Editorial: Greens need injection of new ideas

Who will it be? From left James Shaw, Vernon Tava, Gareth Hughes and Kevin Hague. Photo / Fiona Goodall

Opinion

Party can choose Kevin Hague’s status quo views or pick James Shaw and his change of focus.

The Green Party will provide a pointer to the extent of its political ambition today when it chooses a co-leader to replace Russel Norman. The two main contenders are Kevin Hague and James Shaw. Both have obvious strengths and the contest has been a tight one. Mr Hague, a third-term MP, appears the candidate favoured by those wanting a steady-as-she-goes approach. The selection of Mr Shaw, a first-term MP, would signal a belief that this is no longer deemed sufficient.

There is some reason for the latter view. For all Dr Norman's high profile and articulateness, the Greens have attracted only about 10 per cent of the vote in the past two elections. The last one, in which they confidently predicted a 15 per cent following, was particularly disappointing. The expectation was that with the Labour Party in trouble, the Greens' stocks would rise. It did not happen. Labour suffered its lowest share of the vote in 92 years, but support for the Greens stalled.

In Dr Norman's time, the party did cement its place as the country's third party thanks to a loyal base of voters. But its achievements in the 18 years that it has been in Parliament have been limited. Some policies, such as home insulation and cycleways, have been advanced with governments led by both the National and Labour Parties. But it has never had a ministerial seat and has never been able to put its policies directly into action.

That, to a large degree, is a consequence of an array of extreme policies, especially in the social arena, far removed from the party's original concentration on environmental issues. Positioned to the left of Labour, it is compatible only with a Labour Administration. Yet mainstream parties seeking coalition partners routinely seek out those with centrist approaches in preference to being held hostage by radical policies, as Helen Clark did with United Future and New Zealand First.

The Greens must decide whether they are content with the severe limitations of their present approach. Or if, say, a return to their environmental roots would enable them to exercise more influence through working with partners at either end of the political spectrum. That approach would strike a ready chord with the many New Zealanders who share the Greens' concerns over the likes of polluted waterways and carbon emissions.

Belatedly, Dr Norman made comments which some interpreted as hinting that coalition negotiations with National were not totally out of the question. Both Mr Hague and Mr Shaw have ruled that out. This may have been the wise course during a leadership campaign, especially for Mr Shaw, a former management consultant who has been criticised for being a National MP in disguise. But the reality is that the party needs to decide whether it wants to stick to a political setting that has produced little practical reward.

The choice of co-leader will demonstrate what it is thinking. Mr Hague wants to continue along the present lines. He has worked well with National MPs over the likes of same-sex marriage, and sees no need for drastic change. Mr Shaw, in addition to enhancing the party's economic credibility, is more likely to switch direction. Logically, that would see the Greens emphasising environmental issues and positioning themselves more to the centre. Then, they could be a logical port of call for any government.