Greens call to rally, get organised for 2026 election
Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick has urged the membership to rally and get organised for next year's election.
MPs and party faithful gathered for their annual meeting at creative campus Te Auaha in central Wellington this weekend.
Swarbrick received a standing ovation, after her speech that asked members to "take a deep breath" and action their opposition to the coalition's policy agenda.
"I don't really want to just talk about the bad guys and the bad things today, because I know we're angry," she said. "We've got a lot to be angry about, but that anger, while righteous, won't get us anywhere, if we do not channel it into organised action."
Swarbrick and co-leader Marama Davidson have visited communities throughout the country this year, as part of a nationwide roadshow.
She told membership the Greens' ideas were "immensely popular" and the party's work in the coming year was to "grow" the party's movement.
"New Zealanders are hungry for solutions, because - clearly - the current system, it ain't working for them.
"That means that there is a country full of people ready to join our movement. We've seen in Auckland Central, in Rongotai and here in Wellington Central that, when we get curious about our neighbours and find our shared values, when we show up for our communities and build our movement beyond traditional circles, we win, the people win."
The Green Party has had a relatively steady year, after a tumultuous start to the term that saw several controversial resignations, the sudden death of MP Efeso Collins and Davidson taking time out to fight cancer.
Since then, both co-leaders have talked about leading the opposition and setting the agenda, as the party released a swathe of policy, including its own 'Green Budget'.
This rhetoric hasn't translated into a boost in support in the polls, with the Greens consistently polling about 10 percent of the general vote.
Swarbrick told membership many New Zealanders were "exhausted" and "fed up with politics", but they should still fight to create "the most progressive government Aotearoa has ever seen".
"We need to connect the dots on these acts of humanity, building something so big it overtakes and replaces the system of extraction and exhaustion and exploitation.
"Now, those making bank from the climate crisis and profiting from deep inequality will invest everything that they have got into telling you that it's impossible, because they need you to believe that they need you fighting your fellow New Zealander," Swarbrick said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
8 minutes ago
- Scoop
On Labour's Soft Support In The Polls
Currently, Labour is a receptacle for the widespread public dis-illusionment with the Luxon administration. However, this week's poll results– which would deliver a hung Parliament in which the centre-right and centre left blocs were tied on 61 seats – flatters to deceive Labour about its chances in Election 2026. Australia can offer an illuminating example of this popularity-by-default during the year before an election. Consider the fate of Peter Dutton's Liberal-led coalition. When voters were solely focussed on the many failings of the Albanese government, Dutton's fortunes rose, such that he looked like the prime minister in waiting. That mood lasted until January 2025, when the election year kicked off in earnest. Voters then began looking at their political options through a different lens. With Dutton, they began asking: is this really the guy, and is this the party, and are these the policies we want to elect ? And the answer was no, not now, not ever. Meaning: once the public begins to take a hard look at the options before them, some of Labour's preceding soft support will ebb away, since it is largely based on an anything-but -this attitude towards the incumbent. That situation will change, as Dutton found to his cost. Albanese managed to make this year's Australian election campaign all about Peter Dutton, and hardly at all about his own track record. Similarly, National will be trying to make next year's election campaign all about scaring the electorate out of its wits about the prospect of a Labour/Greens/TPM governing arrangement. Labour is giving every sign of walking straight into this trap. To date, it has made no effort to look like a confident alternative government in waiting. It seems happy to be a blank state. It has put forward no new policies, and has actively distanced itself from the policies being put forward by the Greens, the partner that Labour needs if it is to govern at all. On the left, we are seeing nothing like the collusion we have seen on the right, where National is willing to let ACT set the policy agenda, because ACT and National have the same goals in mind, and serve the same corporate interests. Quite a different story on the centre-left. It is unclear whether Labour agrees with the Greens about anything of substance, including the pace of change required on the policies that do overlap. Sure, they compete for centre left votes. But ultimately, they're supposed to be allies. Routinely however, Labour treats the Greens as a liability that it needs to keep in check, rather than as an electoral asset. No wonder this week then, that the Greens were talking up their role in driving a future Labour-led government. In doing so, it was mimicking ACT's role in the coalition government, and was also trying to draw Labour into acting like an alternative government that has joint solutions to offer for the public mood of discontent. By refusing to take any policy positions now, Labour makes it more likey that its belated revelations will become THE focus of next year's election campaign, rather than the coalition government's manifest failures. Running scared Some of Labour's current obfuscation borders on the ridiculous. Apparently, Labour has spent the past 18 months debating whether to adopt a capital gains tax – even though this was settled party policy eleven years ago, when David Cunliffe took it into the 2014 election. Since then we have had the Cullen Tax Working Group mull over its merits and endorse it, as have any number of economic experts, both here and overseas. What's been left to debate? With elephants, the gestation period is only 22 months. Currrenty, nearly six generations of elephants have been conceived and born since Labour first tried to convince the public to embrace a capital gains tax in an election year. Yet all outward appearances, Labour still hasn't quite made up its mind. Labour's skittish tendency to treat its core policies as hand grenades likely to blow up in its face at any moment, has also been evident with regard to the oil and gas exploration ban. When in government, Labour immediately enacted the ban (a) for climate change reasons and (b) in the knowledge that the ban was largely symbolic, since no untapped deposits appear to exist, and no multinational companies seem willing to go to the trouble and expense of conducting further searches in our waters. (That's why the Luxon government is currently offering Big Oil $200 million + in subsidies, to get them to try, try, try again.) Righto. So would Labour re-instate the ban, if re-elected? You'd think this would be a no-brainer. Yet despite her eloquent criticism of the Luxon government's rescinding of the ban, Labour's energy spokesperson Megan Woods twice declined in this interview to say whether Labour would re-instate it. A few days later, she told Carbon News that a new Labour government would re-instate the ban, but would also honour any exploration pernits issued in the interim. Why? If you truly want to deter fossil fuel exploration, let that risk be on their own heads. Taxpayers will have already paid them those huge subsidies to cover their risk. It really shouldn't be this hard to figure out where Labour stands on issues that should be a slam dunk for a centre-left party. It bodes badly for Labour's ability to emerge from its corner next year and (a) confidently promote its own policies, and (b) not run in fright from the policies of its partners. Just as well Michael Joseph Savage isn't trying to convince this lot to create a welfare safety net. Footnote: All the same, there has been hints aplenty dropped to prep the media for the news that Labour is likely to be taking a capital gains tax into the next election, and has rejected the wealth tax proposed earlier this year in the Greens alternative budget. If and when Labour do publicly commit to a capital gains tax, it would be good to know that they have prepped themselves on how to handle the question that tripped up David Cunliffe in the leaders debate in 2014. Would the tax apply, John Key asked, to family homes held in trusts? The answer that eluded Cunliffe on the night but which was later clarified by David Parker went like this: 'If it is a principal family home there's no capital gains tax payable," [Parker] told Radio New Zealand's Morning Report programme. "If it's not a principal family home then there will be, although if it's a holiday home and it's passed through the generations that doesn't attract a capital gains tax either." The capital gains tax policy is meant to have a symbolic value. Yet these wrinkles and exemptions suggest that a capital gains tax is not going to provide Labour with a clear and ringing expression of its core identity, heading into the next election. It is a policy devised by policy wonks, and will be mainly of interest to pundits and economists. Moreover, back in 2018 when such a tax was being seriously proposed (by the Cullen Tax Working Group) as a necessary corrective to an economy wedded to housing speculation, bank economists were claiming that such a tax would cut house prices by 10%. In today's depressed housing market, a CGT wouldn't have such a serious impact on house prices. But that won't stop National and ACT from painting it as a tax grab likely to reduce in value the main investment/retirement asset held dear by many New Zealanders. That's not a good reason to abandon the policy. For decades, this country has suffered from the extent to which our domestic economy has consisted of us buying and selling houses to each other, for the untaxed capital gains. At the same time, one can feel worried about Labour's ability to convince voters that if a capital gains tax does impose some pain, this pain will (a) be only fleeting (b) be shared equally and (c) will be outweighed by tangible benefits. So far, Labour has shown no such ability. Under Chris Hipkins, Labour was cringingly risk averse when in government, and it has carried that over into opposition. Big Thief Kills It (Again) Breakup songs are a dime a dozen, but post-breakup songs that deal with what kind of relationship (friendship?) is now possible - after time and distance have taken the edge off heartbreak - are much more rare. I'm guessing, but on this new Big Thief track, Adrianne Lenker seems to be re-addressing her former partner Indigo Sparks, two years or more after they went their separate ways. Earlier Lenker songs ('Zombie Girl' and 'Anything' in particular) were inspired by her raw feelings for Sparks. This new song is more ruefully optimistic: To measure the distance that's been travelled, here's how things were for Lenker back at the time, on 'Anything:'
The Spinoff
8 minutes ago
- The Spinoff
What is Christopher Luxon doing on top of a mountain?
He's just a man, standing on a mountain, asking a pavlova to love him. Christopher Luxon is a man on top of a mountain. The prime minister of New Zealand is standing high above Queenstown, the soft white powder of fresh snow beneath his feet and crisp blue skies of a winter's day above him. Australian prime minister Anthony Albanese stands next to Luxon, wearing a yellow and green scarf around his neck. The view across the Southern Alps is spectacular, but neither leader is looking at it. Instead, both men are busy staring intently at something far more impressive in front of them. They are gazing at a pavlova. Christopher Luxon's social media video about pavlova marked the climax of last weekend's 24-hour political lovefest between Albanese and Luxon. Albanese flew into Queenstown for the annual leaders meeting between Australia and Aotearoa, and boy, did they have fun. They laughed, they cuddled, they hung out at a billionaire's private retreat. In between, they discussed trade and defence issues, talked about 501 deportees and Gaza. Mostly, they just had a lovely time together. The most bromantic moment of all came when they took a helicopter up a mountain, where they dined on a feast of sweet treats arranged on the snow. Even when standing in one of the most peaceful and unspoiled parts of the world, Luxon couldn't resist tackling one last critical political issue: who really invented the pavlova, Australia or New Zealand? The identities of two nations rest entirely on what is about to unfold. 'Well look, to all our Australian and Kiwi friends,' Luxon begins in the video, holding a cream-splattered knife in one hand and a paper plate in the other. 'Anthony and I have resolved…' We're only three seconds in, but already Albanese has had enough. 'Quite clearly, it's half-half,' he pipes up. The Australian prime minister points his finger at the pav, first to one half, then the other. One side is artfully covered in sliced kiwifruit, while the other is topped with strawberries and Tim Tam biscuits. Job done, let's move on. The bilateral dessert sits on a table covered with a black cloth, which was also presumably hoiked up the mountain in a helicopter. Also visible is a platter of date scones and two containers of butter. Put these delicious treats together with all the eggs and cream in the pavlova, and at Queenstown prices, that tucker is valued at approximately eight million dollars. Can you put a price on pavlova? Luxon doesn't think so. 'This is a compromise solution, we all know the Kiwis invented the pavlova,' he continues bravely. 'They stole it, they try and claim it.' It's a killer blow. Australia might be tempting record numbers of New Zealanders over with its superior pay, better living conditions and greater job opportunities, but there's one thing we won't let them get away with, and that's having the audacity to claim they were the first to put cream on meringue and name it after a Russian ballerina. It could be the altitude or the alarming sight of Tim Tams on top of a pav, but Luxon starts to ramble. 'But you've seen pieces broken out of it up here on this mountain today, in the South Island, eh?' he asks Albanese. Albanese is too distracted by which half is his half to answer. 'This is clearly Australia,' Albanese repeats, pointing at the pav again. 'That's Australia with your Tim Tams,' Luxon agrees, as if he's speaking to a confused uncle who thinks a pudding is a world map. 'And that's us with our kiwifruit, see?' Suddenly, all is right with the world. These leaders have never been more relatable and everything bad has faded away: the collapse of the health system, the rising cost of living, the prolonged recession, the increase in unemployment and homelessness, whether or not to recognise Palestinian statehood (Albanese has since gone with yes, Luxon is still solving that problem). Now, there is only pavlova. 'Problem solved,' Albanese cheers. 'We have solved a centuries-old debate,' adds Luxon, surprising even himself. 'And we had to come up here…' 'To do it,' both leaders say in unison. Pavlova deep, mountain high. This is exactly what happens when powerful men dine from a silver platter on a mountaintop: they solve the big issues. Some may say pavlova is an issue that nobody gives a shit about, but when was the last time they took a helicopter up a mountain and stared destiny in the face? Have they ever put two Tim Tams on a pudding and lived to tell the tale? Only losers eat dessert at sea level, anyway. Christopher Luxon has solved the great pavlova mystery, once and for all: both nations invented it, which also means, nobody invented it. What more do you want, New Zealand?
Scoop
6 hours ago
- Scoop
Govt's Empty Words Do Nothing To Stop Genocide In Gaza
The Government's announcement that it will 'formally consider' Palestinian statehood in September simply continues to delay any meaningful action. 'If the Government believes what it says about a two-state solution, it can and must recognise Palestine statehood, immediately,' says Green Party co-leader, Chlöe Swarbrick. 'Palestinians cannot eat empty statements. 'Aotearoa has a proud history of standing up for human rights and justice, even when powerful allies disagree. Most UN member states already recognise Palestine. 'The Greens put forward a motion in Parliament to do this in 2021. National and ACT voted it down. Four years later, those same parties are tying their own hands to do the most basic things. 'The bare minimum New Zealanders should expect from their representatives is to put substance behind words. Last September, Aotearoa stood with 123 UN Member States to support a resolution calling for sanctions against those responsible for 'unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in relation to settler violence.' 'The Greens have drafted a Bill to sanction Israel. The only thing in the way of this law passing, right now, is identifying just six out of 68 Government members willing to stand on the right side of history. 'Palestine needs our action. The people of this country have been mobilising every week for two years demanding it. Luxon's Government can and must act - they are the only thing standing in their own way,' says Chlöe Swarbrick.
