The Greens’ current co-leadership wrangle reminds me of former Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam’s famous comment “Only the impotent are pure.” 

Whitlam was talking to an angry State Labor Party conference in Victoria in 1967, shortly after taking over as party leader, and pledging to overhaul the arcane policies and practices that had kept Labor out of office through eight elections since 1949. His essential point was that political change could only come through winning elections, but that there were compromises that needed to be made to achieve that. 

The dispute within the Greens that has ousted – temporarily at least – James Shaw as the party’s co-leader is less about his performance and commitment than his pragmatism. It is a classic example of the conflict Whitlam was referring to. As Climate Change Minister, Shaw has responsibility for not only the most important long-term issue facing New Zealand, but also the one dearest to the Greens’ hearts. 

He knows that to make sustainable progress he must do much more than keep the Green Party’s activists on-side. Far more importantly, he needs to win over not only the major party of government, Labour, but also enough of the National Party to ensure the policy momentum is maintained when a change of government occurs. He also knows that he needs at least tacit, if not more active, support from the business community, and major greenhouse gas producers like industry and agriculturalists. 

To that end, he has skilfully steered New Zealand to a position where, following the passage of the Climate Change Act in 2020 and the establishment of the Climate Change Commission, the future direction of New Zealand’s climate change response has been broadly settled. Although there will be inevitable modifications under future governments and as international circumstances change, the approach established by Shaw will remain, at least for the foreseeable future. 

Of course, that has involved compromises and may not be as “pure” as Shaw may have wished, but the building blocks for the future are now in place. Over time, as the policy mechanisms begin to bite, there will be sacrifices, some harsher than others, required of just about every sector of New Zealand’s economy and society. There will be tough political and commercial decisions to be confronted, but they are the necessary price of a credible and sustainable approach to our climate change response. 

The immediate political challenge now facing Shaw and future Climate Change Ministers, of whatever political hue, is building, then maintaining, popular support for not just the overarching response to climate change, but also the specific measures that will be proposed from time to time. That is likely to be a constant challenge for governments from here on, which will require political deftness and sensitivity New Zealand governments have not been all that good at demonstrating. Shrewd compromise without losing sight of the endpoint will very much become the future name of the game. 

All of this is anathema to the Greens’ hardcore activists, for whom such pragmatism is weak and unprincipled. They would far rather a Greens’ Climate Change Minister prepared to take on the “vested interests” in government and business head-on, demanding more radical confrontation, and imposing solutions by legislative and regulatory diktat if necessary, with little consideration for their consequences, other than their environmental benefits. For them, extremism in defence of the environment is no vice, to paraphrase the infamous statement that cost Barry Goldwater the 1964 United States’ Presidential election.[1] 

The activists’ commitment to the “purity” of policy is laudable, but as Whitlam warned, without political power it is ultimately unachievable. Shaw clearly understands, even if the more radical section of his party chooses not to, that politics is fundamentally the art of the achievable, which is not always the same as the desirable. As a politician with a focus on doing things, Shaw correctly sees each step as progress towards a goal, and knows the importance of taking people with him, unlike his activists who cannot see why their full, perfect, and pure solution cannot be imposed – immediately. 

All this goes to the heart of what the Green Party’s role should be. Having finally achieved office after years in the political wilderness, the party is struggling to decide whether it has been worth it. Shaw’s critics accuse him of wasted opportunity, while his supporters say his conciliatory tone has brought about steady achievement, making the compromises of being in government worthwhile. 

If the outcome of the current co-leadership process is a more radical, sharply defined and activist-led Green Party, it will make working with Labour as a support partner in this Parliament, and potentially beyond, more difficult. That could cost the Greens the middle ground support they have assiduously built up in recent years, leaving the party “pure” but “impotent” in Whitlam’s terms, but relegated to permanent Opposition. 

Unlike his activists, Shaw understands that forever feverishly worrying and talking endlessly about issues will always run a distant second to accepting the harder challenges of getting directly involved and making the necessary sacrifices to do something about them.   

 

---

[1] In accepting nomination as its Presidential candidate, Goldwater told the Republican National Convention in 1964 “extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice” and “moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue”, hard-line comments widely held to have been influential in contributing to his landslide defeat by President Lyndon Johnson.

 

One of the more frequently quoted statements of the Irish statesman and philosopher, Edmund Burke, was his observation that “Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement, and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.” 

Within the Westminster Parliamentary system over the last two hundred years, Burke’s comment has been constantly held up to justify Members of Parliament, whatever their party disposition, having the ultimate right to exercise their consciences above all else, should they wish to, on matters of absolute importance to them. In New Zealand, matters relating to alcohol and gaming, life and death, and sexual morality have customarily been held to be the issues on which Members of Parliament vote according to their own conscience, rather than the policies of the parties they represent. 

Over the years, the exercise of Burke’s principle has taken a variety of forms whenever there have been conscience votes in the New Zealand Parliament. Some MPs have followed Burke’s line absolutely and voted exactly as they personally have felt and been prepared to confront any electoral consequences later; while others have taken the view that the conscience vote they exercise should not be the selfish privilege of their own conscience, but rather the view of the electorate they represent, and so have either polled or canvassed widely local public opinion before they vote. Others have just followed the party line on the issue, regardless of their own or their constituents’ views. 

In recent years, there has been a slow but steady move to reduce, if not eliminate, the range of issues on which MPs have a conscience vote and rely instead on the requirement to uphold stated party policy on the issue in question. The rationale offered is that this gives the general electorate a greater sense of certainty and does not leave important and controversial issues up to the whims and vagaries of an individual, or groups of MPs, to decide according to their own reasons. 

So far, this trend has been more apparent on the left side of politics. The Greens eschewed the notion of a conscience vote a long time ago, arguing that because the Greens are largely a list-based party, all their MPs have been elected because of the Greens’ policies, and that the notion of an individual conscience is therefore irrelevant. There have been times of late when Labour has exercised what it has called a “collective” conscience where all its MPs just happen to vote the same way on a conscience question. 

Underlying all this is an assumption, again more strongly held on the left, that the privilege of Parliamentary decision-making is much too important to be left to the vested interests and prejudices of individual MPs, and best resides within the power of the collective. It is consistent with a wider ideological view it should be not the role of governments to promote the primacy and interests of the individual, but to uphold and support the value of collective action and shared responsibility. The quotation, famously but erroneously*, attributed to Voltaire that “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” has no place in the neo-Orwellian world of collective-speak these anti-liberals are keen to usher in. Their notion of majority rule means the remainder must simply fall in and unquestioningly comply. 

There are those who argue that the advent of MMP and its strong focus on political parties over traditional electorates has rendered redundant the idea of MPs promoting their individual views. List MPs are, after all, only in Parliament because of the ranking accorded them by the party they represent, so why should they not be expected to promote exclusively the views of the party whose label they wear? There is, according to this viewpoint, no other justification for their being in Parliament at all. 

But Parliament is not a collection of blank pages to be scrawled over as political parties see fit. Well over half the MPs elected are from specific electorates, chosen because they are seen by those constituents to be the best person to represent their area in Parliament. That carries the not unreasonable expectation that local electorate MPs will at least speak out on local issues, even if it annoys their party, and be unafraid to show leadership when conscience issues arise.   

Unfortunately, though, that noble expectation is currently being challenged on both sides of the political fence. It is becoming increasingly rare to see even electorate MPs – whose authority comes primarily from their electorate, not their party, willing to speak out when the interests of their electorates are being compromised. Instead of being the being the electorate’s representative, promoting the local case to Parliament, too often electorate MPs are joining their list colleagues and becoming just the cipher promoting and justifying the party’s position to the electorate. 

It is a world far away from what Burke envisaged, where MPs would exercise their judgement alongside their party principles to make decisions in the best interests of the country. And as politicians have become more mono-dimensional, focused on protecting the party line ahead of the public interest, tolerance for diversity has been diminishing. A stifling uniformity is descending across the parties – where to succeed all their MPs try to look and sound the same. A modern version of HMS Pinafore’s Sir Joseph Porter, “I always voted at my party’s call, and never thought of thinking for myself at all.” 

Political parties have a legitimate role in the mobilisation of opinion, and the organisation of its political expression. Democratic government cannot function without them. But to survive long-term parties need to become more flexible and tolerant of divergent views within their ranks. They also need to recognise the distinct human virtue of free will – or the right to be right and the right to be wrong, and that everyone is not the same. Suffocating or devaluing the value of free will in the interests of a wider collective, as today’s parties are doing is narrowing both individual uniqueness and social diversity. 

It is time to rekindle Burke’s message. Our parties must certainly become more inclusive, but not just in a statistical sense. They must also become genuinely more tolerant of divergence within their memberships. Above all, they need to understand once more and promote afresh the notion that the best way of all to represent the public interest is to encourage their representatives to listen to local communities and always speak fearlessly on their behalf. 

 

 

* The words reportedly come from an English author named Evelyn Beatrice Hall in 1906.      

 

 

Winter is usually a time of rising national grumpiness. Cold days and nights, peppered by adverse weather events generally account for much of that. But it is normally tempered by the prospect of spring and summer, and better days to come. 

However, this year winter’s grumpiness seems greater than usual. The combination of the sudden rise in Covid19 cases and deaths, the economy teetering on the edge of recession, the ongoing housing crisis, and the emerging health crisis the Minister of Health cannot yet bring himself to acknowledge, are all contributing factors. Add to that the rapidly rising cost-of-living, including the sharp increase in fuel prices, the Reserve Bank’s hiking of interest rates, and sensitive political issues like Three Waters, and the nett result is a level of public grumpiness not seen in many years. 

Making things worse is that grumpiness giving way to genuine fear about what lies ahead, as struggling households contemplate the mounting challenges of making ends meet. This anxiety is aggravated by uncertainties over jobs, and continuity of schooling for children. And increasingly, as random violence becomes more pronounced, a more visceral concern about public safety is starting to arise. 

In short, it is a perfect storm of discontent. Normally, the rage that follows could fairly be directed at the government, but it is not that simple this time. While the government will ultimately be held responsible, it is not completely to blame for the current situation. The ongoing spectre of Covid19 and its constantly emerging new variants is sapping the strength of many governments around the world, slowing down their economies, and placing unforeseen pressures on their public health systems. Then there is the war in Ukraine, and the flow-on effect it is having on world trade and commerce. Because of our geographic isolation New Zealand is arguably as severely affected as any nation by that. 

The problem for the government – the same for any government elsewhere in the world in similar circumstances – is determining what it can usefully do right now to stem the loss of public confidence that is taking place. Our government hopes that its “Reconnecting New Zealanders to the World” policy which has been to the fore in recent weeks will be an important element in restoring public confidence and optimism, but it is unlikely. 

Important as a free trade agreement with the European Union is, even the very average agreement New Zealand has just concluded, for our long-term trading future, the benefit is insufficiently immediate to overcome the current mood of pessimism. It is the same with the improvement in relations with Australia where the benefit is unlikely to be sufficiently widespread to be felt positively by most people.

It is undoubtedly extremely frustrating for any government when apparent successes on the international stage do not translate into popular support at home. But then, as former United States House of Representatives Speaker “Tip” O’Neil once famously said “All politics is local”, claiming for himself a phrase first used in American politics in the 1930s. 

Therefore, as well as its “Reconnecting New Zealanders to the World” policy, the government ought also to be focusing on a “Reconnecting with New Zealand” approach. And so should the National Party for that matter – just continuing to criticise the current situation without offering solutions is as aggravating to grumpy and weary voters as pretending that all our problems are either because of what is happening overseas, or the inactions of previous governments.   

The starting point for “Reconnecting with New Zealand” needs to be a relentless focus on the crises that matter – the cost-of-living; staffing in the health and education sectors; housing, and upholding personal safety, in the main. The time and tolerance for finger-pointing about what happened in the past is over – the emphasis needs to shift to practical policies to deal with the critical problems the country now faces. 

While they have different ways of addressing these issues, both side of politics need to move on from shallow points-scoring to debate about the options ahead. In many cases, that will mean ditching previously rigidly held positions in favour of pragmatic solutions that will work. For example, a far more flexible approach, including faster pathways to residency, is urgently needed to immigration settings to attract and retain the nurses and doctors our public health system needs to function effectively. A similar strategy needs to be in place to ensure we have enough teachers in our schools. 

Instead of continuing to shout past each other on law and order the political parties need to come together to first agree on what the core of the actual problem is, and then develop durable solutions. On the cost-of-living, the government needs to look beyond its belief in centralised regulation and more and more government-led committees of inquiry and instead embrace boosting competition and reducing barriers for both new and established businesses. 

The housing basket cases that are Kiwibuild and Kainga Ora – the latest revelations show it is financially overcommitted for the next sixty years – need to be abandoned completely. It is time for a new strategy, more actively involving the major building companies – some of whom are now offering fixed price contracts to try to curb unacceptable mounting building costs – and the trading banks and building supply companies in a national strategy to build more homes for New Zealand families at prices they can afford to pay. 

Everyone knows the next few months will be difficult, uncertain, and challenging. There are no instant or easy answers, but politicians focusing on real solutions and engaging the public on these matters could be a useful step forward to lifting the current pervasive national gloom. It would certainly be better than continuing the pretence that everything is under control, or that our problems are about to overwhelm us, as seem to be the two prevailing national messages at present. 

Beyond that, there is always the hope of a win against Ireland this Saturday to cling to.    

 

 

There was great excitement in Wellington recently when the government finally announced – after much procrastination and indecision – its intentions for the ever so over-optimistically titled “Let’s Get Wellington Moving” plan. The multi-billion government announcement proposed a light rail system from the central city south to Island Bay; a second tunnel through Mount Victoria for vehicle traffic to the airport and eastern suburbs, with the existing tunnel being converted for pedestrian and cycle usage; and undergrounding some of the roads around the Basin Reserve. 

The announcement received a generally positive reaction. According to the Mayor of Wellington the plan is “transformational for the city” and he hailed the government’s announcement as “a massive day for Wellington.” Other civic leaders made similarly positive comments, and after years of increasing bottlenecks in the centre of the capital city, there was a general feeling that the sense of malaise that has plagued transport planning locally might be at an end. 

However, amidst all the excitement and relief, a few harsh realities were overlooked – deliberately or otherwise. 

For a start, there is nothing new in the government’s announcement. It is virtually the same as that from the previous Transport Minister three years ago. (He was the same Minister who as Minister of Housing at the time was promising to build 100,000 affordable Kiwibuild homes over ten years, and we all know the abject policy failure that became!) So, regurgitating another of his grandiose schemes as the solution to Wellington’s transport woes hardly inspires confidence that it will be any more achievable than Kiwibuild. 

The current Transport Minister has no more credibility. He stood alongside the Prime Minister in 2017 when she was Leader of the Opposition and faithfully promised Aucklanders that a light rail system would be built from the central city to Auckland Airport in just three years. Today, almost five years later, not one centimetre of track has been laid. Instead, the current plan is for construction to begin in 2023 and be completed by 2030 at a cost of $14.5 billion, far more than twice the $6 billion estimated in 2018. Even those figures are uncertain – in March 2022 Treasury estimated the costs could rise to $29 billion. 

But the fate of the project still remains uncertain. One of the leading candidates for the Auckland Mayoralty this year is promising to scrap the light rail project if elected, and there does not appear to be any long-term commitment from the National Party to light rail in Auckland, should it lead the government after next year’s general election. 

Even if the Auckland example is ignored – a foolish risk to take – it would be naïve to think that “Let’s Get Wellington Moving” will move at anything like the even snail-like pace promised for it. According to the official announcement, light rail to Island Bay will be running by 2030, but the business case for the scheme is not due for completion until 2024, already casting real doubt on the feasibility of the 2030 date, given resource consents, and construction timeframes. It is currently projected to cost $7.4 billion, but, as with the Auckland case, Treasury is already warning that the costs are likely to be substantially higher. This week, even the government’s vaunted Infrastructure Commission dismissed the government’s plan as “fundamentally counter-productive.” 

And then there is the notoriously fickle nature of the Wellington City Council’s political complexion which seems set to continue whatever the outcome of this year’s local government election. The current leftist majority is likely to remain and has been making noises already that the latest plan does not go far enough and is still too focussed on motor vehicles, raising the spectre of a further stoush to come on the proposed second Mount Victoria tunnel. The present Mayor has been unable to impose his will on the Council in the current term, and the chances are things will not change if he is re-elected. His Labour-endorsed challenger is a journeyman politician, with an average earlier record as a city councillor and an even less inspiring record as a local Member of Parliament. If elected, he will simply do the Labour Party’s bidding so long as it is in office, and be ignored altogether should the National Party come to power. Either way, Wellington seems unlikely to be able to advocate a unified position, or have its concerns taken notice of by central government. 

None of this detracts from the reality that Wellington’s transport system is in need of an overhaul, both to make it more efficient and climate friendly. The enduring problem is, however, the unfortunate combination of a government that has shown itself to be spectacularly out of its depth when it comes to progressing major infrastructure projects in a timely manner, and local politicians who seem to be unable to agree on anything, means all the bold plans announced just over a week ago are unlikely to amount to much. 

Just as Kiwibuild has entered the national lexicon as a metaphor for pious dreams that cannot be achieved in reality, “Let’s Get Wellington Moving” still looks destined to be remembered more for what it fails to achieve, than what it will ever do.