[ad_1]
OPINION: During the last term, pundits criticized how polite the Green Party was being.
In government, for the first time, the party was much less likely to attack Labor than NZ First, despite being part of a much looser supply and trust agreement.
The reasoning was that the Green Party had to be loud and antagonistic so that the party’s votes were not absorbed by Labor.
ROBERT KITCHEN / Things
Much will depend on how loudly the Green Party can oppose things.
The Green Party proved them wrong by increasing their vote in the elections.
READ MORE:
* 2020 election: Green Party co-leaders get ministries in agreement offered by Labor
* Election 2020: the decision on the government will be made on Friday, and the Greens will have a chance to reach an agreement
* Green Party policy release urges voters to ‘think ahead’ as it outlines the negotiating platform for a Labor deal
But once again, the party’s ability to oppose Labor while ruling with them is at the center of discussions around the proposed cooperation deal, which is being voted on by Green Party members as this article is written.
The situations are quite different.
Had the Green Party rejected the latest deal, National probably would have ended up in government with NZ First. This time, a rejection would simply mean a Labor government without Green ministers, a less frightening prospect for Green members.
The nature of the arrangement is also very different.
In the last legislature, the Green Party was a trusted and supply partner, meaning that its MPs basically had to vote for the Budget and keep the Government going. A “good faith” clause that meant the party had to support the restrictions in the separate agreement with NZ First ended up forcing the party to swallow a dead rat and support the Waka Jumping bill.
In the new agreement, the Green Party can abstain on matters of trust and supply and will presumably be able to vote against any other bill outside of the portfolios it owns.
This means that the Green Party could abstain on the government budget, a pretty big sign of dissatisfaction if the party found the budget insufficient for various issues. In fact, this is somewhat likely, given that the Green Party has not been offered any associated financial portfolio or a broader “supply” portfolio that controls a large amount of cash.
James Shaw seems set to make the Greens a demanding ally of Ardern, not an enemy.
If the Greens accept the offer, the party’s ability to go very hard against Labor on some of its key issues would be restricted by having ministers in those areas.
James Shaw could not harshly criticize the Government on issues of climate change or biodiversity since he would be the minister of those areas and, therefore, would be bound by the “collective responsibility” to the cabinet to make calls on those issues. This means that the Cabinet could force a decision on climate change that he personally hates, but would have to implement it and not spend a lot of time in the media criticizing.
Similarly, Marama Davidson’s associated housing portfolio and sexual violence portfolio would prevent her from criticizing the government on such matters.
At first glance, this could keep the Green Party quite limited on some of the issues that concern it most. But there is some gray here.
The agreement would allow the Green Party to formally register when a policy deviates from Green Party policy, even including it in the Cabinet minutes on the matter. There is also the provision to “agree to disagree” of the last government. Presumably this would allow Shaw or Davidson to make it quite clear where big The decision made had been one they disagreed with, but he would stop constantly criticizing his own portfolio decision-making.
There is also the fungibility of various problems. Davidson’s portfolio of homeless associates presumably wouldn’t stop him from criticizing Labor for not doing enough to keep rents low. And Julie Anne Genter would presumably be within her right to attack the government on its track record with electric vehicles, a climate change problem in the broadest sense, but more strictly a transportation problem. (It looks like Genter will be the associate chair of the Transportation Select Committee, which will give her a good pulpit for this.)
Still, there are many criticisms that would be off the table. It would seem difficult for Shaw to really attack the Labor government when it inevitably bows to the rural sector and keeps it away from the Emissions Trading Scheme. And on the face of it, Davidson couldn’t use the House waiting list as an indictment against Labor. Overall, under this deal, it is difficult to see dozens of red meat speeches attacking Labor made by green MPs in Parliament, given the key green issues green ministers will have.
The uniqueness of this situation gives the Green Party an exit plan that is generally not available to ruling partners. If something comes up that the party can’t really swallow, you can just quit. Because Labor does not need the Green Party to govern, doing so would be far less dramatic than what Winston Peters did in the late 1990s – the Greens would be bringing down a version of this government, not the government itself. Jacinda Ardern would remain prime minister and no further elections would be needed. You might even be planning such a thing in the back of your mind for 2022.
But that means that the party wants to become an opponent of Ardern, the most popular politician in the country. Shaw and others in the group seem more willing to present themselves as a demanding ally of Ardern. This agreement gives the party a lot of leeway to do that.
