unlike NZ First who seem to prefer confrontational politics, their whole strategy has been to move slowly and cautiously closer to the centre of power. It is a strategy which is beginning to pay off.

Finally, to view how satirists have portrayed the Greens, see my blog post, Cartoons about the Green Party in Government.

by Dr Bryce Edwards

Is environmentalism intrinsically leftwing? Has the Green Party got a monopoly on environmental concerns? Do environmentally-concerned voters only vote for the Green Party? The answer to all of those questions is surely “no”, yet a speculative “blue-green” centrist party is seen by most as a non-starter for Parliament in 2020. 

It is incredibly difficult for any new party to break into Parliament, regardless of its orientation, given that the barrier to entry is so high. New parties have tried and failed continuously since MMP was introduced in 1996. The only parties to succeed have been those with breakaway MPs from other parties. So far the five per cent MMP threshold is simply proved too large to allow new parties to grow and prosper – and, in fact, that’s why the incumbent parties in Parliament are so keen to retain the threshold.

There are a number of other factors that make a new blue-green party unlikely, and most commentary at the moment makes that point. But that doesn’t mean that some sort of new green party is entirely out of the question.

The original story about the possibility a centrist green party being launched was Lucy Bennett’s Herald on Sunday piece, Blue-Greens movement could be National’s answer to toppling Ardern. In this, the focus is on former Green Party activist Vernon Tava, who has since joined National but is keen to start a new party.

Here’s the most important part of the story: “Talk of a new centrist green political party which could potentially partner with National in a future government coalition is starting to become more than just speculation. It is understood preliminary discussions among interested parties have already been held on creating a party that combines economic and environmental credentials, filling a demand not already taken up by existing political parties.”

On Sunday I commented on the risks for National in this strategy: “It might take votes away from the National Party, yet it may not get to 5 percent” – see Emma Cropper’s Newshub item: New ‘centrist green’ political party could partner with National.

Most critics have been disparaging about the prospects of a new centrist environmental party. Many of these critics are from the political left, often aligned with the current Government. Some simply resent the whole concept of non-leftwing environmentalism or indeed of National being able to work with environmentalists.

For example, the Labour Party’s Bryan Gould has proclaimed that A blue-green party is a nonsense, criticising both Tava and the idea that environmentalism can be separate from leftwing philosophy. In terms of Tava, Gould says: “It turns out to be someone who, at various times, has sought the leadership of the Green Party and has tried to become a National MP – a political chameleon who is apparently more concerned with self-advancement than political principle. The impression given of a political butterfly is borne out by the absence of any real political analysis in the statements he has made”.

Gould also suggests that such a party would be pro-market and therefore couldn’t be pro-environment: “The public is beginning to realise that if you are serious about grappling with environmental challenges… you must be prepared to intervene in the market and make good its deficiencies and its failures.” He therefore paints a picture of such a centrist environmentalist party as simply a puppet party for National.

Similarly, Gordon Campbell rejects the possibility that a centrist environmental party could do better than the current Green Party: “To swallow any of that, you’d have to think you could somehow make more gains for the environment by joining National (the farmers party) than you could from being in a coalition with Labour. That’s a stretch. With good reason, many environmentalists regard the National Party as more part of the problem than part of the solution when it comes to meaningful action on waterways pollution and climate change. Currently, and as part of the new government, Greens are making more gains via Labour than it could ever have hoped to achieve with National” – see: On National’s new, fledgling blue-green partner.

Campbell views efforts behind the new party as being driven by the ulterior motives of National: “the wider goals that National have in mind with this talk of a blue/green party include (a) greenwashing its own hard image and (b) splitting the Greens sufficiently to drive them below the five per cent mark, and out of government entirely.”

Although the nascent project is being labelled as a “blue-green” party, Tava himself rejects this term and prefers “green-green” to indicate that the party would be neither left nor right. Tava explained to 1News: “A party in the centre based on the environment could be very compelling if it had the option to go with either National or Labour” – see: Green Party offshoot could be a ‘very compelling’ option for voters, Simon Bridges says.

A philosophy of environmentalism that is neither left nor right has been explained today by former Green MP Kennedy Graham: “Sustainability can be pursued both from the left and from the right as long as it is genuinely committed to environmentalism. You don’t have to be left or far left as the only solution to sustainability” – see RNZ’s Former Green MP Kennedy Graham backs new centrist party.

Graham elaborates on this, suggesting that there are basically three philosophies of left, right and environmentalism, with the three being entirely separate from each other: “There are three philosophies in politics in the New Zealand Parliament: there’s freedom, there’s equality, and there’s now sustainability – and sustainability has to be seen as separate and unique to itself.”

Although Graham says he’s not interested in being involved in the new party, he argues strongly that “there’s space for a more centrist party” and that it would make environmentalism stronger through being independent of both Labour and National: “It can work, obviously, with the left and right – and should, and will have to… If you listen to Vernon Tava – and I support this – you have government and you have opposition and if a political party says it’s only going to work with one side of that house, then you’re not going to get a long-term binding genuine consensus.”

There are others taking the prospective party seriously – today’s Press editorial argues that “There is a growing space for politicians who want to save the world without necessarily overhauling the entire economic system” – see: Is a blue-green party a real possibility?

The editorial also argues that “the Greens have generally been a disappointment in Government”, and paints a picture of that party’s future being “surprisingly vulnerable” because it is split between two different wings.

Here’s the detail: “It only just returned to Parliament in 2017 after the disaster of former co-leader Metiria Turei’s welfare confessions, and Turei’s replacement, Marama Davidson, has pushed the party further towards social justice and identity politics activism, which risks alienating middle-class voters. Do voters want to hear about native birds and clean rivers, or Davidson’s nutty campaign to ‘reclaim’ the c-word and Waihopai protests?”

Arguing that there “is a small, fluid group of environmental voters in the centre” of the political spectrum, The Press believes that a new party could prosper where Gareth Morgan’s fledgling party showed promise but couldn’t quite make it: “A blue-green party that is sensible and strategic, without TOP’s communication issues, could promote itself as an environmental handbrake on a centre-Right Government. With the Green Party consistently ruling itself out of a coalition with National, there may finally be a place in New Zealand politics for a party that can figure out how to combine pragmatism and principle.”

But could a centre environmental party actually take votes off the Greens? There’s some potential for this, but not much according to Henry Cooke who looks at the New Zealand Election survey data for 2014 and 2017 – see: ‘Teal’ vote within Green Party minuscule, data suggests. Apparently, in 2014, about one-in-five Green voters actually preferred the Greens to go with National, despite the leadership signaling they could only go with a Labour coalition. In 2017, when Green support nearly halved, only about one-in-ten Green voters preferred a coalition with National.

Commenting on these figures, Victoria University political scientist Jack Vowles is reported as believing “he didn’t think the Greens had much to fear”, and that a new green party would be more likely to cannibalise National voters.

Cooke explains how National might also benefit if a new environmental party did help push the Greens below the five per cent threshold: “if both NZ First and the Greens are voted out of Parliament next election and just Labour and National remain, National wouldn’t need to win over any friendly parties for a coalition – the party would just need to be larger than Labour.”

But aren’t all New Zealand political parties green now? This is the point made by RNZ’s Chris Bramwell who says: “the Green Party has long been the voice for climate change and environmental issues but many of its platforms, which may have been considered fringe issues a decade ago, are now mainstream” – see: Is there room for a centrist green party in Parliament? Her point is that “while the talk is of there being space for a centrist environmental party – there is not really that much of a gap that needs filling.”

Bramwell also points out that National’s environmental credentials have been improving: “National is often slated by the left as being some kind of environmental destroyer, but it was under a National-led Government that Kahurangi National Park was created, it set up 11 marine reserves, protected the Ross Sea, set up an extensive national network of cycleways, set up Predator Free 2050 and banned shark finning.”

Furthermore, she reports former Green MP Sue Bradford’s observation that “under James Shaw the party is more centrist than it had ever been’. She also reports that “the Greens ‘action on climate change’ message has become somewhat diluted as the party is now part of government and as a minister, Mr Shaw considers that he has to toe the line.”

Blogger Martyn Bradbury makes a similar point today, saying: We already have a centrist Green Party – it’s called the Green Party. In this, he argues that the Greens are now very pro-market. Furthermore, “Have you ever been to a Green Party conference? It’s a whiter shade of beige. These days it’s wall to wall with ‘ethical entrepreneurs’ that ugly middle class blue-green colour”.

Finally, if a new environmental party is to get off the ground and appeal to enough voters, it’s likely that it would have to focus strongly on the issue of water quality, and therefore it’s useful to see what Vernon Tava says about how to fix the degradation of streams and rivers – see Dan Satherley’s Waterways might not need tougher pollution rules – potential ‘blue-green’ party leader Vernon Tava.