The Green Party positions itself as the left's leader, and a friend to the coal miners
Many of the promises made by political progressives this year have fallen under the umbrella of 'we'll clean up whatever the other guy is doing'. Labour would repeal the Regulatory Standards Bill within its first 100 days, Te Pāti Māori would establish a te Tiriti commissioner, and the Green Party, well, they hope to be leading the pack. Already armed with an alternative budget and a fiscal strategy, and with their sights set on a new eco-friendly industrial era and a new voter base among miners and farmers, the still self-described hippies reckon they're the strongest offering the left has got – but they're self-aware enough to know they'll have to spend the next 12 months convincing Aotearoa of that.
The mood at the party's annual general meeting, held over the weekend at Wellington's Te Auaha – a Whitireia and WelTec creative campus set for the chopping block in the Te Pūkenga demerger, much to the party's chagrin – was jovial, ambitious and resolute. Powered by vegan salads and doughnuts from plant-based bakery Belén, party members spent the weekend fundraising by way of a 'Greenathon', which saw MPs perform in front of attendees for donations – Lan Pham did a dance routine with her twin, while Steve Abel, Benjamin Doyle and Kahurangi Carter belted out a rendition of Chappell Roan's 'Pink Pony Club', the latter of which raised $20,000 in five minutes.
In the more serious moments, attendees did breathing exercises to deal with the bullshit, reaffirmed their political earnestness and also reaffirmed the importance of trying to understand where your racist uncle is coming from every now and then. When co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick delivered her address on Sunday – the main event of the AGM – she urged her supporters not just to connect with each other, but with 'the New Zealanders outside of this room', to build a bridge between those who 'straight up hate' politics and 'a bunch of earnest nerds' (aka the Greens).
It's time to build a bridge and get everyone over it, the Greens reckon.
'In the political arena, it is pretty common for people to accuse the other side, and particularly the people who vote for them, of being idiots,' Swarbrick told the crowd. 'If we can't understand why people do the things that they do, then the logic tends to flow: they're wrong, and they just don't get it. That's clearly not a winning formula.'
She's right – in terms of giving the major parties a run for their money, it hasn't been. The Greens have a loyal core voter base and 2023 was their most successful election ever, with 11.6% of the party vote and three electorates giving them 15 seats. Since then, polling has kept the party safely above 10% of the vote, and it remains the best-polling minor party alongside Act – but there's still a long way to go in terms of getting a shot at leading a government. And though the Greens have stayed mum on whether their closest frenemy's inability to dream up something concrete in terms of policy will aid them in the long run ('that's a question for the Labour Party,' Davidson told The Spinoff, smiling), there's no doubt that being the man with a plan has to mean something to someone.
The Greens' AGM coincided with the tail-end of a small stint around the South Island by the Labour caucus, which reaffirmed that the legacy left party wouldn't commit to any policy promises until closer to the general election. In lieu of announcing any concrete policy, the party has instead gone hard on highlighting what they see as the government's failures, from school lunches to Family Boost to the price of butter – and are still polling on triple the numbers that the Greens have.
Of course, the Greens are also constantly scrutinising the government's decisions while also offering up policies and alternative plans, but they have struggled to get the biggest power on the left bloc on board with the likes of their Green budget . It's one thing to be the 'big idea' factory, as Swarbrick described the party, but if you can't get the CEO to sign off on the proposals, you're not going to get anywhere. So why not try to position yourself as the one who should be calling the shots?
Future finance minister?
And so, the party has hopes that those who aren't traditional Green voters (specifically, the farmers and miners) could be persuaded to see the light. Yet reaching out to the blue-collar worker – who probably has some underlying feelings of class consciousness because their boss is driving a BMW while they've had to pick up extra shifts and still be stuck on public transport – hasn't been something the Greens, and the progressive left as a whole, are best at.
After recently visiting miners on the West Coast, Swarbrick reckoned her party had 'a heck of a lot more in common with coal miners' than most realised – their shared interest being decent incomes, community and pride in their work. 'There were a few surprises to be perfectly honest [because], as you say, it's not a ground the Green Party are expected to occupy,' Swarbrick said. 'But it's not good enough for us simply to have the stacks of evidence if we're left clinging to [it] when the last tree is cut down – we have to bridge that gap.'
With her sights quietly set on a possible future as finance minister, Swarbrick wouldn't confirm whether the party had any bottom lines ahead of possible coalition talks following next year's election. She and her co-leader have plenty of time to try to talk things through with Chris Hipkins, and less time to convince swing voters and those literally at the coal face that their version of a tail-wagging government would be better than the current one.
And anyway, Swarbrick and Davidson made sure to repeatedly reaffirm their belief that 'no political party, no politician, is entitled to anything – New Zealanders get to decide the future of our country'. So, all of this aside, there might still be a bigger and more uncomfortable truth for the Greens to deal with: there are still many New Zealanders who aren't ready, or just don't want to, elect what's being touted as Aotearoa's most progressive parliament.
Page 2
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
an hour ago
- Otago Daily Times
Coalition slams Covid ministers no-show
By Russell Palmer of RNZ All three coalition parties are criticising Labour's former ministers for refusing to appear at a public Covid-19 hearing, saying they're trying to avoid scrutiny. The second phase of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Covid-19 pandemic was secured in coalition agreements between all three governing parties. The chair, Grant Illingworth KC, yesterday confirmed that a week-long public hearing with decision-makers would not go ahead because former ministers had refused to participate. They include former prime minister Dame Jacinda Ardern, current Labour leader Chris Hipkins, who was at times the health and Covid-19 response minister, former finance minister Grant Robertson and former health minister and current MP Ayesha Verrall, Those former ministers argue they have provided ample evidence privately to the commission, which - despite having the power to - declined to summons them, saying on balance it was "undesirable given that the former ministers continue to co-operate with the evidence-gathering of the inquiry". "We are confident that the former ministers declining to attend the hearing does not hamper us in our ability to obtain the information we need to be able to properly complete our task. Public hearings are only one mechanism of obtaining evidence, and their use is restricted under our terms of reference," Illingworth said. The reasoning the ministers gave to the inquiry - according to a document the inquiry released - included that former ministers were conventionally interviewed privately for Royal Commissions of Inquiry, that they had cooperated so far and repeating the evidence publicly would be "performative rather than informative", and it risked the recordings being "tampered with, manipulated or otherwise misused". The document noted other witnesses and their families had faced abuse after appearing in public hearings, including in the Royal Commission held in July. Hipkins told RNZ's Morning Report programme today he has been interviewed in private, answered every question fully and even given the commission more information than what he had originally been asked. He accused those involved with the Royal Commission of not knowing what they wanted because they had said public hearings wouldn't be held for five reasons, including avoiding participants being subject to abuse. "They indicated at the end of that interview [his private appearance] ... that they didn't have any further questions and any public hearing would simply be a repeat of any questions they'd already asked me." Hipkins acknowledged that the pandemic was "a really difficult time", however, he said he answered questions from media and the public on a daily basis. Asked what he had to lose by fronting up, Hipkins responded that all the former ministers had followed the same protocol for the Covid commission as had occurred in the past, citing the examples of former Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee at the Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission of inquiry and other ministers involved in the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Christchurch mosque attacks. Ardern stood by her decision not to participate, with a spokesperson saying she had recently provided a three-hour interview and remained available to answer any further questions the commission had. Hipkins earlier spoke to reporters at Parliament to defend his decision, and Dr Verrall provided a written statement. Robertson, who is now vice chancellor at the University of Otago, did not respond to RNZ's requests for comment. At Parliament, senior National MP Chris Bishop used the general debate yesterday to call attention to their refusal, saying it was "perhaps unsurprising". "They are ashamed of their record, and they know that held up to the light the decisions they made in 2020 and 2021 and 2022 have led us into the problems we are enduring today. "It was really clear from the second half of 2020 and into 2021 that further stimulus of the New Zealand economy was not only not required, it was counterproductive." He said Treasury pointed to 36% of spending for the Covid response happening after June 2021. "At that point, GDP had already returned to its pre-pandemic levels and inflation was already outside the band and approaching 7.3 percent ... from financial year 2015 to 2019, core Crown debt was actually flat - it actually went down a bit. But from 2019 to 2023, net core Crown debt increased by 169 percent to $155 billion. "That is the debt disaster this government inherited. That is the inflation disaster this government inherited. That is the cause of the recession this government inherited." ACT leader David Seymour mimed running away from reporters before saying "kidding - that's the other guys". He said a lot of people would see the former ministers refusing to appear publicly as "running from accountability, and that's what erodes that trust". "I would have thought if you cared about this country and responding to its next pandemic, which will happen, then you'd want to front up and tell your story," he said. "It's good that they've co-operated in privacy, we're told, but I think the New Zealand people deserve them to show up ... I think there was an opportunity here to come and explain their perspective. Maybe we have it wrong, but they're not doing it." Seymour particularly focused on Hipkins. "The contrast between his behaviour during the pandemic - when they do anything to get in front of the cameras, when we had to endure a 20 minute lecture before they gave us the daily numbers - compared with this behaviour we've learned about today, I think that contrast speaks for itself." Asked about concerns of abuse, Seymour said the former ministers had a public duty to front up. "Are we going to let a small group of anti-social people stop our great nation from having a democratic discourse? I think the simple facts are we don't decide that 'because there's a few crazies out there we're no longer going to have a Parliament'." — Winston Peters (@winstonpeters) August 13, 2025 NZ First leader Winston Peters shared his views on X, saying the former ministers "colluded and decided to decline to give evidence". "The 'Podium of Truth' has become the 'Podium of Evasion'. These former ministers do not want to sit in a public hearing and answer the hard questions that every New Zealander deserves to know. If ever there was a definition for "a different kind of 'abuse of' power" this is it." He said they were undermining the second inquiry to avoid public scrutiny. "Those former Labour Ministers have shown they care nothing about public confidence, and worse, are treating the entire public with distain (sic) and contempt ... and had a disastrous effect on the economy and future of our country - yet they refuse to be held to account."
The Spinoff
2 hours ago
- The Spinoff
Palestine debate deepens as Speaker faces scrutiny over Swarbrick ban
Disquiet over the unusually harsh punishment is fuelling tensions among MPs on the issue of Palestinian statehood, writes Catherine McGregor in today's extract from The Bulletin. Swarbrick's stand-off enters third day Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick was yesterday suspended from Parliament for the rest of the week after again refusing to apologise for her remark urging 'government MPs with a spine' to back her bill sanctioning Israel. The clash with Speaker Gerry Brownlee began on Tuesday, when Swarbrick refused to withdraw the comment during a snap debate on Palestinian statehood. Brownlee ejected her for the day, and warned she could not return without an apology. For more on Tuesday's events, read Lyric Waiwiri-Smith's latest Echo Chamber column for The Spinoff. On Wednesday, after a private meeting failed to resolve the standoff, Swarbrick entered the debating chamber, Brownlee again asked her to apologise, and she declined. After she refused his first request to leave, Brownlee moved to 'name' her – a formal disciplinary step triggering a suspension. Brownlee said he was coming down hard on Swarbrick because she delivered the 'personal insult' during a speech to the House, not as an interjection. Speaker's powers under scrutiny Speaking after her second ousting, Swarbrick said Brownlee was operating under a double standard, noting that John Key in 2015 had called for the opposition to 'get some guts' in a speech, without being punished at all. Writing in The Spinoff, constitutional law expert Andrew Geddis says Brownlee's approach appears to go beyond what Parliament's rules allow. Standing Order 90(1) empowers the Speaker to eject an MP only 'for the remainder of that day's sitting' – not to impose an open-ended ban until an apology is made. Geddis contrasted this with the treatment of Labour's Willie Jackson earlier this year, who was ordered out for calling Act leader David Seymour a liar – in a speech – but returned the next day without apologising. The one-day rule goes back almost a quarter-century, Geddis notes. In 2001, then Speaker Jonathan Hunt ruled on the issue, confirming that once an MP has left for refusing to apologise, 'the matter is at an end'. By effectively rewriting that precedent, Geddis argues, Brownlee appears to have created 'a disciplinary consequence that appears nowhere' in the Standing Orders – parliamentary rules that are meant to stay the same, no matter the Speaker. Recognition debate drags on The row over Swarbrick's suspension comes against a backdrop of growing frustration at the government's slow progress on Palestinian statehood. Australia, Canada, France and the UK have announced recognition plans ahead of next month's UN General Assembly, but New Zealand has only said it will have made a decision by then. Labour leader Chris Hipkins says the government is 'waiting for other countries to take a principled stance before we're willing to do so', while Audrey Young of the NZ Herald (paywalled) calls the approach 'the classic bob-each-way position of a small state' – seeking to avoid alienating Israel, Palestine or their respective supporters. For Swarbrick, the delay is unconscionable. 'We are a laggard, we are an outlier … We are one of the very few countries in the world who, so far, refuse to acknowledge the absolute bare minimum,' she told the House before her first ejection. Act's hard line complicates talks One reason for the hold-up is Cabinet's current consensus rule, which effectively gives each coalition partner a veto on any decision. In Politik (paywalled), Richard Harman reports that Act 'appears to be' the brake on recognition of Palestinian statehood, by pushing for it to be contingent on Hamas releasing all Israeli hostages – a precondition not shared by leaders in Australia, Canada or the UK. Prime minister Christopher Luxon has echoed Act's position in recent comments, leaving New Zealand out of step with its allies and, says Harman, showing up the 'fundamental weakness' of this government: 'that the prime minister appears unable to confront his coalition partners when they dig their heels in'. Yet Luxon also used his strongest language yet on Israel yesterday, calling the situation in Gaza 'utterly, utterly appalling' and claiming Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu had 'lost the plot', reports the Herald's Jamie Ensor. Luxon's criticism suggests frustration at both the worsening situation in Gaza and the political deadlock at home. Whether that frustration will ultimately translate into recognition of Palestine remains an open question.
NZ Herald
3 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Chris Hipkins to speak on decision to skip Covid-19 Royal Commission inquiry public hearings
Labour leader and former Covid-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins is to discuss his decision not to attend the second set of public hearings for the Covid-19 Royal Commission. He is set to speak to Mike Hosking on Newstalk ZB at 7.07am. You can listen live below. The hearings have been called off after key witnesses, including former Prime Minister Dame Jacinda Ardern, refused to appear. Those witnesses, including Hipkins and former ministers Grant Robertson and Ayesha Verrall, are still co-operating with the inquiry. In June last year, a 'phase two' of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Covid-19 Lessons was established by the National-led coalition Government. It was scheduled to take place after the completion of the original inquiry set up under the previous Labour Government, which ministers have already appeared before in private. Chairman Grant Illingworth has the power to summon people to appear before the inquiry, but said he would not use it on Ardern and the other ministers as there weren't any grounds for it. 'On balance, we are of the view that a summons is undesirable, given that the former ministers continue to co-operate with the evidence-gathering of the inquiry. 'It is our opinion that the use of summonses to achieve their participation at a public hearing would be legalistic and adversarial, which our terms of reference prohibit,' Illingworth said. He said he still believed public hearings would enhance public confidence in the inquiry's processes by enabling the public to see former ministers, who have critical insights into the pandemic response, questioned in public. Hipkins, appearing on Herald NOW last month, said he had issues with the way the second phase of the Royal Commission had been set up, particularly the decision to exclude from consideration the years that NZ First was governing with Labour. 'The fact that the [Royal Commission] terms of reference specifically exclude decisions made when NZ First were part of the [Labour-led coalition] Government … I think the terms of reference have been deliberately constructed to achieve a particular outcome, particularly around providing a platform for those who have conspiracy theorist views. 'That seems to have been specifically written into the terms of reference that they get maximum airtime.' Objections of Ardern and the other ministers, published in a minute of the inquiry, included the convention that ministers and former ministers are interviewed by inquiries in private, and departing from that convention would undermine confidence. They were also concerned that the livestreaming and publication of recordings of the hearing creates a risk of those recordings being 'tampered with, manipulated or otherwise misused', a risk the inquiry 'ought to have foreseen and planned for'. Other witnesses raised concerns that providing evidence at public hearings might bring risks of abuse being directed at them and their families. Hipkins is standing firm on the witnesses' decision. 'We have shown up to the inquiry, I have shown up to the inquiry. I have been interviewed by them twice,' he told reporters yesterday. 'I have provided written evidence to the inquiry, I answered every question they had and I attended the interview they scheduled for me. 'They asked for two hours, but they ran out of questions after an hour.' Hipkins said he did not co-ordinate his approach with Ardern and would not speak on behalf of her. 'She is still a very close friend of mine. We have people representing us in common, but any suggestion we colluded with this is wrong.' 'Deserve the basic respect of accountability' National MP Chris Bishop accused Hipkins of running from his record. 'Fresh from fobbing off Treasury's report into Labour's spending, [he] is avoiding accountability by refusing to front up to the Royal Commission,' he said. 'By first dismissing Treasury's report and now refusing to front, Chris Hipkins is telling New Zealanders he does not care about the effects his decisions have had on Kiwis.' Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour said Ardern, Verrall and Hipkins' refusal to publicly appear before the commission was a change from 'invading our living rooms daily'. 'Hipkins and co loved the limelight at 1pm every day. They wielded extraordinary powers over citizens' lives, dismissing those who questioned them as uncaring. Now they're refusing to even show up, what a contrast,' he said. 'Tens of thousands of New Zealanders have already engaged with the inquiry, sharing experiences of how their lives were upended. 'They deserve the basic respect of accountability,' Seymour said.
