The Green Party’s Incompetence and Inconsistency is Deafening
The Greens need to rethink who they are and what they do given the political mandate they have, especially in Wellington Central.
I don't think it's controversial to say that climate change isn't the priority for the Greens, Chlöe Swarbrick, or Tamatha Paul; who actually don’t seem to be on the same page about much recently.
Since James Shaw and Marama Davidson stepped aside, Chlöe’s lack of political leadership has been hard to ignore. And honestly, that’d be easier to overlook if it wasn’t paired with this air of political arrogance and self-righteousness that seems to define her and them.
The combination of poor political consistency and arrogance is palpable, especially when they don’t show much competency to back it up either. Wellington Central has this huge Green political mandate, but instead of stepping up, they’re just talking a big talk without delivering. At some point, it would be nice to see if they can actually walk the walk.
So what is Tamatha Paul doing?
Recently, she admitted in an article for The Post that she didn’t have the tools she thought she would as an MP—which isn’t good enough. Tamatha campaigned on her local government experience and commitment to tackling housing, welfare, and climate change. She won, big. So, her thinking she had more tools available isn't good enough, to be honest.
Instead, I see her out doorknocking and asking people to sign petitions—strategies that feel outdated and unhelpful at this stage in the political cycle. She has the political mandate and influence to make a change inside Parliament, where it matters and where only she can, and what she got elected to do.
Doorknocking and petitions can be left to her team or the wider Greens network. What only Tamatha can do is influence inside the House. Watching her focus on these lower-impact activities instead of leveraging her position is frustrating, as somebody who saw her campaign very closely and was genuinely rooting for her. I wanted her to kill it!
Her role isn’t to lament what she doesn’t have; it’s to figure it out and fight for the ideas she campaigned on inside the building where the decisions are made. And yet, where is that fight?
Over the past few months, I haven’t seen Tamatha or Chlöe Swarbrick take a strong stand on climate or environmental issues. If I’ve missed something, I’d love to be proven wrong. But as it stands, it feels like the Greens are dropping the ball on the very issues that define them. Whether it be Ricardo at a debate about poverty, Tamatha as MP for Wellington Central, or Chlöe as Party leader, they have all let us down.
The Greens’ Core Identity is the Environment
The thing with the Greens is that their name, their history, and their legacy are all rooted in one thing: the environment. That’s their core identity—it’s what they were created to champion. But over the years, they’ve expanded their focus to this broader idea of “people and planet.” And sure, in theory, that sounds great—you could argue that people and the planet are connected. But here is the issue: how does a party stay true to its original mission while also trying to fix, well, everything else? The short answer? It can’t. Not effectively, anyway.
And to be clear, I’m not saying this because I have an axe to grind with them. I’m writing this because Wellington Central is a Green stronghold. This is a city where people deeply care about progressive politics. That’s why we have a Green MP in Tamatha Paul and a Green Mayor in Tory Whanau. This electorate believes in the Greens and what they stand for.
I’m also not here to question the Greens’ goodwill or the moral intentions behind their broader focus. Most people can see that their heart is in the right place.
But Politics is not about intention; Politics is about ideas, how you define and fight for those ideas, and whether you are a credible spokesperson for those ideas. Politics is about making sure you can influence and implement those ideas, and the Greens are not doing Politics. They are doing advocacy at best and running around like headless chickens at worst. They have lost their way.
The problem with this isn’t just about the Greens letting everyone who voted for them down; it’s bigger than that. When a party with such a strong mandate doesn’t deliver, it opens the door for something else to take its place. And if you look at what’s happened in other countries, like the USA, you’ll see how quickly that kind of political shift can spiral. Aotearoa isn’t immune to that. If the Greens don’t get their act together, the vacuum they leave will be filled by something much less progressive—and that’s not a future I think any of us want.
Another example of poor performance by a Green candidate
The political “debate” at the Pakukore: Poverty, by Design conference
After the hikoi last week, I attended the Pakukore: Poverty, by Design conference at Victoria University on the 22nd and 23rd of November. It ended with a so-called political “debate,” but it was anything but. It was a painful example of an echo chamber at best and a bit of a shitshow at worst.
The panel included Ginny Andersen from Labour, Ricardo Menéndez March from the Greens, and Kassie Hartendorp from ActionStation. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Carmel Sepuloni were scheduled but didn’t show up. Nic Smith, the Vice Chancellor of Victoria University, chaired the session. To give an example of why it was such a mess, Ricardo Menéndez March’s answer to my question was just weird. My question was:
The Left often talks about the importance of inclusion, tolerance, and building bridges. I believe this should include tolerance and inclusion for people on the Right, and those who disagree with you—not just for those who share the same views. Do you have any perspectives on whether it matters to build bridges with people on the Right?
The gist of Ricardo’s response was:
“We’re talking about power and systems and the fact that we have a system allowing very few people to accumulate a stupid amount of wealth. Breaking that apart involves engaging with people who may have different views. For example, as the immigration spokesperson for the Greens, I’ve helped a Brazilian family who was being deported to uphold their human rights. We need to build power on the ground and have those conversations. But as a left-wing movement, we also can’t ignore that social cohesion is undermined by poverty and inequality. Ending poverty must be central to social cohesion because our current system dispossesses and disenfranchises people. We need to engage with working-class people who may hold problematic views and do the hard work of changing minds and hearts.”
Hu? That doesn’t answer the question. What is he even trying to say?
So when asked how they’d build bridges with people who don’t already agree with them, the answer is just a roundabout lecture about social cohesion and wealth inequality.
5 out of 51 policies were about the environment
During last year's campaign, the Greens had 51 policies listed on their website. Out of those, only five were directly focused on the environment—that’s it—just five. For a party whose name and entire legacy are built on environmental advocacy, this was shocking.
Over the past year, the Greens have continued to make headlines, but not for their fight about the environment. Instead, it’s been internal disputes, social justice campaigns, and Palestine. If they cannot influence our current coalition government, how do they think they can influence Israel to stop the war on Palestine? It isn’t by all of them wearing a weird tokenistic pro-Palestine uniform; I can tell you that right now.
And look, these topics are important—but they’re not what most people think of when they think about the Green Party’s core mission or any relevant issue related to Wellington Central. You could argue that all of these issues are interconnected with the environment—that they reflect a more expansive definition of environmentalism, but that logic is flawed and wrong. The Greens’ name, history, and mission are built on climate and environmental advocacy. When they stray as far from it as they have, it creates confusion about what they actually stand for and a vacuum for populist narratives to thrive in.
And that confusion doesn’t just exist in the abstract. It has real political consequences.
Around the world, we’ve seen how political inconsistency on the Left has created space for dangerous, hyper-focused alt-Right movements to rise. Political thinkers like Francis Fukuyama and Yascha Mounk have been sounding the alarm on these shifts for years, but their warnings often go ignored—and I think we do so at our peril.
New Zealand isn’t immune to this kind of political shift. If parties like the Greens continue to operate without a clear, consistent focus, they risk creating a political vacuum—one that more extreme and divisive ideologies could easily fill. When political discourse becomes fragmented and polarized, it doesn’t just create opposition; it destabilizes how we think, vote and govern.
And a reminder, like I have said many times: this isn’t about Left versus Right. The Right isn’t inherently evil, just as the Left isn’t inherently good. Both sides have essential roles to play in a healthy, stable society. The Left pushes for change and progress; the Right provides stability and pace.
This isn’t just a critique for the sake of it—it’s a call to action. The Greens need to take a hard look at themselves, realign with their core mission, and remember why they exist in the first place.
The stakes are too high for this kind of political inconsistency and incompetence. Climate change isn’t waiting for us to get our act together. The Greens and all of us need to decide what truly matters and act accordingly.
Great analysis. The Greens in recent years seem to have identified that their core voter base is the self-righteous, well-connected and affluent who identify with 'Left' but are largely comfortable with the status quo and are reluctant to share their considerable wealth and status. Palestine makes for great theatre, works for moral posturing and provides excellent sound bites and photo ops. But is largely a distraction. The Greens have become nervous to go anywhere near addressing the core problems we face with the environment and the economy. Not only are these complex questions that require a fundamental realignment in how we create a future for our grandchildren but they require pragmatic policies based on well-formulated evidence and they will cost a lot of money. There are no financial shortcuts here. What is required is more than virtue-signaling and self-righteous posturing - but it seems that for the current crop of Green MPs this is about all they have to offer.
Exactly right. It is truly heartbreaking, and as you say has many serious political ramifications. You maybe sympathetic to the Party trying to raise significant issues but you will be seen as a traitor., not a political traitor but a MORAL traitor. The drift to being a cult rather than a rational Political Party has happen from the time the Greens entered the Parliament. I could give you the history of where this all went horribly wrong but here are two issues which remain current. 1. Choosing MPs on the basis of moral posturing and labels rather than political experience, established expertise and public profile. 2. Passive Aggressive behaviour is seen as 'moral' and acceptable. it is the 'Green Style'. It make the Greens a nightmare to deal with in a straightforward way. They are and have always been this way. Every statement is seen as a personal testimony of 'correctness'. It means they are extremely internally focused. Inside the Green Party it is in reality very competitive. BUT no one is allowed to compete and competence is NOT rewarded . So, for example, to perform well publicly or have a significant profile is simply an invitation to passive aggressive counter-labelling. I remember well trying to tell the Party what was happening and who was pulling their strings in the parliamentary environment and most especially within the Parties they needed to deal with and the result was that I was seen as a 'nasty' un-Green person and so were others raising very important survival issues. The result is utterly sad....for all of us who need a functioning Green Party.
The Green Party needs to tell it's own history accurately but instead writes unrealistic hagiographies so that it can't scrutinise itself in any kind of realistic way. it just evokes memories of Sainthood rather than self- understanding.