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.
I couldn’t agree more, especially how you described their approach to about Palestine - making for great theatre, moral posturing and sound bites, so so true! Your whole comment, so well articulated and clear, very helpful and insightful. Thanks for reading and commenting.
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.
Oh god, so true about not only being a traitor but a MORAL traitor, that is exactly the self-righteousness I have an allergic reaction too. Competence is obviously not rewarded, becase I can’t see it for as far as I can see. So well said, all of it. Thanks for reading and sharing, it’s weird how no main stream media will go near them.
The UofA green group. But I was an engineering student so it was a bad fit. I wanted to focus on identifying the issues and exploring solutions for New Zealand. They wanted to wail and gnash their teeth.
The Greens have not been an environmental party since Jeanette Fitzsimmons. They are a hard-Left Marxist party.
You said about Tamatha Paul: "she didn’t have the tools she thought she would as an MP". The unsaid conclusion from that statement is that she thought she would have unconstrained power. Show me anywhere where Marxism and unconstrained power have worked.
I agree that the Greens need to refocus on environmental issues. However even if they did, I don't believe they'll focus on the environmental ussies that matter in New Zealand.
Our biggest environmental problem isn't emissions. If totsl global emissions were a 2l bottle of milk, our contribution is one half of one drop. That contribution could be pure bleach and no one would notice. Our biggest environmental problem is water. Specifically water quality. Focus on that.
At the moment, all the Greens do is cost us money for zero, absolutely zero, benefit.
They really don’t add any value what so ever, which would be fine if so many people wouldn’t have voted for them in Wellington Central and Rongotai. It’s so irresponsable.
as opposed to TOP, which is so absolutely useless that nobody voted for you. Meanwhile the greens are only growing in popularity because despite your illiterate claims, they actually do have consistent, comprehensive policies, while TOP sits around going "What if we worked with fascists? because compromise"
I’m a little sick of The Greens are only an environment party. It’s a deliberately narrow attack to discredit them.
People ARE environmental. We are living creatures, not apart. You should think about this and try and understand it.
Social justice is a major issue in New Zealand. In fact you can define us as an unfair country with a designed and deliberate policy of creating a larger gap between rich and poor. Our sustainable future is under threat from the greedy rich.
While sustainable communities need to be fairer, if I was in politics in ANY party except the Nazi front Government I would be looking at how we are treating our people and our land.
Your part of continued attacks on the Greens, but not the fascists in Govt, is a deliberate siding against social justice, the environment and the future.
Thank you for your comment. I understand that you don’t agree with what I’ve said—that’s okay. I don’t entirely agree with what you’ve said either, but I’m open to discussing it. So, how do you think we can hold the Greens accountable?
If you’ve read some of my other articles, you’ll know I don’t fully agree with any party. There are things most parties are doing that I support, and there are things they’re doing that I think are unhelpful. I’m not party-driven but policy- and context-driven, which means I aim to assess actions across the spectrum—what works and what doesn’t.
Do you think the Greens are doing a good job in opposition? Are Tamatha and Julie Anne meeting the expectations of their roles as MPs? Do you feel there is strong leadership within the party right now?
My intent wasn’t to attack their principles but to challenge their actions (or perceived inactions) in light of their significant political mandate. To me, holding all parties accountable—whether in government or opposition, whether Left or Right—is essential for achieving meaningful progress on the issues that matter most. A robust and mature MMP government depends on this accountability.
My critique isn’t about discrediting the Greens as “only an environment party.” It’s about urging them to rise to the occasion and deliver on their promises, given the trust voters have placed in them. Accountability is not opposition; it’s a call to be better. We need every party, including the Greens, to perform at their best to address the interconnected crises of inequality, environmental degradation, and social cohesion.
I completely agree with your point that sustainable communities must be fairer and that we cannot separate how we treat our land from how we treat our people. These interconnected issues are why I believe we must all—voters, commentators, and politicians—expect more from every political actor, regardless of ideology.
I get you aren’t the only person generating content and making this point about the Greens. So I don’t want to be just a grumpy guy. (Although politics just now is awful for so many reasons.)
Can I just say I suspect we might agree that the current political Green Party is a mess. I was in the Alliance so knew the Greens about that time. Rod Donald was a friend. They seem to have a significant problem in their caucus.I wonder if they change leaders too often. I want to return to this…
So I think you’re right, many people think what you’re saying. The issue is if the greens can’t explain who they are and what being Green is, then that is a problem. I think it has become a Nat Act talking point, which is what I’m reacting too. So not you per se.
You make a good observation.
As an ex student politician (a long time ago) I know that once elected you can spend time sticking posters in libraries or meeting the decision makers, organising events and writing the things you need. You’re not wrong, but remembering there is a balance, you still need to do these things.
I think what you’ve found the caucus is not working effectively and hasn’t got a shared purpose. And as a de facto you have reasonably said, well ‘environment’.
I see a leaderless divided caucus trying to do the right things but not working together. The fundamental question becomes ‘why are you here’. They haven’t worked that out, I might say they can’t agree. For ex Greens the question is perpetual. Without an effective leader(ship) team that are clear on their role and priorities it goes nowhere.
Some years ago I applied to be the Greens Media Director. At the interview with JamesS and Andrew c I said that the Greens needed to carve out their own identity aside from Labour as Labour would do them no favours. I didn’t know they’d done a deal with labour that week (I’d left politics att). So that may be why I wasn’t hired, but the goal had to be to clearly define the landscape, their role, and what they could provide in politics.
It seems to me the Greens need a charismatic organiser. The issue Chloe faces is they will agree kicking and screaming. She has to get momentum and they would have to get in behind.
Oh your questions… Tamatha and Julie Anne, Julie Anne only cares about public transport. But she does know shh knows a lot about it. Yes there is an issue. I have no idea just now what the Greens are up to. Or Labour. It seems to me on the Eve of a horrendous year for housing and homelessness, Treaty assaults, unemployment …. There is a lot to raise, it may be they are and can’t get passed the Government PR. Ok and their promises are harder to deliver in Opposition, but yes point taken.
Look I know how hard it is to summarise issues and write articles. Your article is good. To me the question is ‘how do the Greens describe what they’re doing?’ Can they? In terms that make sense.
Sam, if the Greens can’t explain who they are and what being Green is, why is that a problem? They've been operating like that for a few years and achieved something most parties find impossible - expanding not just their support, but their base support, leading to their most successful election ever.
I've never worked for the Greens & I don't doubt they would have internal issues... but all parties have some level of internal knife-fighting lol.
There is nothing that prevents the Greens from refining a message closer to the election, even a multi-pronged one that addresses a wider base. That's not a difficult thing and when people make it out to be they often have an ulterior motive.
This idea that the Greens are somehow disadvantaged by not being "environmental purists" is just silly. Its easy to look at what has been a bad year for the Greens in terms of personnel and then forget about the reality of how they are still looking electorally... the data matters.
Depends on whether they want votes. If a significant number of people are saying they can’t vote green as they don’t understand the Green Party, it’s not working. The frequency with which people parrot reasons which are about ‘green identity’ ‘flakey MPs who look funny etc…’ the less likely they are to reach polling of 20% plus.
It's weird that the polls show support for the Greens are growing then. Because that seems to show that the problem is you, since everybody else knows what the greens stand for while you have your thumb up your ass.
That's an opinion that is missing a lot of variables. It doesn't take into account the number of voters who do understand the party, who prefer the Greens to include identity politics or who do identify with their appearance... Just like the negative impacts of those issues they can't be measured to a high degree of accuracy but the Greens would have developed a clearer picture of how they compare to each other.
20% would be very much a long term play. If you go to a party strategist and tell them to ditch a winning formula in the hope of achieving an unrealistic goal they won't give you the time of day.
I was interviewed to be the Greens head of coms 5 years ago, I told James and Andrew that the Greens need to distinguish themselves from Labour as labour will do them no favours. I did also talk about branding as that’s what I used to do. I disagree with you. But that’s okay, there may be no right or wrong answer, I’m just giving my professional opinion.
What does the term "social justice" mean? Is it to do with Marxism? Is it the thinking that there is only so much to go around and we all should have an equal share? Is it a side-swipe at individual freedoms, including the right to live the life you want as an individual and to earn and keep the money you need to do so? I have real trouble with this.
In the nicest possible way, you are so wrong in many ways. Social justice is peoples rights. If you’re in the US you don’t have this, you have a freedom to take other peoples freedom, or money justice. (you have money you are a better person and can do whatever you want however it hurts anyone else). Social justice is not being discriminated against, or controlled economically and not being denied the rights to life (shelter, food water etc….. - Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs). It is as a human getting the best possible options to grow up and live.
Without social justice, the law, custom, culture, etc.. you have untrammelled exploitation by those who have been given wealth based on family or some other way.
I think we have a wider problem than just the Greens. As a community we need our party in government to come under effective scrutiny and challenge from the loyal opposition. This is not happening and it is not just the Greens who are not focusing on their raison d’être.
I appreciate that Labour has to go through a period of soul searching and regrouping. But I want to see coalition policies hauled over the coals. (I voted for ACT.)
Am I to believe that all is well in Fast Track land, with a huge spend, at a breakneck pace, that is potentially open to project stumbles at best and outright rorts at worst? This is an on-steroids riff on Rob Muldoon’s Hail Mary, Think Big, and that could have done with more oversight.
The loyal opposition has a job to do, and we rely on them to do it.
I really loved this comment—it’s such a great point, and I wish more people thought like you. A strong, effective opposition is so important, and we’re really missing that right now. It’s not just about holding the government to account but making sure policies are as solid as they can be. Without that, things can easily spiral into poor decisions, wasted money, or, like you said, even outright rorts.
The Fast Track example is perfect. Ambition and speed have their place, but when there’s no clear accountability, it’s a recipe for disaster.
I also get that Labour needs to regroup, but also think that it’s been one year, surely they have found themselves? Or even just part of themselves? And their political soul searching has come at the expense of real scrutiny of the current coalition government.
Thanks for always sharing your thoughts—I really appreciate how much you care about these issues and always add something valuable to the convo. Nat
Thanks for those kind words. I thought this article was pure ‘Less Certain’. It is passionate, reasoned and articulate.
In particular I find your articles easy to engage with because you are not doctrinaire; you focus in on the issues in an educated, clear and non-vicious way.
Which does make it all the more surprising to me how you can possibly hold the beliefs that you do. (I’m teasing.) John
I hate to use the word ‘woke’ here when describing the green’s today but I really must insist. I will clarify what I mean by that too. It means elevating personal feelings about particular causes over any kind of objective reality. Not only is this bad politics but it makes any kind of discussion or criticism hard without accusations of ‘immorality’
Hey Tom, I hear you. “Woke” has become such a loaded word, hasn’t it? But I get what you’re saying about prioritizing subjective feelings over actionable policy. It’s frustrating when it feels like the space for discussion narrows because any critique gets labeled as an attack on values.
The Greens, in particular, need to balance standing firm on their principles while staying open to constructive dialogue. Without that, they risk losing support from people who genuinely want to see them succeed—like you, by the sound of it. Thanks for sharing your thoughts; this is exactly the kind of discussion I was hoping to spark!
Yes, and that's why you dipshits on the right will call literally anything you don't "woke", which renders it completely meaningless, and just shows that you're an unthinking dipshit.
True though I think the right get more than a little sloppy at times in using the word. It has a specific meaning and doesn’t just mean something a left wing person said that I don’t like’ which is how I see it used by people on the right at times
Your best article yet Nat! Yes, I voted for the Greens back when Jeanette and Rod were in charge…I could never understand why the Green Party didn’t have a mandate to be agnostic to left/right and have a vision to form a government with either side (and Green Party member is always Climate Minister). Now they have become a woke party. Left of left. They care about fringe issues that they, their friends and MSM believe are important. (You left out organizing the terror raids on a pro women speaker (or as they described anti trans activist, Posie Parker). They should take note of what happened in the US. Huge swing to a pale, stale, male (and a misogynist to boot) who won by a landslide with a record number of females and Christians…… If the Greens don’t go back to being Green (not rainbow, or whatever flag or scarf is in vogue) then they may as well rebrand to being the Woke Party.
I strongly agree Marcus. What matters is to be effective, not holy. When they say politics is the art of the possible, they mean sometimes you have to hold your nose.
As you note, when the wind changes as it is presently doing (the Economist had an interesting article that made the point that we have probably passed ‘peak woke’), if you have nailed your colours to the mast of woke then your actual purpose gets compromised. A pointless and unnecessary own goal.
Hi John, I really like how you’ve framed this—“effective, not holy.” That sums up a lot of what I was trying to express. Politics is messy, and if you dig your heels in too far ideologically, you can end up undermining the very causes you care about.
I hadn’t seen that Economist article, but “peak woke” is an interesting concept. It does feel like we’re in a moment where public appetite is shifting, and parties tied too closely to certain narratives might struggle to adapt. The Greens have such an important mission—it would be a shame to see them sideline themselves. Thanks for chiming in!
Hey Marcus, thanks so much! I appreciate the kind words about the article—it means a lot. You’re raising some thought-provoking points here. I get the frustration with the Greens’ shift over time. The idea of being agnostic to Left/Right and focusing solely on environmentalism is appealing to a lot of voters who want to see more practical climate action, regardless of who’s in power. I agree 100%
As for your concerns about their focus on “fringe issues,” I think the challenge is that the Greens have to balance representing their base while staying politically effective. But yeah, if that balance tips too far, they risk alienating long-time supporters. It’ll be interesting to see how they navigate this in the next election cycle. Thanks for sharing your perspective—it’s a conversation worth having.
Thanks for your comment, William. Just to clarify—I did run for TOP last year as their Wellington Central candidate and briefly served as deputy leader, but I’m no longer affiliated with the party. That said, if you’ve got specific criticisms of what I’ve said here, I’d be happy to hear them. It’s always more productive to debate ideas than to toss around insults.
Thanks, Mobley. I’m glad my article made it onto the same level as your lunch. Let me know if there’s anything more you’d like to chew on from the piece!
Gosh I’m so sick and tired of all the reckons likes those expressed in this piece concerning the failure of left wing policies and commitments, meanwhile the right are afforded carte blanche to wreck the lives of tens of thousands of hard working kiwis redirect tax dollars away from the many and into the pockets of the few.
Thanks for your comment—I believe accountability needs to apply across the board. My intent with this piece wasn’t to downplay the harm caused by right-wing policies but to emphasize that no party—Left or Right—should be exempt from being held to their commitments or their potential to deliver better outcomes. They all play a role, whether in opposition or government, Left or Right.
In an MMP system, no single party has all the answers, and robust critique across the spectrum is vital if we’re going to see meaningful progress. When I critique the Greens, it’s not because I oppose their vision; it’s because I believe they’re capable of more. With the mandate they hold and the values they stand for, I want them to rise to the challenge of being a strong voice for change—whether in government or opposition.
If you’ve read some of my other pieces, you’ll know I don’t shy away from criticizing the Right either. But I don’t think critiquing one side means letting the other off the hook. I believe we need all parties—especially those claiming to represent social justice and equity—to be as effective as possible.
What are your thoughts on how to hold them accountable? How can we ensure all parties deliver for the people who need it most?
With respect, the media et al constantly criticise The Greens, Te Pati Māori and Labour (when it actually says or does anything meaningful) there is a deeply racist and misogynist element in all attacks, and frankly for you to agonise on a public forum about what they are not getting right is playing straight into the hands of this disgraceful narrative. The Green Party and Te Pati Māori are THE ONLY VOICES championing the poor, marginalised and dis possessed of our motu. If you really care for these things, stop being another knife wound that will kill all hope in a death by a thousand cuts.
I am from the right and I want to see effective policies enacted in parliament, and implemented,that will deliver to the less well off in New Zealand. Bottom line.
I don’t want crony capitalism. I don’t want waffle. I’m an engineer and I want to see things that work.
You and I might disagree on how to bring this about - I disagree with Natalia with how to bring this about - but I seriously applaud your objective.
When you mentioned media criticism, I’d be keen to see specific examples of where the media has attacked the Greens in the way you’re describing. It’s not something I’ve come across so far, but I’d love to see it and stand corrected.
I do hear your concerns about the impact of criticism, though. My intention isn’t to pile on but to reflect on where I think these parties could be more effective in delivering on their goals. I want them to succeed as much as you do.
Gosh you sound as though you’ve been schooled by Dr Bryce Edwards. Next you’ll be quoting HDA as a credible source of investigative journalism. If you’re requiring me to provide you with the disgraceful way the Greens and Te Pati Māori have been hounded by a right wing narrative I suggest you subscribe to The Democracy Project. But in the mean time stop wasting my time with your disingenuous questions. BTW if I come across as angry, it’s because I am! Angry that the political narrative of NZ has moved so far to the right that people such as yourself are totally oblivious to it.
Hi Natalia you can see the problem discussing issues with left wingers who are used to being in an echo chamber. It is a narrow minded narrative, and you can get attacked if you dare to disagree, with some passive-aggressive thrown in for good measure. I found myself asking the same questions as you about Mikes claims. I think that is exactly what your article is about.
Good point but the base of it is that the triumph of corporate interests is so complete and the the argument of progressive taxation so decisively lost that the institutions that might facilitate balance have been hollowed out.
Your govt are simply pawns of the American corporate empire.
Thanks, Phillida. I agree that corporate interests have political influence, and the erosion of institutions that could provide balance is an important issue. But I don’t think New Zealand’s government is a pawn of the American corporate empire—if anything, the U.S. barely notices us most of the time. The issues we face, like wealth inequality and cultural tensions, are more about our own political, historical and economic choices than some grand American agenda.
For the first time since the party existed they lost my vote at the election. For all the reasons you’ve outlined. Not one of them has the political integrity and personal authenticity of Jeanette Simmonds. They’ve lost their way.
Hi AMM, I’m sorry to hear the Greens lost your vote, but I understand why. Jeanette Simmonds left big shoes to fill—she had such a clear vision and authenticity that really resonated with so many. It’s tough when a party you’ve supported for so long feels like it’s moving away from what originally drew you to them.
I hope they’re paying attention to feedback like yours. Losing longtime supporters is a wake-up call if they want to remain relevant and effective. Thanks for sharing your experience—it’s a sentiment I’m hearing more often.
Jeannette had many strengths but it is unhelpful to make her into a saint. She had very serious limitations too.( everybody does but it is as well to recognise them)
The greens go in for polarised judgements of good /bad it’s a defensive position for or against
And leads to virtue signalling not solid believable policy.
She did bring an environmental focus and was very very well Informed in energy and related policy.
But she no experience in elective Office had never sat on a public body and had very limited circle of supporters both racially, culturally and economically.
She was very good at the nuts and bolts of policy but not at all good at communicating the need for policy change and was positively excluding when it came to making contacts and finding support for the people who would be necessary to really build a green coalition.
When she became leader she had had no recognition from any other groups and brought almost no popular support with her because she had no profile.
She also didn’t know the party nationally very well because she didn’t travel to meet them and she didn’t know and misread those in coalition with her.
Greens have never been able to establish the possibility of a coalition because they’re too busy lecturing everyone else.
Jeannette was delightful but she was quite naive about the people she was stealing with on the left and some of them were very nasty indeed.
You could compare her to Sandra Lee. Jeannette diminished and disrespected what Sandra Lee bought the table. Sandra had a lot longer political history she had been was chair of her local council when it provided significant services. That is she had run a hands-on Council very very successfully. She was elected and reelected to the Auckland council and served extremely well. She was a life member of Forest Bird for her conservation work and she had very broad cross cultural connections. she became an MP three years before Jeannette was elected so she also had a good deal of Parliamentary experience which Jeanette lacked.
Has she been able to respect Lee and build a relationship with her it would’ve been Real leadership for future Green issues and a bicultural Greene perspective.
unfortunately this was completely outside Jeannette’s range of experience. She just couldn’t talk to a solo mother who left school at 16 and was Marori .
Unfortunately Jeannette didn’t know how to reach out to anybody other than someone like herself, White and from the south Island but most of all those labels are less important than the lack of political experience and the narrowness of her own social experience this is very sad because it to all sorts of possibilities being lost.
I say this not as a personal thing but to say to the Greens don’t dwell on this alleged saint who’s been lost as an explanation. try and think in more constructive realistic terms about how you build political allegiance and alliance and what it takes and be a bit more realistic when choosing who and how to go about it.
Tell your own history more accurately not in terms of the saintly twins of Jeannette and Rod because Like every other inexperienced politican they had very serious limitations and fiercely denied them.
In the end they split the party and lead it into the wilderness where unfortunately it remains.
The key reason that the Greens have not been in government, where they need to be, is the way they left the alliance, how they did it not that they did it. Three times the Greens had publicly signed up and affirmed their membership of the alliance in public these were very very important commitments to make.
Just unilaterally walking out on those public commitments they had signed up to endured that they would never be trusted in government; no party was ever going to include them coalition government because they had just walked away when they felt like it.you can’t just break public commitments in that way and expect to be treated as reliable in a government. I thought they should leave but how was crucial.
Marginalised themselves into the position where they still are because they broke those agreements and had no credible reasons for doing so - sainthood isn’t enough
Passion can be the motivating force, but in anything you also need at least some amount of natural talent and a good deal of dirt-under-the-fingernails practical experience and competence to make a go at something.
Hi Phillida, love this! Thanks for sharing this context. this is the kind of history lesson that should be required reading for anyone trying to understand why the Greens are where they are. I think your critique of Jeannette’s leadership (and the Greens’ broader approach) hits a lot of uncomfortable truths for the Green base that are worth airing.
You’re absolutely right that turning Jeannette into some kind of eco-saint is unhelpful. She was brilliant on policy, especially on energy and climate, but politics isn’t just about being right, or knowing one single policy issue, it’s about the ideas and understanding how to implement and share those ideas. And I agree, her limited political experience and narrow social reach made building coalitions hard. Being a genius with single issue policy nuts and bolts doesn’t mean much if you can’t connect with people outside your immediate world.
The Sandra Lee comparison is fascinating, and, honestly, a bit brutal—but fair. Sandra brought bicultural, cross-cultural, and grassroots chops that the Greens desperately needed, and it’s a shame those bridges weren’t built. Imagine what could’ve happened if Jeannette and Sandra had worked together instead of talking past each other.
And yes, the Alliance exit. I agree with you—leaving might’ve been the right call, but how you leave matters. Walking out on public commitments without a clear, credible explanation lowers public trust pretty quickly.
Your larger point about the Greens’ tendency to lecture rather than connect is spot on, and i find annoying at best and political death at worst. There’s a fine line between being principled and being insufferable, and they’ve definitely veered into the latter. That’s not just a leadership issue—it’s baked into the culture of the party, and it’s a hard habit to break.
So, yeah, I hear you. The Greens need to do more than reflect on their policy successes—they need to reckon with their internal party culture and values. The myth of the saintly Jeannette and Rod has its place, but clinging to it won’t help the Greens build the kind of alliances they’ll need to actually make it into a real coalition. If they want to move out of the political wilderness, they’ll need to figure out how to work with people who don’t already agree with them.
Actually, the Greens haven’t been in a coalition government. It’s worth clarifying that while the Green Party held ministerial roles during the 2017–2020 term, they weren’t actually in a coalition government. Instead, they had a confidence and supply agreement with Labour.
A confidence and supply agreement is fundamentally different from a coalition agreement. It’s more of a supporting role, where the Greens agreed to back Labour on critical votes like budgets and confidence motions but didn’t share the full decision-making power of being in Cabinet, like they did with NZ First, who did actually have a coalition agreement. Confidence and Supply arrangement gave them less influence overall compared to a formal coalition, where parties work more collaboratively on all major policies and sit in Cabinet together.
While the Greens did achieve some notable wins (like progress on the Zero Carbon Bill), their influence was limited by the structure of the agreement. For example, they didn’t have the same ability to co-develop or veto policy as NZ First.
So while the Greens were definitely in government during that time, calling it a coalition might overstate the actual power they held.
My wife stood as a Green Party candidate many years ago, and I actively campaigned for them. We have been ‘gone’ now for the last four/five election cycles - and won’t come back. I cannot think of ANYTHING the Greens have achieved in parliament, despite their noise and sneering, entitled political arrogance. They deserve to fail.
Hi Ian, thanks for weighing in. Yeah, I don't blame you. As my article states, I'm not a fan either. The disconnection between rhetoric and tangible outcomes is annoying AF. What kind of baffles me is why they aren't held accountable. They are doing such a poor job at Opposition; it boggles my mind.
Thanks Natalia, I liked your article - despite the increase in pulse rate while absorbing hour message 🤓
I believe the Greens have many drone voters who just follow without actually thinking about or studying who the Greens now are and their anti-human stance on so many things.
Vote Green = feel smug & content that ‘I’ve done my bit for the planet’ then they can go about their blinkered lives sneering at anyone who disagrees with them.
I think there are some fair criticisms in here, and think the handling of their internal issues could have been improved, but I would like to push back on a few of the premises you've based the essay on.
From going through Chloe's press releases this year, I'd say about half of them are directly related to the environment, and she has been vocal about the fast-track bill on social media, with a recent shift towards the Hikoi/Treaty principles. Tamatha Paul has been less focused on the environment, but is that not to be expected when her role is spokesperson for corrections, courts, housing, justice (+ select committee), police, Wellington issues, and youth?
"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.”"
The Greens have been a 'people and planet' party from the start.
Few sources, first being Jeanette Fitzsimons brochure when she ran for values (since others have mentioned her in the comments);
"Although survival is central to Green political philosophy (without it nothing else matters) there are other reasons for preferring a Green future;
1. Social Harmony. Green politics is dedicated to removing the social barriers of wealth and power. (1.1,1.2)
2. Economic Stability. (p 22) To create growth it is necessary to create wealth and this -is both unsustainable and unfair. Our real wealth is the productive capacity of the land and Green economics leads to this. (3.1)
3. Resilience. As we develop into self-reliant communities (5.1) we will more easily withstand natural or other disasters.
4. Flexibility. Another advantage of decentralisation is in the variety of ideas that could be practiced for social and environmental reform.
5. Unemployment. (p 21) When profits are at stake, labour is the first to go.
6. Law and Order. ( p 21) The inequalities of our system give rise to discontent and antagonism.
7. Race Relations. (p 22) Green politics goes much further than the Treaty of Waitangi, and is not racist.
8. Peace. (p 22) It is pointless talking of peace without removing the causes of war.
9. Suitability. New Zealand is by far the most suitable country in which to create a Green society. We have an obligation to be the first.
10. Alternatives The alternatives to a Green society are truly frightful. Already armed force is protecting wealth and power in many countries, a fight for survival would be far more bitter."
And the third being the party charter, with the principles;
1. Ecological Wisdom
2. Social Responsibility
3. Appropriate Decision Making
4. Non-violence
I also think a statement like "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" needs to be justified a bit more.
To focus on the Palestine example, a. Non-violence is in the party charter, and there's definitely arguments to be made on the govt response to this conflict vs. others, and b. putting the horrific humanitarian concerns aside, the first 60 days of the war in Gaza are estimated to have generated more emissions than the annual emissions of 20 countries - 90% of that being a combo of US supply flights and Israeli aircraft emissions. The amount of sewage flowing into the sea has increased 10x with the destruction of infrastructure.
I think you are right about the critical value of the media director role. Yes it is important for the Greens to work out who they are. But then they need to communicate that.
We are a liberal democracy where sovereignty (currently anyway) sits with the voters. The opportunity for a party is to persuade non-believers of the merit and desirability of ideas they may not otherwise have given the time of day to. Hell, that they maybe are inclined to come out in hives over.
It’s not enough to have self belief; to be effective requires successful engagement with other New Zealanders at a political or group or community level.
As a passionate environmentalist, I’m Very frustrated with the greens who to be quite frank seem more interested in morally self righteous posturing than in actually getting things done.
Hi Tom, I totally get where you’re coming from. When passion for a cause starts to feel more like posturing than progress, it’s incredibly frustrating—especially for those of us who care deeply about the environment.
The Greens have such an important role to play, and I think a lot of people share your frustration. hopefully, the party can pivot back toward results-driven policies that make a tangible difference. Thanks for texting!
Yeah nah…if they continue to be irrelevant thats their choice. Politics no longer has the clarity, meaning and solutions it used to. I mean, look at the Nats? Small businesses must be pissed off. Greens…meh!
Fair points, Atawhai. Politics does feel like it’s lost its way. The Greens and Nats both seem to be frustrating their core supporters in different ways, and small businesses definitely have reason to feel left out. The challenge now is figuring out how any party can rise above the “meh” and actually deliver ideas that are meaningful and relevant.
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.
I couldn’t agree more, especially how you described their approach to about Palestine - making for great theatre, moral posturing and sound bites, so so true! Your whole comment, so well articulated and clear, very helpful and insightful. Thanks for reading and commenting.
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.
Oh god, so true about not only being a traitor but a MORAL traitor, that is exactly the self-righteousness I have an allergic reaction too. Competence is obviously not rewarded, becase I can’t see it for as far as I can see. So well said, all of it. Thanks for reading and sharing, it’s weird how no main stream media will go near them.
I left Ecology Action, the then University of Auckland group nearly 50 years ago because of this. Ineffectual Vanguard of Virtue.
The UofA green group. But I was an engineering student so it was a bad fit. I wanted to focus on identifying the issues and exploring solutions for New Zealand. They wanted to wail and gnash their teeth.
What is/was Ecology Action? And yes, ineffectual vanguard of virtue are perfect words.
The Greens have not been an environmental party since Jeanette Fitzsimmons. They are a hard-Left Marxist party.
You said about Tamatha Paul: "she didn’t have the tools she thought she would as an MP". The unsaid conclusion from that statement is that she thought she would have unconstrained power. Show me anywhere where Marxism and unconstrained power have worked.
I agree that the Greens need to refocus on environmental issues. However even if they did, I don't believe they'll focus on the environmental ussies that matter in New Zealand.
Our biggest environmental problem isn't emissions. If totsl global emissions were a 2l bottle of milk, our contribution is one half of one drop. That contribution could be pure bleach and no one would notice. Our biggest environmental problem is water. Specifically water quality. Focus on that.
At the moment, all the Greens do is cost us money for zero, absolutely zero, benefit.
They really don’t add any value what so ever, which would be fine if so many people wouldn’t have voted for them in Wellington Central and Rongotai. It’s so irresponsable.
as opposed to TOP, which is so absolutely useless that nobody voted for you. Meanwhile the greens are only growing in popularity because despite your illiterate claims, they actually do have consistent, comprehensive policies, while TOP sits around going "What if we worked with fascists? because compromise"
I’m a little sick of The Greens are only an environment party. It’s a deliberately narrow attack to discredit them.
People ARE environmental. We are living creatures, not apart. You should think about this and try and understand it.
Social justice is a major issue in New Zealand. In fact you can define us as an unfair country with a designed and deliberate policy of creating a larger gap between rich and poor. Our sustainable future is under threat from the greedy rich.
While sustainable communities need to be fairer, if I was in politics in ANY party except the Nazi front Government I would be looking at how we are treating our people and our land.
Your part of continued attacks on the Greens, but not the fascists in Govt, is a deliberate siding against social justice, the environment and the future.
Hi Sam,
Thank you for your comment. I understand that you don’t agree with what I’ve said—that’s okay. I don’t entirely agree with what you’ve said either, but I’m open to discussing it. So, how do you think we can hold the Greens accountable?
If you’ve read some of my other articles, you’ll know I don’t fully agree with any party. There are things most parties are doing that I support, and there are things they’re doing that I think are unhelpful. I’m not party-driven but policy- and context-driven, which means I aim to assess actions across the spectrum—what works and what doesn’t.
Do you think the Greens are doing a good job in opposition? Are Tamatha and Julie Anne meeting the expectations of their roles as MPs? Do you feel there is strong leadership within the party right now?
My intent wasn’t to attack their principles but to challenge their actions (or perceived inactions) in light of their significant political mandate. To me, holding all parties accountable—whether in government or opposition, whether Left or Right—is essential for achieving meaningful progress on the issues that matter most. A robust and mature MMP government depends on this accountability.
My critique isn’t about discrediting the Greens as “only an environment party.” It’s about urging them to rise to the occasion and deliver on their promises, given the trust voters have placed in them. Accountability is not opposition; it’s a call to be better. We need every party, including the Greens, to perform at their best to address the interconnected crises of inequality, environmental degradation, and social cohesion.
I completely agree with your point that sustainable communities must be fairer and that we cannot separate how we treat our land from how we treat our people. These interconnected issues are why I believe we must all—voters, commentators, and politicians—expect more from every political actor, regardless of ideology.
Nat
Hi Sam, Substck wasn't letting me reply here, so I responded to the above in a new comment thread.
Hi Nat
I get you aren’t the only person generating content and making this point about the Greens. So I don’t want to be just a grumpy guy. (Although politics just now is awful for so many reasons.)
Can I just say I suspect we might agree that the current political Green Party is a mess. I was in the Alliance so knew the Greens about that time. Rod Donald was a friend. They seem to have a significant problem in their caucus.I wonder if they change leaders too often. I want to return to this…
So I think you’re right, many people think what you’re saying. The issue is if the greens can’t explain who they are and what being Green is, then that is a problem. I think it has become a Nat Act talking point, which is what I’m reacting too. So not you per se.
You make a good observation.
As an ex student politician (a long time ago) I know that once elected you can spend time sticking posters in libraries or meeting the decision makers, organising events and writing the things you need. You’re not wrong, but remembering there is a balance, you still need to do these things.
I think what you’ve found the caucus is not working effectively and hasn’t got a shared purpose. And as a de facto you have reasonably said, well ‘environment’.
I see a leaderless divided caucus trying to do the right things but not working together. The fundamental question becomes ‘why are you here’. They haven’t worked that out, I might say they can’t agree. For ex Greens the question is perpetual. Without an effective leader(ship) team that are clear on their role and priorities it goes nowhere.
Some years ago I applied to be the Greens Media Director. At the interview with JamesS and Andrew c I said that the Greens needed to carve out their own identity aside from Labour as Labour would do them no favours. I didn’t know they’d done a deal with labour that week (I’d left politics att). So that may be why I wasn’t hired, but the goal had to be to clearly define the landscape, their role, and what they could provide in politics.
It seems to me the Greens need a charismatic organiser. The issue Chloe faces is they will agree kicking and screaming. She has to get momentum and they would have to get in behind.
Oh your questions… Tamatha and Julie Anne, Julie Anne only cares about public transport. But she does know shh knows a lot about it. Yes there is an issue. I have no idea just now what the Greens are up to. Or Labour. It seems to me on the Eve of a horrendous year for housing and homelessness, Treaty assaults, unemployment …. There is a lot to raise, it may be they are and can’t get passed the Government PR. Ok and their promises are harder to deliver in Opposition, but yes point taken.
Look I know how hard it is to summarise issues and write articles. Your article is good. To me the question is ‘how do the Greens describe what they’re doing?’ Can they? In terms that make sense.
Sam, if the Greens can’t explain who they are and what being Green is, why is that a problem? They've been operating like that for a few years and achieved something most parties find impossible - expanding not just their support, but their base support, leading to their most successful election ever.
I've never worked for the Greens & I don't doubt they would have internal issues... but all parties have some level of internal knife-fighting lol.
There is nothing that prevents the Greens from refining a message closer to the election, even a multi-pronged one that addresses a wider base. That's not a difficult thing and when people make it out to be they often have an ulterior motive.
This idea that the Greens are somehow disadvantaged by not being "environmental purists" is just silly. Its easy to look at what has been a bad year for the Greens in terms of personnel and then forget about the reality of how they are still looking electorally... the data matters.
Depends on whether they want votes. If a significant number of people are saying they can’t vote green as they don’t understand the Green Party, it’s not working. The frequency with which people parrot reasons which are about ‘green identity’ ‘flakey MPs who look funny etc…’ the less likely they are to reach polling of 20% plus.
It's weird that the polls show support for the Greens are growing then. Because that seems to show that the problem is you, since everybody else knows what the greens stand for while you have your thumb up your ass.
I don’t know who you are. Frankly I don’t ever want to. ‘William McG’. If you wanted to discuss things sure. Go back to X and snipe there. Fuck off.
That's an opinion that is missing a lot of variables. It doesn't take into account the number of voters who do understand the party, who prefer the Greens to include identity politics or who do identify with their appearance... Just like the negative impacts of those issues they can't be measured to a high degree of accuracy but the Greens would have developed a clearer picture of how they compare to each other.
20% would be very much a long term play. If you go to a party strategist and tell them to ditch a winning formula in the hope of achieving an unrealistic goal they won't give you the time of day.
I was interviewed to be the Greens head of coms 5 years ago, I told James and Andrew that the Greens need to distinguish themselves from Labour as labour will do them no favours. I did also talk about branding as that’s what I used to do. I disagree with you. But that’s okay, there may be no right or wrong answer, I’m just giving my professional opinion.
Well said, I totally agree
What does the term "social justice" mean? Is it to do with Marxism? Is it the thinking that there is only so much to go around and we all should have an equal share? Is it a side-swipe at individual freedoms, including the right to live the life you want as an individual and to earn and keep the money you need to do so? I have real trouble with this.
In the nicest possible way, you are so wrong in many ways. Social justice is peoples rights. If you’re in the US you don’t have this, you have a freedom to take other peoples freedom, or money justice. (you have money you are a better person and can do whatever you want however it hurts anyone else). Social justice is not being discriminated against, or controlled economically and not being denied the rights to life (shelter, food water etc….. - Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs). It is as a human getting the best possible options to grow up and live.
Without social justice, the law, custom, culture, etc.. you have untrammelled exploitation by those who have been given wealth based on family or some other way.
I think we have a wider problem than just the Greens. As a community we need our party in government to come under effective scrutiny and challenge from the loyal opposition. This is not happening and it is not just the Greens who are not focusing on their raison d’être.
I appreciate that Labour has to go through a period of soul searching and regrouping. But I want to see coalition policies hauled over the coals. (I voted for ACT.)
Am I to believe that all is well in Fast Track land, with a huge spend, at a breakneck pace, that is potentially open to project stumbles at best and outright rorts at worst? This is an on-steroids riff on Rob Muldoon’s Hail Mary, Think Big, and that could have done with more oversight.
The loyal opposition has a job to do, and we rely on them to do it.
Hi John,
I really loved this comment—it’s such a great point, and I wish more people thought like you. A strong, effective opposition is so important, and we’re really missing that right now. It’s not just about holding the government to account but making sure policies are as solid as they can be. Without that, things can easily spiral into poor decisions, wasted money, or, like you said, even outright rorts.
The Fast Track example is perfect. Ambition and speed have their place, but when there’s no clear accountability, it’s a recipe for disaster.
I also get that Labour needs to regroup, but also think that it’s been one year, surely they have found themselves? Or even just part of themselves? And their political soul searching has come at the expense of real scrutiny of the current coalition government.
Thanks for always sharing your thoughts—I really appreciate how much you care about these issues and always add something valuable to the convo. Nat
Hi Nat
Thanks for those kind words. I thought this article was pure ‘Less Certain’. It is passionate, reasoned and articulate.
In particular I find your articles easy to engage with because you are not doctrinaire; you focus in on the issues in an educated, clear and non-vicious way.
Which does make it all the more surprising to me how you can possibly hold the beliefs that you do. (I’m teasing.) John
Thanks John, and lol, I am not sure how I hold my beliefs either, still trying to figure it out myself
My theory is probably the mushrooms.
Saaaad. So saaad. (A tease with a Trump accent and those finger gestures.)
Haha, Saaad. So saaad. lol
"... on-steroids riff on Rob Muldoon's Hail Mary, Think Big..." heh, lovely phrase there.
I hate to use the word ‘woke’ here when describing the green’s today but I really must insist. I will clarify what I mean by that too. It means elevating personal feelings about particular causes over any kind of objective reality. Not only is this bad politics but it makes any kind of discussion or criticism hard without accusations of ‘immorality’
Hey Tom, I hear you. “Woke” has become such a loaded word, hasn’t it? But I get what you’re saying about prioritizing subjective feelings over actionable policy. It’s frustrating when it feels like the space for discussion narrows because any critique gets labeled as an attack on values.
The Greens, in particular, need to balance standing firm on their principles while staying open to constructive dialogue. Without that, they risk losing support from people who genuinely want to see them succeed—like you, by the sound of it. Thanks for sharing your thoughts; this is exactly the kind of discussion I was hoping to spark!
"Woke" is only loaded if you're a leftie (and the irony is, they invented the term.) We, on the right, enjoy using it at every opportunity.
Yes, and that's why you dipshits on the right will call literally anything you don't "woke", which renders it completely meaningless, and just shows that you're an unthinking dipshit.
True though I think the right get more than a little sloppy at times in using the word. It has a specific meaning and doesn’t just mean something a left wing person said that I don’t like’ which is how I see it used by people on the right at times
Fancy hating a word.
What I meant is I don’t like using the word as it gets overused and tends to polarise discussion (on both sides)
Your best article yet Nat! Yes, I voted for the Greens back when Jeanette and Rod were in charge…I could never understand why the Green Party didn’t have a mandate to be agnostic to left/right and have a vision to form a government with either side (and Green Party member is always Climate Minister). Now they have become a woke party. Left of left. They care about fringe issues that they, their friends and MSM believe are important. (You left out organizing the terror raids on a pro women speaker (or as they described anti trans activist, Posie Parker). They should take note of what happened in the US. Huge swing to a pale, stale, male (and a misogynist to boot) who won by a landslide with a record number of females and Christians…… If the Greens don’t go back to being Green (not rainbow, or whatever flag or scarf is in vogue) then they may as well rebrand to being the Woke Party.
I strongly agree Marcus. What matters is to be effective, not holy. When they say politics is the art of the possible, they mean sometimes you have to hold your nose.
As you note, when the wind changes as it is presently doing (the Economist had an interesting article that made the point that we have probably passed ‘peak woke’), if you have nailed your colours to the mast of woke then your actual purpose gets compromised. A pointless and unnecessary own goal.
Hi John, I really like how you’ve framed this—“effective, not holy.” That sums up a lot of what I was trying to express. Politics is messy, and if you dig your heels in too far ideologically, you can end up undermining the very causes you care about.
I hadn’t seen that Economist article, but “peak woke” is an interesting concept. It does feel like we’re in a moment where public appetite is shifting, and parties tied too closely to certain narratives might struggle to adapt. The Greens have such an important mission—it would be a shame to see them sideline themselves. Thanks for chiming in!
Hey Marcus, thanks so much! I appreciate the kind words about the article—it means a lot. You’re raising some thought-provoking points here. I get the frustration with the Greens’ shift over time. The idea of being agnostic to Left/Right and focusing solely on environmentalism is appealing to a lot of voters who want to see more practical climate action, regardless of who’s in power. I agree 100%
As for your concerns about their focus on “fringe issues,” I think the challenge is that the Greens have to balance representing their base while staying politically effective. But yeah, if that balance tips too far, they risk alienating long-time supporters. It’ll be interesting to see how they navigate this in the next election cycle. Thanks for sharing your perspective—it’s a conversation worth having.
it's so fucking crystal clear why TOP gets no votes, with your idiocy being the peak of their thinking.
Thanks for your comment, William. Just to clarify—I did run for TOP last year as their Wellington Central candidate and briefly served as deputy leader, but I’m no longer affiliated with the party. That said, if you’ve got specific criticisms of what I’ve said here, I’d be happy to hear them. It’s always more productive to debate ideas than to toss around insults.
Yes, it was a nice article, but then, so was my lunch.
Thanks, Mobley. I’m glad my article made it onto the same level as your lunch. Let me know if there’s anything more you’d like to chew on from the piece!
It was the same here, back in the day. I couldn't quite bring myself to vote for them, but I certainly respected them. Not now.
Gosh I’m so sick and tired of all the reckons likes those expressed in this piece concerning the failure of left wing policies and commitments, meanwhile the right are afforded carte blanche to wreck the lives of tens of thousands of hard working kiwis redirect tax dollars away from the many and into the pockets of the few.
Hi Mike,
Thanks for your comment—I believe accountability needs to apply across the board. My intent with this piece wasn’t to downplay the harm caused by right-wing policies but to emphasize that no party—Left or Right—should be exempt from being held to their commitments or their potential to deliver better outcomes. They all play a role, whether in opposition or government, Left or Right.
In an MMP system, no single party has all the answers, and robust critique across the spectrum is vital if we’re going to see meaningful progress. When I critique the Greens, it’s not because I oppose their vision; it’s because I believe they’re capable of more. With the mandate they hold and the values they stand for, I want them to rise to the challenge of being a strong voice for change—whether in government or opposition.
If you’ve read some of my other pieces, you’ll know I don’t shy away from criticizing the Right either. But I don’t think critiquing one side means letting the other off the hook. I believe we need all parties—especially those claiming to represent social justice and equity—to be as effective as possible.
What are your thoughts on how to hold them accountable? How can we ensure all parties deliver for the people who need it most?
Nat
With respect, the media et al constantly criticise The Greens, Te Pati Māori and Labour (when it actually says or does anything meaningful) there is a deeply racist and misogynist element in all attacks, and frankly for you to agonise on a public forum about what they are not getting right is playing straight into the hands of this disgraceful narrative. The Green Party and Te Pati Māori are THE ONLY VOICES championing the poor, marginalised and dis possessed of our motu. If you really care for these things, stop being another knife wound that will kill all hope in a death by a thousand cuts.
Hi Mike.
I am from the right and I want to see effective policies enacted in parliament, and implemented,that will deliver to the less well off in New Zealand. Bottom line.
I don’t want crony capitalism. I don’t want waffle. I’m an engineer and I want to see things that work.
You and I might disagree on how to bring this about - I disagree with Natalia with how to bring this about - but I seriously applaud your objective.
Hi Mike,
When you mentioned media criticism, I’d be keen to see specific examples of where the media has attacked the Greens in the way you’re describing. It’s not something I’ve come across so far, but I’d love to see it and stand corrected.
I do hear your concerns about the impact of criticism, though. My intention isn’t to pile on but to reflect on where I think these parties could be more effective in delivering on their goals. I want them to succeed as much as you do.
Gosh you sound as though you’ve been schooled by Dr Bryce Edwards. Next you’ll be quoting HDA as a credible source of investigative journalism. If you’re requiring me to provide you with the disgraceful way the Greens and Te Pati Māori have been hounded by a right wing narrative I suggest you subscribe to The Democracy Project. But in the mean time stop wasting my time with your disingenuous questions. BTW if I come across as angry, it’s because I am! Angry that the political narrative of NZ has moved so far to the right that people such as yourself are totally oblivious to it.
All good Mike
Hi Natalia you can see the problem discussing issues with left wingers who are used to being in an echo chamber. It is a narrow minded narrative, and you can get attacked if you dare to disagree, with some passive-aggressive thrown in for good measure. I found myself asking the same questions as you about Mikes claims. I think that is exactly what your article is about.
Good point but the base of it is that the triumph of corporate interests is so complete and the the argument of progressive taxation so decisively lost that the institutions that might facilitate balance have been hollowed out.
Your govt are simply pawns of the American corporate empire.
Thanks, Phillida. I agree that corporate interests have political influence, and the erosion of institutions that could provide balance is an important issue. But I don’t think New Zealand’s government is a pawn of the American corporate empire—if anything, the U.S. barely notices us most of the time. The issues we face, like wealth inequality and cultural tensions, are more about our own political, historical and economic choices than some grand American agenda.
Bollocks
Charming!
For the first time since the party existed they lost my vote at the election. For all the reasons you’ve outlined. Not one of them has the political integrity and personal authenticity of Jeanette Simmonds. They’ve lost their way.
Hi AMM, I’m sorry to hear the Greens lost your vote, but I understand why. Jeanette Simmonds left big shoes to fill—she had such a clear vision and authenticity that really resonated with so many. It’s tough when a party you’ve supported for so long feels like it’s moving away from what originally drew you to them.
I hope they’re paying attention to feedback like yours. Losing longtime supporters is a wake-up call if they want to remain relevant and effective. Thanks for sharing your experience—it’s a sentiment I’m hearing more often.
Jeannette had many strengths but it is unhelpful to make her into a saint. She had very serious limitations too.( everybody does but it is as well to recognise them)
The greens go in for polarised judgements of good /bad it’s a defensive position for or against
And leads to virtue signalling not solid believable policy.
She did bring an environmental focus and was very very well Informed in energy and related policy.
But she no experience in elective Office had never sat on a public body and had very limited circle of supporters both racially, culturally and economically.
She was very good at the nuts and bolts of policy but not at all good at communicating the need for policy change and was positively excluding when it came to making contacts and finding support for the people who would be necessary to really build a green coalition.
When she became leader she had had no recognition from any other groups and brought almost no popular support with her because she had no profile.
She also didn’t know the party nationally very well because she didn’t travel to meet them and she didn’t know and misread those in coalition with her.
Greens have never been able to establish the possibility of a coalition because they’re too busy lecturing everyone else.
Jeannette was delightful but she was quite naive about the people she was stealing with on the left and some of them were very nasty indeed.
You could compare her to Sandra Lee. Jeannette diminished and disrespected what Sandra Lee bought the table. Sandra had a lot longer political history she had been was chair of her local council when it provided significant services. That is she had run a hands-on Council very very successfully. She was elected and reelected to the Auckland council and served extremely well. She was a life member of Forest Bird for her conservation work and she had very broad cross cultural connections. she became an MP three years before Jeannette was elected so she also had a good deal of Parliamentary experience which Jeanette lacked.
Has she been able to respect Lee and build a relationship with her it would’ve been Real leadership for future Green issues and a bicultural Greene perspective.
unfortunately this was completely outside Jeannette’s range of experience. She just couldn’t talk to a solo mother who left school at 16 and was Marori .
Unfortunately Jeannette didn’t know how to reach out to anybody other than someone like herself, White and from the south Island but most of all those labels are less important than the lack of political experience and the narrowness of her own social experience this is very sad because it to all sorts of possibilities being lost.
I say this not as a personal thing but to say to the Greens don’t dwell on this alleged saint who’s been lost as an explanation. try and think in more constructive realistic terms about how you build political allegiance and alliance and what it takes and be a bit more realistic when choosing who and how to go about it.
Tell your own history more accurately not in terms of the saintly twins of Jeannette and Rod because Like every other inexperienced politican they had very serious limitations and fiercely denied them.
In the end they split the party and lead it into the wilderness where unfortunately it remains.
The key reason that the Greens have not been in government, where they need to be, is the way they left the alliance, how they did it not that they did it. Three times the Greens had publicly signed up and affirmed their membership of the alliance in public these were very very important commitments to make.
Just unilaterally walking out on those public commitments they had signed up to endured that they would never be trusted in government; no party was ever going to include them coalition government because they had just walked away when they felt like it.you can’t just break public commitments in that way and expect to be treated as reliable in a government. I thought they should leave but how was crucial.
Marginalised themselves into the position where they still are because they broke those agreements and had no credible reasons for doing so - sainthood isn’t enough
Passion can be the motivating force, but in anything you also need at least some amount of natural talent and a good deal of dirt-under-the-fingernails practical experience and competence to make a go at something.
Hi Phillida, love this! Thanks for sharing this context. this is the kind of history lesson that should be required reading for anyone trying to understand why the Greens are where they are. I think your critique of Jeannette’s leadership (and the Greens’ broader approach) hits a lot of uncomfortable truths for the Green base that are worth airing.
You’re absolutely right that turning Jeannette into some kind of eco-saint is unhelpful. She was brilliant on policy, especially on energy and climate, but politics isn’t just about being right, or knowing one single policy issue, it’s about the ideas and understanding how to implement and share those ideas. And I agree, her limited political experience and narrow social reach made building coalitions hard. Being a genius with single issue policy nuts and bolts doesn’t mean much if you can’t connect with people outside your immediate world.
The Sandra Lee comparison is fascinating, and, honestly, a bit brutal—but fair. Sandra brought bicultural, cross-cultural, and grassroots chops that the Greens desperately needed, and it’s a shame those bridges weren’t built. Imagine what could’ve happened if Jeannette and Sandra had worked together instead of talking past each other.
And yes, the Alliance exit. I agree with you—leaving might’ve been the right call, but how you leave matters. Walking out on public commitments without a clear, credible explanation lowers public trust pretty quickly.
Your larger point about the Greens’ tendency to lecture rather than connect is spot on, and i find annoying at best and political death at worst. There’s a fine line between being principled and being insufferable, and they’ve definitely veered into the latter. That’s not just a leadership issue—it’s baked into the culture of the party, and it’s a hard habit to break.
So, yeah, I hear you. The Greens need to do more than reflect on their policy successes—they need to reckon with their internal party culture and values. The myth of the saintly Jeannette and Rod has its place, but clinging to it won’t help the Greens build the kind of alliances they’ll need to actually make it into a real coalition. If they want to move out of the political wilderness, they’ll need to figure out how to work with people who don’t already agree with them.
the greens have literally been in coalition government you politically illiterate moron.
Actually, the Greens haven’t been in a coalition government. It’s worth clarifying that while the Green Party held ministerial roles during the 2017–2020 term, they weren’t actually in a coalition government. Instead, they had a confidence and supply agreement with Labour.
A confidence and supply agreement is fundamentally different from a coalition agreement. It’s more of a supporting role, where the Greens agreed to back Labour on critical votes like budgets and confidence motions but didn’t share the full decision-making power of being in Cabinet, like they did with NZ First, who did actually have a coalition agreement. Confidence and Supply arrangement gave them less influence overall compared to a formal coalition, where parties work more collaboratively on all major policies and sit in Cabinet together.
While the Greens did achieve some notable wins (like progress on the Zero Carbon Bill), their influence was limited by the structure of the agreement. For example, they didn’t have the same ability to co-develop or veto policy as NZ First.
So while the Greens were definitely in government during that time, calling it a coalition might overstate the actual power they held.
My wife stood as a Green Party candidate many years ago, and I actively campaigned for them. We have been ‘gone’ now for the last four/five election cycles - and won’t come back. I cannot think of ANYTHING the Greens have achieved in parliament, despite their noise and sneering, entitled political arrogance. They deserve to fail.
Hi Ian, thanks for weighing in. Yeah, I don't blame you. As my article states, I'm not a fan either. The disconnection between rhetoric and tangible outcomes is annoying AF. What kind of baffles me is why they aren't held accountable. They are doing such a poor job at Opposition; it boggles my mind.
Thanks Natalia, I liked your article - despite the increase in pulse rate while absorbing hour message 🤓
I believe the Greens have many drone voters who just follow without actually thinking about or studying who the Greens now are and their anti-human stance on so many things.
Vote Green = feel smug & content that ‘I’ve done my bit for the planet’ then they can go about their blinkered lives sneering at anyone who disagrees with them.
I don’t why the Greens don’t just rebrand to the Communist Party of Aotearoa, that would more truthfully represent their current manifestation
Yeah, i agree!
I think there are some fair criticisms in here, and think the handling of their internal issues could have been improved, but I would like to push back on a few of the premises you've based the essay on.
From going through Chloe's press releases this year, I'd say about half of them are directly related to the environment, and she has been vocal about the fast-track bill on social media, with a recent shift towards the Hikoi/Treaty principles. Tamatha Paul has been less focused on the environment, but is that not to be expected when her role is spokesperson for corrections, courts, housing, justice (+ select committee), police, Wellington issues, and youth?
"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.”"
The Greens have been a 'people and planet' party from the start.
Few sources, first being Jeanette Fitzsimons brochure when she ran for values (since others have mentioned her in the comments);
https://nzgreenpartyhistory.home.blog/2019/01/30/1978-election-jeanette-fitzsimons-stood-for-values/
"Values is for;
- sharing work, wealth, and power.
- a sustainable economy - small-scale, self-reliant, in harmony with the environment.
- a freedom of information act and a bill of rights.
Values is against;
- military alliances
- large scale industrialisation of New Zealand, especially if controlled by foreign corporations.
- discrimination against women, racial minorities, or gay people."
The second being a letter to all members from the secretary during the shift from Values to Greens of the party;
https://nzgreenpartyhistory.home.blog/2019/03/06/values-becomes-the-green-party-of-aotearoa-1989/
"Although survival is central to Green political philosophy (without it nothing else matters) there are other reasons for preferring a Green future;
1. Social Harmony. Green politics is dedicated to removing the social barriers of wealth and power. (1.1,1.2)
2. Economic Stability. (p 22) To create growth it is necessary to create wealth and this -is both unsustainable and unfair. Our real wealth is the productive capacity of the land and Green economics leads to this. (3.1)
3. Resilience. As we develop into self-reliant communities (5.1) we will more easily withstand natural or other disasters.
4. Flexibility. Another advantage of decentralisation is in the variety of ideas that could be practiced for social and environmental reform.
5. Unemployment. (p 21) When profits are at stake, labour is the first to go.
6. Law and Order. ( p 21) The inequalities of our system give rise to discontent and antagonism.
7. Race Relations. (p 22) Green politics goes much further than the Treaty of Waitangi, and is not racist.
8. Peace. (p 22) It is pointless talking of peace without removing the causes of war.
9. Suitability. New Zealand is by far the most suitable country in which to create a Green society. We have an obligation to be the first.
10. Alternatives The alternatives to a Green society are truly frightful. Already armed force is protecting wealth and power in many countries, a fight for survival would be far more bitter."
And the third being the party charter, with the principles;
1. Ecological Wisdom
2. Social Responsibility
3. Appropriate Decision Making
4. Non-violence
I also think a statement like "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" needs to be justified a bit more.
To focus on the Palestine example, a. Non-violence is in the party charter, and there's definitely arguments to be made on the govt response to this conflict vs. others, and b. putting the horrific humanitarian concerns aside, the first 60 days of the war in Gaza are estimated to have generated more emissions than the annual emissions of 20 countries - 90% of that being a combo of US supply flights and Israeli aircraft emissions. The amount of sewage flowing into the sea has increased 10x with the destruction of infrastructure.
https://www.euronews.com/green/2024/06/07/jet-fuel-bombs-and-concrete-the-60-million-tonnes-of-carbon-generated-by-israels-war-on-ga
https://www.972mag.com/gaza-war-environmental-catastrophe/
Hi Sam
I think you are right about the critical value of the media director role. Yes it is important for the Greens to work out who they are. But then they need to communicate that.
We are a liberal democracy where sovereignty (currently anyway) sits with the voters. The opportunity for a party is to persuade non-believers of the merit and desirability of ideas they may not otherwise have given the time of day to. Hell, that they maybe are inclined to come out in hives over.
It’s not enough to have self belief; to be effective requires successful engagement with other New Zealanders at a political or group or community level.
Spot on!
As a passionate environmentalist, I’m Very frustrated with the greens who to be quite frank seem more interested in morally self righteous posturing than in actually getting things done.
Hi Tom, I totally get where you’re coming from. When passion for a cause starts to feel more like posturing than progress, it’s incredibly frustrating—especially for those of us who care deeply about the environment.
The Greens have such an important role to play, and I think a lot of people share your frustration. hopefully, the party can pivot back toward results-driven policies that make a tangible difference. Thanks for texting!
Well said, Natalia!
Thanks Grant! I appreciate you reading and texting
Yeah nah…if they continue to be irrelevant thats their choice. Politics no longer has the clarity, meaning and solutions it used to. I mean, look at the Nats? Small businesses must be pissed off. Greens…meh!
Fair points, Atawhai. Politics does feel like it’s lost its way. The Greens and Nats both seem to be frustrating their core supporters in different ways, and small businesses definitely have reason to feel left out. The challenge now is figuring out how any party can rise above the “meh” and actually deliver ideas that are meaningful and relevant.
Whilst you may be right, my understanding was the political party Social Credit were the original foundation which morphed into the Green Party.
No they came from the Values party, social credit became the Democrats. Values and Green policies aren’t too far apart.