Analysis by Dr Bryce Edwards.

The Green Party should be very high in the opinion polls right now. Historically, when Labour is low in the polls the Greens tend to be the recipients of progressive voters looking for an alternative. A huge proportion of the 50 per cent vote Labour got in 2020 are now disillusioned with the Labour Government and casting around for another party to place their trust in at the election.

The current policy environment is also highly favourable to the Greens. Voters say that they are especially concerned with issues which the Greens have the ability to campaign strongly on: climate change, housing, inequality, tax reform, and the cost of living.

2023 should therefore be The Year of the Greens. Yet it’s not. Instead, the Greens are struggling in the polls – averaging only about nine percent, well below where they’ve polled in the past. And instead of ploughing ahead, making great strides in government with their ministerial portfolios of climate change and homelessness, they are infighting – mostly over culture war and personality issues.

Environmental dirty politics and internecine war

The internal conflict in the Greens has been building in recent years, and reached a whole new level, first with the temporarily successful plot last year to steal the co-leadership off James Shaw, and then on Friday with the departure from the party of Shaw’s nemesis MP Elizabeth Kerekere.

The plot against Shaw was mainly driven by the Green Left Network, which is essentially the social justice (or “woke”) faction of the party. This is the part of the caucus and activist base that want the party to focus on progressing decolonisation, ethnicity, gender, sexuality and rainbow issues.

Activists within the Green Left Network, together with the Rainbow Greens, were keen to undermine and replace Shaw, seeing him as too conservative and the wrong demographic. And this year they’ve managed to force him to step aside from his long-held candidacy in the Wellington Central electorate, in favour of city councillor Tamatha Paul.

In this faction fight, MP Elizabeth Kerekere has been strongly associated with the social justice grouping – along with other Green MPs like Teanau Tuiono, Ricardo Menéndez March, and Golriz Ghahraman. Meanwhile, Shaw represents the environmental faction of the Greens. They have had less time for the social justice agendas of Kerekere’s faction, and long suspected that Kerekere herself has been working against Shaw. It was therefore unsurprising that Shaw and his supporters have pushed back strongly against Kerekere.

Of course, Kerekere handed them the weapons to use against her when she mistakenly sent her “crybaby” messages about Chloe Swarbrick to the rest of the Green MPs on 5 April. Shaw’s environmental faction appears to have leaked the damning messages to the media to settle the score and reduce Kerekere’s influence.

The leadership were also able to use Kerekere’s crybaby messages to initiate an internal inquiry against the rebel MP, knowing there were plenty of others in the party, the parliamentary offices, and the Green caucus, who were very unhappy with Kerekere’s behaviour.

Of course, the Shaw faction’s campaign against Kerekere came too late to stop the rebel woke MP being awarded the interim ranking of number four on the party list for 2023. Her opponents then sought to get her demoted in the subsequent membership vote on the party list. A number of party staffers spoke to journalists, and reiterated that there had been problems with Kerekere’s behaviour in the Greens, including making allegations of bullying.

It seems that the gloves were then off. Kerekere’s social justice faction fought back, telling journalists that these allegations were a case of “dirty politics” being played out against her. A “whispering campaign” and a “kangaroo court” were then cited as pushing her to resign from the party.

The Greens are now heading into an election campaign in which MPs and activists in both the environmental and social justice sides of the party are making accusations that their opponents are lying and plotting against each other. This is hardly a unified and healthy base for campaigning. What’s more, both sides have been leaking damaging material about each other, and this is not necessarily about to end with Kerekere’s departure.

The Growth of the Greens’ woke faction

Historically the Green Party has always contained a mix of three ideological threads – environmental, social justice, and socialist politics. In reality, the socialist element of the party has long gone, especially with the departure of MPs like Keith Locke and Sue Bradford. The environmental element has also been seriously in decline – especially with the loss of co-leaders like Jeanette Fitzsimmons and Russel Norman.

Rising up to supersede the socialist and environmental factions is the social justice milieu – which accounts for most of the caucus and the activist base. As long-time Green Party commentator Gordon Campbell wrote on Monday, “This social justice strand now predominates.”

Campbell argues that although everyone in the Greens has some interest in environmentalism, there are few MPs and candidates in the party who focus primarily on this: “Within the 2023 provisional list, only two candidates – James Shaw and Lam Pham – would be seen as having a clear and primary focus on the environment.” The rest, Campbell suggests are more from the woke side of the Greens: “their backgrounds and route into politics have mainly been via the social justice side of the policy ledger.”

This means that the Greens are now less focused on environmentalism or even traditional leftwing politics. According to Campbell this urgently needs correction. He believes that in terms of rhetoric, “Water quality, intensive dairying and renewable energy” get attention, but not much action. He therefore argues that “the Greens need more advocates in Parliament for whom environment degradation (local and planetary) is their main, driving concern.”

The Greens capture by cultural issues was also discussed this week by leftwing political commentator Steven Cowan: “Seemingly marooned within its own middle-class ghetto, it is of little surprise that identity politics has taken precedence within the Green Party. While it is economic issues that are pressing hard on the lives of working class New Zealanders, its MPs are largely focused on issues surrounding race and gender.”

Will the Greens’ identity fight hurt the party in the election?

The resignation of Elizabeth Kerekere, and the party’s ongoing fights over their identity and focus could be a vote loser for the Greens in 2023. For example, political journalist Richard Harman wrote on Monday that “History suggests that the Greens will take a hit in the polls as a consequence of Kerekere’s move”.

He points to the 2017 election-year saga when the Green vote collapsed after co-leader Metiria Turei’s welfare benefit story unravelled, causing her to resign. The Green vote halved as a result, ending up at only 6.5 per cent. Likewise, in 2020 when Shaw caused a scandal by breaking party policy in giving government money to a private school, the party support plummeted, recovering just in time to prevent the party being turfed out of power at the election.

Much will depend on whether the faction-fighting is now exhausted by Kerekere’s departure. Although Kerekere appears to have burnt off any support she once had within the caucus, her social justice supporters amongst activists have clearly not accepted defeat or decided to unite behind the leadership. The Herald’s Thomas Coughlan reports this week that many in the party are “deeply committed to Kerekere. They were not convinced by the allegations and believed it was a stitch-up.”

Reports of further resignations in the party are now coming out. Coughlan reports that members he spoke to are currently considering cancelling their party memberships in disgust at the way Shaw and Davidson have handled Kerekere. He quoted one activist saying, “I think there are a lot of questions still to answer about this process and the culture inside our caucus”.

There is also talk about whether such activists, Green voters, or even other Green MPs might now switch loyalties to Te Pāti Māori. Kerekere’s closest ally in the Green caucus, Teanau Tuiono, has apparently been sought after by Te Pāti Māori.

There is certainly a sense that Te Pāti Māori is now a more appealing option for Green activists and voters with a social justice orientation. In this regard, Thomas Coughlan wrote this week: “Te Pāti Māori has reemerged with a kaupapa achingly close to the Greens’ own. For the first time in a very long time, Green voters have a credible option to the left of Labour with whom to cast their vote if they feel unhappy with what the current leadership is delivering.”

The Greens are distracted from the things that matter

Probably the most damaging criticism that the Greens will hear in the run-up to the election – especially from their own target voters – is that their MPs and Ministers simply haven’t been focusing on the things that matter. And voters might well ask whether the Greens have achieved much while in government this term.

Tough questions will be asked about whether James Shaw has done enough in his climate change ministerial role – or whether the Greens are guilty, as Greenpeace has argued, of “greenwashing” for the Labour Government.

On the question of the housing affordability crisis, the Greens will have to answer whether Marama Davidson has really made a difference in her role as Minister responsible for homelessness. Just last week, it was reported that, although Labour allocated $75m to homelessness in the last budget, Davidson has failed to even spend one million dollars of that allocation. Her critics will point out that instead, Davidson’s most notable actions in the past year have not been about homelessness at all, but about calling out “cis white men” for being responsible for violence, and for promoting te reo branded chocolate.

Increasingly it looks like the Greens have focused inwardly on themselves instead of making progress on their core business. Even their own supporters could suspect that they have fallen back into the worst type of self-absorbed student activism.

As one example of how the culture wars have disabled the Greens, some activists talk about how for the last few years the biggest and most ferocious debate in the party has been about transgender issues. Of course, this is a highly important issue to the two sides within the Greens, but the party became somewhat immobilised by internal debates on this issue at the expense of the Greens being able to focus on issues like the environment, climate, and inequality. This seems to sum up the current problems of the Greens.

Leftwing blogger and Green voter Martyn Bradbury put it like this: “We urgently need a Green Party focused on serving the people and not feeding their own ambitions.” He makes the following plea: “If the Green Party are finished starting culture wars with white cis males and politically self mutilating themselves, could we get back to climate change and the looming economic recession?”

However, things could be worse. So far, the Greens have managed to avoid splitting their party over climate change politics. Environmentalists in the wider green movement are currently divided about whether the climate cause requires disruptive and radical direct action. At the moment this is playing out with the Restore Passenger Rail protests blocking roads in Wellington.

The Green-backed mayor of Wellington, Tory Whanau, has now come out strongly against the highly-disruptive climate change protestors, upsetting many Greens who see this as selling out. So far, the Green Party as a whole haven’t been challenged by the media to take a side over the protests. So far they’ve got away without being forced to choose to condemn or support the road-closing stunts. This could be the ultimate schism amongst Green MPs.

The Consequences of Green Schisms

In the end, much of the current pettiness in the Greens could be highly consequential – it could affect the outcome of who governs the country after the general election.

Some commentators believe that the Greens are just too strong to let civil wars sink the party below the five per cent threshold or cause Chloe Swarbrick to lose Auckland Central. For example, Thomas Coughlan argues that the “Green party vote is fine – for now” and that this “rusted-on base of 5-6 per cent has a high tolerance for party shenanigans”.

However, in a scenario in which the Green civil war continued, or if the party became too associated with culture wars in the run-up to the election, then the party’s guarantee of getting five percent or winning Auckland Central might not be so certain. And if the Greens were out of Parliament then the chances of Labour being able to form a new government would be almost zero.

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

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?.

The Green Party has settled on its negotiation team, agreeing to who will represent the party’s members when considering the shape and outcome of talks with the incoming Labour-led Government.

The negotiating team has a similar make up to the group that considered the merits of negotiations with Labour post the 2017 General Election.

The group, called Tatau Pounamu, a Negotiation Consultation Group, has also settled on its terms of reference, giving a guideline for how it will settle on a final decision on what the Green Party’s relationship with Labour in Government will look like.

Tatau Pounamu’s terms of reference proposes a consensus be sought, and, if that fails, then a 75 percent vote of the Tatau Pounamu group in favour will be required “to carry a proposal that alters the status quo”.

The terms of Tatau Pounamu agreement state: “All decisions concerning the negotiations, including what agreement, if any, would be taken to a Special General Meeting (SGM) will be taken by the combined membership of Tatau Pounamu.”

“Decisions will be reached by consensus. When this is not possible it will be by vote, with at least 75% of votes in favour to carry a proposal that alters the status quo.”

“Only members of Tatau Pounamu selected by the three-petal approval processes are involved in decision-making.”

The Green’s negotiating team incudes:

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

How badly will James Shaw’s private school debacle affect the Greens? Will it push them out of Parliament? This is increasingly the question being asked as the scandal rolls on and on this week.

After all, the two main polling companies have had the party very close to the 5% MMP threshold in their surveys for the last year. So, the Greens only have to lose a small amount of support and they will be tipped out of office.

Greens badly wounded

Most commentators seem to believe that the Green Party has been seriously undermined by the decision to grant nearly $12m to a private eco-school. This is because it suggests the party has lost its way and no longer represents its traditional and more radical vision.

This is best explained today by leftwing commentator Chris Trotter, who argues in the Otago Daily Times that Shaw has successfully transformed the party into a “woke” pro-business party that is just trying to make capitalism more green – see: A Sorry excuse for a Green Party.

According to Trotter, Shaw “offered living proof to the rising generation of ambitious Green Party activists that they could look sharp, rub shoulders with the rich and famous, and still be non-gender-specific siblings in the struggle to save Parent Earth. Just like Bono.” And in the end, Shaw’s approach is partly responsible for driving their vote down, possibly pushing the party out of Parliament.

Trotter elaborates on this in another piece this week about Shaw’s Establishment green politics – see: From safe bet to Shaw loser.

Of course, the Greens have always had both a radical and moderate side, and this tension poses a challenge. In today’s NZ Herald, Matthew Hooton explains “The Green Party is an unstable coalition of the true believers who have sustained the movement for nearly 50 years and the coveters of $150,000 Audi Quattro e-trons who vote for it” – see: James Shaw dives straight into the Metiria Turei trap (paywalled).

Although most Green activists might be to the left of the Green MPs, the party’s voter base is much more middle class and, according to Hooton, Shaw is actually in line with these Green voters: “For him, being Green is not so much about overthrowing capitalism but things like global carbon trading, renewable energy, trendy new start-ups and instilling higher environmental and social consciousness in the next generation. At a stretch, you could even imagine Shaw accepting nuclear and gene technology to cure climate change. Within this outlook, the Green School fits nicely.”

Essentially, therefore, the scandal is actually a logical reflection of a contradiction in the party that has always been there: between the left activists and the “Audi wing” of the party, especially in the wealthy electorates it normally does so well in.

Some of these points are also well made today in RNZ’s Caucus election podcast, and Tim Watkin talks about that key Green division: “Many in the party see it as the voice of the down-trodden. In truth, most of its votes come from the comfortable middle-class” – see: The naughty prefect & The ‘single source Of truth’.

According to Watkin, the left of the party feel Shaw has let them down by failing to progress a leftwing, environmental agenda. Instead, he has apparently chosen a private school to die in a ditch over: “there are those in the party long wary of Shaw’s corporate Green agenda who would love to see him gone. They are exasperated that Shaw has spent three years saying he couldn’t put his foot down over issues such as welfare reform, water-bottling plants or getting agriculture into the ETS – that mean old Winston was bullying him – but found the strength to fight back… on behalf of a private school.”

Labour to benefit from the demise of the Greens

The Labour Party might be seen as an ally of the Greens, but it would be a mistake to think that Labour doesn’t want to kill off the Greens or at least take some of their votes off them. This point is made strongly by Hooton today, who says Labour are suspected of leaking some of the details of the scandal to the media, undermining Shaw. He draws parallels with the 2017 Greens scandal in which Labour leader Jacinda Ardern was seen as throwing Metiria Turei under a bus.

Here’s Hooton’s point about the current Labour-Green dynamic: “Labour is no more interested in sharing power with the Greens than with NZ First. If it can get both out of Parliament and govern alone, so much the better. Ardern is no unhappier about Shaw’s problems than Turei’s three years ago. Green supporters are now confronted with the awful possibility their party will leave Parliament next month and unravel.”

Similarly, the Herald’s Claire Trevett emphasises Labour’s refusal to get implicated by the scandal: “if Shaw had hoped for some cover from the other government parties, they all but threw him to the wolves. Education Minister Chris Hipkins bluntly refused to take any blame, pointing the finger straight at Shaw” – see: Will James Shaw’s endless sorry save the Greens? (paywalled).

Trevett believes Labour will benefit from the Greens demise: “there is an alternative safe harbour for any disgruntled supporters. That is Ardern and, judging from her lack of defence of Shaw, she has every intention of welcoming those voters with open arms again.”

Other reports show key Labour politicians have been very keen that Shaw answer for his decisions. For instance, when it emerged that Shaw had held up signing off other Government funding decisions in an apparent “ultimatum” email, Finance Minister Grant Robertson said: “He used those words and he has to be responsible for them” and Robertson “wouldn’t be drawn on whether the email amounted to a threat from Shaw” – see Derek Cheng’s Revealed: 44 projects worth $600m at stake over James Shaw’s ‘ultimatum’ email.

RNZ’s political editor Jane Patterson also believes Labour are well placed to win votes off the Greens over the saga: “The Greens might be a Labour ally but it’s every party for itself as they all gear up to resume campaigning and if there are any votes lost from the Greens, Labour is the most likely beneficiary. Or disillusioned Green supporters just may not vote. This is an incredibly volatile political environment and Labour will be out for every vote it can get. Shaw’s management of this situation has made it worse” – see: James Shaw battles to restore his credibility.

Similarly, Heather du Plessis-Allan says “They’ve lost voters to Labour as it’s out-greened them with moves like the oil and gas ban. The popularity of Jacinda Ardern makes it hard to win those voters back” – see: James Shaw has a bigger problem than the Green School saga.

Du Plessis-Allen says the party is now in trouble: “Up to now, I’d been confident that it didn’t really matter too much where the Greens were polling. On the night, I thought, their supporters would flock back to save them. But now, you’ve got to ask whether those supporters think they deserve saving.”

The Greens can survive the scandal

Not all commentators think it’s all over for the Greens. In Tim Watkin’s item (above) he reports that the RNZ Caucus podcast journalists don’t believe that the Greens are in trouble: “the Caucus crew don’t think this controversy is a fatal blow to its election prospects. The angriest voices come from within the party and, once the crystal dust has settled and the bio-energy cleaned, few are likely to switch their vote away from the Green’s policy agenda, even if they are losing patience with Shaw as leader. A determinedly centrist Labour Party and a John Tamihere co-led Māori Party are hardly magnetic alternatives.”

Writing in the Guardian today, Massey University’s Claire Robinson thinks the Greens have time to turn the scandal around: “In the Greens’ favour is that elections are not won or lost on single errors this far out from election day. If the election was still 19 September it might have been curtains for the party. But there are still 30 days until advance voting starts on 3 September and 45 days until election day on 17 October. This gives Shaw plenty of time to publicly make it up to his supporters whose faith in his green credentials will have been sorely tested by this incident” – see: James Shaw’s mea culpa on Green School funding exposed his lack of political nous.

The NBR’s Brent Edwards thinks that rather than hurting the Greens, the controversy could actually boost them. He believes the discontent is more of a “internal disagreement” and Shaw’s apology has been “extraordinary” – see: Will James Shaw’s contrition earn Green Party support? (paywalled).

Here’s Brent Edwards’ main point: “In the Green Party’s case, though, honesty and contrition might work in its favour, rather than condemn it to electoral defeat as many suggest. Will Green Party voters, upset by the investment in the Green School, give Shaw credit for taking the blame? And the warning that the Greens might risk falling below 5% might galvanise their more lukewarm supporters to swing in behind.”

Also writing in the NBR, Dita De Boni makes a defence of Shaw’s decision, essentially suggesting that although he was “careless”, it was a fairly harmless allocation of funding, and that it is creating an over-reaction – see: Greens once more enter election a divided force.

She worries if voters desert the Greens, then the result might be a NZ First-Labour government, or even a single party “milquetoast” Labour adminstration. She therefore calls on leftwing Green activists to pull back on their divisive criticisms of Shaw.

Similarly, the Herald’s Simon Wilson says there is too much to lose if the Greens dip out of Parliament, as they have already achieved so much, up against a conservative and weak prime minister and Labour Party. Especially for the causes of climate change and inequality, Wilson calls on progressives to support the Greens, despite Shaw’s mishaps – see: James Shaw and the honour of politicians (paywalled).

Shaw’s changing story

The problem for Shaw and the Greens is that the story and scandal won’t die. Every day more is revealed, helping unravel Shaw’s version of what occurred. The Green co-leader has gone to ground, refusing interviews.

One of the turning points this week was news that the green school was mixed up with new age type mysticism – see Anna Bracewell-Worrall’s Couple who called COVID-19 ‘manufactured natural disaster’ held ‘DNA activation’ event at Green School.

Then a video emerged of Shaw telling party members that Education Minister Chris Hipkins gave some sort of approval to the funding of the private green school, an allegation that Hipkins strongly denies – see Jane Patterson’s Green School funding: James Shaw contradicts Chris Hipkins on implicit approval in leaked video.

Shaw also justified his decision on the basis that the local New Plymouth District Council had chosen to be a funder of the project, which also turned out to be entirely untrue – see Catherine Groenestein’s Council rebuts assertion over Green School funding.

Today, further details of what the owners of the school are developing at the site have come out – see Robin Martin’s Green School’s planned ‘eco-village’ development news to James Shaw.

Finally, for more on what Greens activists and supportive commentators are saying about the scandal, see Henry Cooke’s The Green Party picks up the pieces after a damaging week sparked by the Green School ‘mess’.

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.

Her husband, Harry Parke, said the death was totally unexpected.

“Yesterday morning she was out on the farm doing stuff, she had a bit of a fall and finally ended up in Thames Hospital where she had a massive stroke and died at 9.45pm last night – very peacefully I might add,” he said.

READ MORE: What the Green Party has achieved in 18 years

“The day before, she was using a chainsaw – that’s the sort of person she is. She worked a lot harder than I ever did. I was totally in awe of her.

“Fortunately we both had very much the same convictions about what needed changing in the planet and we had a very close relationship.”

Fitzsimons became the co-leader of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand in 1995, and when the party joined the Alliance led by Jim Anderton’s New Labour Party, she took on the deputy leadership role.

After the first MMP election in 1996, she entered Parliament as a list MP for the Alliance but it was not long before strains appeared in the grouping.

Left the Alliance
She felt herself left out of its decision-making and the Green Party itself was increasingly unhappy with the Alliance’s direction.

The agreement to send New Zealand troops to Afghanistan in the United States’-led so-called war on terror was a step too far for the Greens and they left the Alliance.

Fitzsimons won the Coromandel seat for the Greens in 1999, the country’s first elected Green MP and was disappointed when she lost it in the following election, although the party remained in Parliament due to its party vote.

She and her co-leader Rod Donald were strong influences in the change in public perception of the party as a group of sandal-wearing tree-huggers.

Parke said Fitzsimmons was “instrumental” in getting the Green Party up and running in the 1990s. More recently, her focus had been on climate change.

“She fought really hard to get people to accept you can’t keep growing the economy and stop climate change. It just seems people don’t want to hear that.”

Never raising her voice
Fitzsimons was known for never raising her voice in the House and never responding to barbs thrown around in Parliament.

“She strongly believed that never got you anywhere, that all it did was take the focus off the subject you were talking about and your energy needed to be totally on what you were trying to achieve. I think she held that up admirably,” Parke said.

“She never let her emotions get in the way of what needed to be said and what needed to be done.”

“She totally lived her convictions and there was no way that anyone could say she didn’t live up to what she was saying.”

Fitzsimons was made a Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit in 2010.

This article is republished under the Pacific Media Centre’s content partnership with Radio New Zealand.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Increasingly, political problems of housing, inequality, climate change and so forth, are viewed through a “generational lens”. This has some validity – there really are some major changes to New Zealand society that relate to demographics and generational changes.

But there’s a limit to the usefulness of an analysis that concentrates on problems being caused by one demographic, with the solution lying in a preference for different demographic. Society is much more complicated than this, and all demographic groups – especially age groups – are less socially and politically homogenous than many generational warriors would have us believe.

The strongest critiques of the “OK boomer” philosophy complain that generation-focused activists are jettisoning any sort of socio-economic analysis in favour of an identity politics approach. For example, writing in the Guardian, US socialist Bhaskar Sunkara argues that the popularity of the phrase used by Swarbrick “tells us something about the cultural dominance of upper-middle-class youth” who prefer to see their enemies, not as businesspeople, property developers, or politicians, but just as a particular age demographic – see: Why it’s time to ditch the ‘OK Boomer’ meme.

Sunkara points out that young generation-focused activists “haven’t had to witness – or deal with the ramifications of – old age and precarity for millions of working people in that generational cohort. Instead they get to revel without self-reflection in oedipal angst about their elders – many of whom were kind enough to pass them their ill-gotten privileges. Workers of all ages, after all, barely earn enough to survive, much less save for retirement.”

He concludes that the identity politics of age is a distraction from the economic realities in countries like ours: “If ‘we’ have to divide ourselves, it makes sense to look for these class divisions rather than inventing common cultural characteristics across generations… That means knowing who your friends are and who your enemies are. Here’s a hint: it’s not ‘boomers’ – it’s that investment banker you went to high school with.”

If there was any doubt that Swarbrick’s “OK boomer” approach was anything more than a throwaway remark, she penned a column for the Guardian doubling down on it, arguing her use of the phrase was in reaction to the fact that “our politics has been run by older dudes in suits” – see: My ‘OK boomer’ comment in parliament symbolised exhaustion of multiple generations.

This kind of identity politics is condemned by veteran leftwing commentator Chris Trotter in a column suggesting that such middle class distractions are perfect for those who really benefit from the status quo: the rich – see: Not so much ‘Ok Boomer’ as ‘Ok Ruling Class’.

Trotter argues that a generational especially suits those who have done so well since the neoliberal reforms of the 1980s, because the discontented focus their rage on other sections of society: “whites, males, straights and, most recently and ridiculously, Baby Boomers.” He argues for a return to some good, old-fashioned class struggle – viewing the rich and powerful as the problem, regardless of their age demographic (or their ethnicity, gender, etc).

Similarly, see Steven Cowan’s Chloe Swarbrick: OK Boomer or OK Capitalist? He says Swarbrick’s “casual parliamentary insult not only reeks of smug, middle class conceit but stereotypes the older generation as greedy narcissists, sitting atop a big pile of assets and cash. But, like all stereotypes, it’s not true. In 2015 research by Colmar Brunton revealed that more than forty percent of 50- to 70- year-olds were found to have little or no retirement savings and almost half face spending cuts to make ends meet in their retirement.”

As if to reinforce this point, last week the Herald published Dara McNaught’s arguments about those in aged poverty, using the example of one case study: “With a 40-year work history and a lifetime being mindful about money, Remy didn’t expect to be nearing 70 and struggling to survive. Work hard, save hard, and you’ll be fine – isn’t that how it goes? And if you haven’t got enough by the time you retire, well you’ve obviously been irresponsible, careless, or improvident” – see: Superannuitants caught in the trap of poverty.

McNaught reports: “She can’t work now and is malnourished because she doesn’t have enough money for food. Five years ago, she could manage, just. But superannuation and WINZ supplements haven’t kept pace with steeply rising costs in rents, petrol, heating and especially food. No, budgeting doesn’t cut it.”

One superannuant writes with humour about blaming boomers for using too many resources. Rosemary McLeod explains: “we’re needing the costly, underfunded health system as we disintegrate. We’re a burden on the system we funded through taxes” – see: It’s the Boomers’ fault: we created these Millennial monsters.

Furthermore, “We paid mortgage rates in double digits to hang on to them while successive governments, in the grip of mad market theories of economics, stopped building homes for people in need. We shouldn’t have. Or something. Compulsory acquisition of our houses can’t be far off, to force us into the army camps for the aged springing up everywhere.”

And she points out that woke identitarians therefore have her demographic in their sights: “We’re the one group that woke people feel free to mock. They’re woke on gender issues, race issues, human rights, their own rights, cannabis use (which we made mainstream, by the way) and kindness every which way, except toward us.”

According to Massey University’s Steve Elers, the “OK boomer” approach is akin to pointing the finger at the “pale, male and stale” as if they are the homogenous problem – see: Punching up with ‘OK, Boomer’ and ‘pale, male, stale’ may get a laugh but they’re just air swings.

He argues, “classifying and ordering people into a single collective group based on race and ethnicity, gender, and age doesn’t actually do any good for advancing social causes or arguments”, but can actually “mean losing allies who were supportive of particular social causes and arguments.”

This week’s Listener editorial makes a similar case: “Intergenerational warfare is as old as civilisation itself, but it’s in danger of becoming downright uncivilised as we fall into the habit of blaming each other’s demographic tribes for environmental degradation, inequality and much else” – see: The OK, boomer uproar blotted out an important intergenerational moment.

The editorial points out that baby boomers have played a nation-building role in paying higher taxes, building the welfare state, and fostering progressive social change, before concluding: “Looking back in bitterness improves nothing and, worse, risks alienating people into nihilistic inaction. So, OK, boomers and hey, snowflakes: we’re all in this together.”

Similarly, business journalist Rob Stock argues that “the language of intergenerational fairness obscures just as much as it illuminates”, and “It tars a whole group with the same brush, and so doing unifies those using the language: Millennials are the lazy generation, greens are socialists in disguise, all beneficiaries are potential cheats, farmers are animal abusers, men are to women what bicycles are to fish, all baby boomers only care about keeping their tax rates low and the prices of their houses up” – see: Give Baby Boomers their dues.

Stock also suggests that it’s a mistake to talk “about Baby Boomers as if it is a homogenous generation, and the root of all social wrong today, and forgetting all its successes, and the fact that many Baby Boomers are actually poor as dirt”.

Some writers have identified the core economic issue at the heart of the growing generational discontent – housing unaffordability. In his evaluation of the generational war, millennial Richard Meadows says: “Time to address the trillion-dollar elephant in the room. Back in 1980, you could buy a decent house for $28,000. That was only two to three times the median income – a level of affordability which was normal for decades. Today, a median home costs six times the median income (and in Auckland, nine times). Houses are fully two to three times less affordable today than they were for the boomers” – see: The Boomers are OK.

So, are boomers to blame for the housing crisis? Peter Calder says this view would be a divisive mistake, distracting “us from the conversations we should be having”. He says the fault lies with former and contemporary politicians who have not only refused to deal with the problem, but continue to benefit from it – see: Baby Boomers weren’t sitting idly by, it was the politicians.

Here’s Calder’s main point: “The only Boomers who could have stopped the national average house price rising from $110,000 to $600,000 (and in Auckland from $130,000 to $800,000) in the past 25 years were the ones sitting in Parliament… The sitting-by took place, all right, but it was calculated, for electoral advantage, and not idle at all. To say that my generation ‘failed to see’ what was happening is insulting.”

Finally, although his analysis might also escalate the generational wars, Damien Grant’s latest column is worth checking out, simply because it ends with his own clever generational poem riffing on Billy Joel’s “We Didn’t Start the Fire” – see: Quit whinging Millennials, Boomers built your houses and endured actual nuclear war.

Analysis by Dr Bryce Edwards – One of the central elements of any democracy is information. Voters need to know what’s going on in government for accountability to be possible. That’s why in New Zealand we have various conventions, as well as the Official Information Act (OIA), which are supposed to allow the public to see how decisions that affect them have been made. 

The idea of open government is an important one. Yet over the years, National and Labour-led governments in New Zealand have been finding ways to reduce their accountability by keeping official information from the public.

That’s why the current controversy involving Associate Transport Minister Julie Anne Genter is important. She is refusing to make public a letter that she wrote as part of government negotiations over some major transport spending decisions. Some see this as being in contravention of the OIA and the general principles of open government promised, not only by the new Government, but specifically by the Green Party which has campaigned in the past for more open government.

The issue relates to a Government transport package for the Wellington region, titled “Let’s Get Wellington Moving” (LGWM), which involves $6.4b of spending on various initiatives. Associate Minister of Transport Julie Anne Genter wrote to Transport Minister Phil Twyford on March 26 about the package of expenditure, making some arguments about what particular projects should get priority funding, and which ones should be delayed or maybe scrapped. And when the final project was announced, it seemed that she had got her way, with the Green-friendly projects agreed to, and the ones they don’t like (tunnels, improved roads, etc) delayed or scrapped. The result has therefore been controversial.

Not surprisingly, many want to know how the Government came to their decision, and whether the now infamous letter from Genter to Twyford might have had an impact on changing the decision. Speculation has been rife, but Genter has refused to make the letter public, despite claims that under the OIA the public have a right to see it.

Has the Green tail wagged the Government dog?

In Wellington local government, there have been stories about how the Genter letter attempted to leverage Twyford’s decision by various threats of resignation and havoc if the Greens didn’t get their way on the transport spending decisions.

On Wednesday, Collette Devlin published an investigation into what had gone on, with allegations that Wellington Mayor Justin Lester had told councillors that unless the transport package was accepted the Government would be destabilised, with Green MPs threatening to resign, which had the potential to bring down the Government – see: City councillors claim Green Party agreement used as leverage to get agreement on Let’s Get Wellington Moving.

Here’s the main point of the article: “The Green Party confidence and supply agreement would have been put in jeopardy if a watered down Let’s Get Wellington Moving wasn’t accepted, city councillors claim. A number of Wellington city councillors have revealed to Stuff the behind-the-scenes conversations that pushed the mass transport deal over the line in council chambers.”

This story has been followed up today with further details from city councillors. For example, “Diane Calvert confirmed Lester said the Green Party would withdraw from the coalition if it didn’t get what it wanted.” The article also points out: “what Lester actually told councillors remains hotly disputed, with councillors adamant that their version of events are true. Despite the corroboration between councillors, Lester has denied any conversations took place” – see Collette Devlin and Tom Hunt’s He said, she said: Disagreement over Genter-Lester LGWM spat.

National Party Blogger David Farrar has characterised the Genter email as “blackmail” against her own government, and pointed out that someone in the Wellington City Council must be lying about it all: “Either Lester is lying or multiple Councillors have decided to lie in unison. Lester is of course an official Labour Party Mayor which means his loyalty is primarily to Labour, not Wellington” – see: The truth emerges.

Farrar also points out that although there have been various denials about the story from Genter and Twyford, they have chosen their language very carefully to deny that a resignation was offered in the letter, but not whether a resignation was threatened in the letter. And he concludes: “So now Wellingtonians know why they are condemned to a decade of growing congestion because the Green Party forced Labour to kill off any significant roading projects, and the Labour Mayor went along with them.”

Should Genter release the letter?

Some arguments have been made against the Genter letter being released. For example Wellington Mayor Justin Lester has reportedly said that the public isn’t interested to know why decisions have been made, only the outcome, and they just want to see the transport projects get going.

Disagreeing with this, Newstalk ZB journalist Georgina Campbell has argued “Just because the decisions on Wellington’s $6.4b transport overhaul have already been made doesn’t mean people don’t care about how those calling the shots made them” – see: Open and transparent? Release your letter Julie Anne Genter. She also says “as Lester is so fond of reminding the general public, LGWM is the biggest transport investment the city’s had in decades. It’s therefore hard to believe Wellingtonians wouldn’t be interested in how that investment was decided.”

The same article cites Labour Party councillor, Daran Ponter, who is the sustainable transport committee deputy chairperson on the Greater Wellington Regional Council: “Let’s see what it is that she had pushed for and the direction that she has changed, because the things that have arrived on Wellingtonians’ plate in relation to Let’s Get Welly Moving are certainly not the things that they identified as projects they wanted when it went into the parliamentary process”.

Newstalk ZB’s Barry Soper also makes the case for the release of the Genter letter, saying: Taxpayers deserve to know what Julie Anne Genter and Phil Twyford are hiding. He says “Wellingtonians are left speculating as to what influence the Greens have had in foiling the $6.4 billion transport plan.”

And he complains that the Greens’ refusal to release the letter means they simply aren’t living up their promise of transparency in government. He says: “They’re obviously hiding something and the taxpayer has a right to know.”

Parliament’s Speaker, Trevor Mallard, has added to the momentum for the release of the letter, refuting claims by Twyford that convention dictates that such letters can’t be released. Mallard says from personal experience as an Opposition MP, he’s expected the release of such official correspondence, saying “I know that I had, as an Opposition member, regularly received copies of letters between Ministers” – see Derek Cheng’s Speaker shoots down Phil Twyford’s reason for keeping information secret.

Mallard has gone further: “I made it clear in the House that I didn’t agree with the Minister’s assertion that all Minister to Minister letters were withheld as a matter of course. I think we’ve now agreed that’s not the case.”

Debates about whether the Genter letter is subject to the OIA

In refusing to release her letter to Twyford, Genter has argued that the correspondence simply isn’t subject to the OIA. This is because, she says, the communication wasn’t a ministerial letter, but instead was sent in her capacity as an MP rather than a minister. This raises some important questions over whether politicians in government can argue that their negotiation of Cabinet decisions can be deemed to be non-ministerial.

If such negotiations, in this case between the Transport Minister and the Associate Transport Minister, are simply between MPs rather than ministers, then Genter is correct. And therefore, the OIA doesn’t apply, and her letter doesn’t need to be released. This is covered in Georgina Campbell’s story, Chief Ombudsman to investigate Julie Anne Genter’s secret letter.

One problem for Genter’s argument is that her letter was sent on official ministerial letterhead, and was signed off with her ministerial title. But for this she blames stationary supply issues, saying “As it happens I had only one type of letterhead but that is something I will be changing”.

Another problem for Genter’s argument is that she has already been answering written and oral questions on the issue on the basis of the letter being a ministerial one. And on this, Parliament’s Speaker has also made it clear that Genter can’t simply change her mind and now suggest that the ministerial correspondence in question was a Green Party letter not subject to ministerial conventions, saying: “Once the House has been told it is a ministerial document, it is almost certainly not appropriate to reverse that.”

Another line of defence to stop the letter being released is to argue that it is “not in the public interest” because if such correspondence was regularly released, ministers wouldn’t feel comfortable having the necessary “free and frank” discussions on issues, knowing their words would end up in the public spotlight. And there is some backing for this position from Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier who recently made a similar ruling, saying there was “strong interest in maintaining the Government’s ability to undertake effective and efficient political consultation with political parties” – see Zane Small’s story, Julie Anne Genter’s justification for refusing to release letter to Phil Twyford.

If such a decision applied in this case, it would show just how broken the Official Information Act is says Matthew Hooton in his hard-hitting column today – see: Julie Anne Genter’s antics over the lin  (paywalled). He says this would be absurd: “She claims she wrote as one ordinary MP to another on an inter-party matter. If that rule takes hold, Finance Minister Grant Robertson and his associate David Parker could claim all their correspondence about next year’s Budget is just two Labour MPs communicating about their re-election plans.”

Hooton details the origin of the OIA and how, over time, each government flouts the rules more than the last: “over the years the politicians have corrupted departmental processes using their so-called no surprises rule. An eternal rule of politics is that, when it comes to ethical questions such as complying with the OIA, each Government is worse than the one before. They adopt all the dirty tricks of their predecessors and invent new ones of their own.”

In terms of the letter in question, and Genter’s involvement in the Wellington transport decision, Hooton says the letter must be released or she should resign: “Under the OIA, the public has a legal right to see this to-ing and fro-ing about why their taxes will be spent on one thing instead of another. The Genter letter seems to have been pivotal.”

And he’s sceptical about the decision to shift transport resources into a tram for the city: “A billion-dollar airport tram in a hilly city with a population of just 220,000 and only another 300,000 in its wider region would be globally unusual. We should expect to see detailed consideration of arguments and counterarguments as the two ministers debate whether the tunnel or tram should have priority.”

Finally, Ben Thomas argues that the most revealing part of the saga probably won’t be the contents of the mysterious letter, suggesting that Genter’s evasiveness has created a frisson around the letter that is unlikely to be matched by reality. But he says her actions do give us a glimpse into “the soul of the government” by showing ministers don’t even feel the need to try anymore when seeking to avoid accountability or transparency – see: Julie Anne Genter and the game of hats.

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.