John Armstrong: Wooing business a hard road

The vast gulf between the politics of the street and the politics of the boardroom was easily measured on Tuesday evening - about 20 storeys as the pigeon flies.

Scary Greens turned seductive Greens as they schmoozed New Zealand's corporate elite on the top floor of Bowen House, the Parliamentary high-rise across the road from the Beehive.

The Greens leadership were armed to charm with the finest Marlborough sauvignon blanc, salmon and poppy seed encrusted rice-balls, mushroom and olive canapes, and their mothballed weapon of last resort - the conservatively-tailored suit Rod Donald drags out of his wardrobe for such occasions.

The only thing missing was a string quartet warbling soothingly in the background.

It was all far removed from the single-issue causes and protest politics on which the Greens thrive. But then the party has come a long way in the last year.

The public relations exercise with business leaders was ostensibly designed to silence the growing chorus of doom greeting the prospect of the Greens being in Government.

It was smart tactics on Donald's part.

In offering business a one-off opportunity behind closed doors to complain face-to-face, the party's co-leader was effectively saying "put up then shut up."

But it was not only business which was forced out of the trenches. While that sector must adapt to the Greens wielding some influence over the next three years, the Greens must also adjust their collective thinking to the inevitable compromises and commercial realities that will be part and parcel of propping up a new minority Labour-led Government.

Though the Greens' policy remains fairly uncompromising, Tuesday's meeting was another example of the party shedding its image of inflexibility, a process which has been under way since last year's decision to go into the election with a cast-iron guarantee to back a Labour-led Government.

The Greens behaved impeccably during the election campaign, allowing Helen Clark to train her guns on National without distraction on her left flank.

That may have been the difference in Labour narrowly winning the most votes - and therefore first rights to form the new Government when the official election result is declared this morning.

Moreover, this time the Greens come to the post-election negotiating table devoid of non-negotiable bottom-lines, although they will insist on New Zealand's GE-free status being maintained.

That proviso is included in a 12-point list of policy "highlights" they want actioned over the next three years.

The list includes raising the minimum wage from $9.50 to $12 an hour. That irks business big-time.

Although the list is not definitive in terms of what the Greens want from Labour as the price for their support, it contains little else upsetting to business.

But business is still worried. The 12-point plan is a clever means of allaying fears. However, the things the plan does not mention matter as much as the things it does.

For example, the Greens' push for "properly funded" public transport networks and upgrading of the rail freight network neglects to say this requires siphoning off cash destined for new roads.

Business probably could not care less about the Greens' stance on decriminalising marijuana, the release of Ahmed Zaoui, Sue Kedgley's "safe food" campaigns or the length of Nandor Tanczos' dreadlocks.

Business is much vexed by the Greens' opposition to more motorways, the building of new power stations, free-trade agreements and the party's wish to protect local industry from cheap foreign imports.

However, the fright exhibited by some in the sector is the fright of someone thrilling to the ride on the Ghost Train at the fun fair. Reality is more mundane.

While business has reason to be extremely wary, the Greens' leverage will be limited by their having only six or seven MPs against Labour's 50. As a comparison, the Alliance, the previous bogeyman, had 10 seats to Labour's 49 when the pair were in coalition between 1999 to 2002.

The sun continued to rise each day - as it will on the pending free-trade agreement with China.

The Greens will yield to Labour and - presuming there are Green ministers either inside or outside the Cabinet - invoke the "agree to disagree"clause in the Cabinet manual which frees minor parties from being straitjacketed by the dictum that ministers always support a Cabinet decision.

The Greens also accept Labour will not restore tariffs to protect local industry. They will instead have to be satisfied with a "Buy New Zealand-made" campaign - another item in their 12-point plan.

One thing which will bother Labour is the capacity for the Greens to operate in tandem with NZ First's "economic nationalism" agenda. Both parties, for example, wish to tighten rules on foreigners buying New Zealand land.

The need for Labour to make trade-offs to minor parties and the potential "greening" of legislation adds to the corporate sector's secondary concerns that the more reddish tinges of Green policy will result in more Government spending and more regulation - and thus more compliance costs.

But what really disturbs business is the Greens are knocking on the Beehive's doors as it becomes ever more urgent to address the "infrastructure deficit", particularly in roading and electricity generation.

Business will look askance at Jeanette Fitzsimons' opposition to the recommissioning of Whangarei's Marsden B plant as a coal-fired generator, just as it blanches at the Greens' transport strategy for Auckland.

The message to Clark is clear: keep the Greens out of these portfolios, even though transport and energy are where the Greens will surely wish to hold some sway.

Tuesday's meeting served a purpose in "de-mystifying" the Greens. But those attending were also looking for a more measured tone of language from the party's leadership and more concessions to the fact that Rome was not built in a day.

The irony is the Greens have been striving for months to convey an impression of reasonableness. The brutal truth is that whatever they say will never be enough.

Tuesday's meeting was supposed to start a dialogue. However, the Greens and business can talk to each other until the organically-reared cows come home. In the end, they have too many diverging priorities to find common ground for long.