Climate Change Minister and (now former) Green Co-Leader James Shaw has pledged to stand again for election in five weeks time for the Co-Leader's position, saying he is just as frustrated as any party member with a lack of Government progress on climate emissions reduction and poverty reduction, but he achieves more inside the Government than outside.
"It is still clear that we have a lot more work to do," Shaw told a news conference in Parliament on Monday after 32 of 107 Green delegates voted against his reappointment in a surprise vote on Saturday night. He said he would stand again in five weeks time to be re-elected Co-Leader alongside the Party's current single Leader, Marama Davidson, who was confirmed.
Shaw said he would continue to serve as a Green MP and as the Climate Change Minister during the election process. He said he would also continue as Climate Change Minister, even if he was not re-elected co-leader. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said earlier on Monday she would retain Shaw regardless of his party leadership status.
The vote exposed a rift within the party over its involvement in the Labour Government and a lack of progress with emissions reduction, bio-diversity improvement and housing affordability.
"We have people all over the country who are struggling to make ends meet. Wealth is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few. We have companies that are planning to mine on conservation land. We have students who cannot afford to eat, we still have children going hungry,” he said.
“So as long as those challenges exist, Aotearoa needs the Green Party more than ever. Whilst we still have those problems, my job is not done.”
“There is a level of frustration at the slow pace of government,” he said.
“And I share that frustration, it drives me absolutely wild. And that is the pace at which government changes."
'Help me pressure the Government from the outside'
“We need change in government, but we also need it outside of government. And the more change we get outside of government, the more we can do inside of government. So it kind of takes all of us, everywhere, working on this to make this work.”
Earlier Davidson expressed confidence in Shaw and no Green MP has emerged yet to say they would challenge him. Some have expected Auckland Central MP Chloe Swarbrick to bid for the role. Swarbrick ruled out a bid later on Monday.
“I know he’s fighting hard out," Davidson.
"He goes to bed with it every night, he wakes up with it. I know intimately exactly how much grind he gives, his blood and sweat, I’m in no two minds about that at all," she said.
Frustration building
Shaw's leadership was challenged at last year's AGM, but the challenge fizzled before the formal vote to confirm his position as Co-Leader. This time the momentum was stronger, particularly with younger party members.
Former Green MPs have also been critical.
“Our Government, led by James as Minister, has been shown not to be reducing emissions, not to have ambitious mandatory targets, but to actually be weak," former Green MP Catherine Delahunty said earlier on Monday.
"You have to remember you're in the Green Party - you're not here to placate Labour and necessarily stay in power for the sake of it," Delahunty said.
Former MP and lapsed Green Party member Gareth Hughes also doubted Shaw had made much difference as Climate Change Minister.
“It’s debatable that the trajectory has shifted and we’ll only know if that's true looking in the rear-view mirror but it’s clear right now New Zealand isn’t doing enough to reduce emissions," Hughes said.
Recent backsliding and non-action
Party members opposed to Shaw have pointed to significant Labour Government moves that appeared to fly in the face of reducing emissions, including:
- Increasing the speed limit on the recently extended Waikato Expressway from 100 km/hr to 110 km/hr, which will significantly increase emissions;
- Abandoning low-traffic neighbourhood trials that removed 'rat runs' for commuters through residential areas such as Onehunga as a prelude to shifting to more cycling and walking;
- Choosing to go ahead with multi-billion dollar and multi-decade road and rail tunnel building projects (Auckland CBD to Mangere rail and Lets Get Wellington Moving) that will significantly increase total emissions over the next decade, due to a slower mode-shift and embedded emissions in extra concrete and steel;
- delaying bringing Agriculture into the Emissions Trading Scheme until 2024; and,
- spending just $1.17b of a $4.5b Climate Emergency Fund in the next two years in its Emissions Reduction Plan earlier this year, including $329m to subsidise farmers and dairy factories wanting to move away from coal boilers and to help pay for research into methane emissions reductions.
In summary in my view - The Greens remain powerless while they refuse to consider supporting an alternative to Labour in Government. The Party can be safely taken for granted, regardless of its electoral strength. Shaw cemented that in earlier today when he said he wanted to serve again in a Labour-Green Government after the next election.
(Updated with Swarbrick ruling out running for the Co-Leader position on Monday afternoon.)
47 Comments
Before the 2017 election the Greens made a very good attempt at self destruction by the voluntary admission of benefit fraud by the then female co-leader. This was salvaged by two things. Firstly the benefit of the high profile of the Green movement internationally and secondly, but not less so, the calm and assured abilities of Mr Shaw to keep the ship upright and off the rocks. After being shut out in 2020 it seemed pretty apparent that there was much festering in left field, ready to burst through the gate. But there was clear indication that come 2023 the Greens would actually be needed by Labour formally, for a coalition government. The strategy therefore, be patient, keep the fanciful & extreme propositions away from the attention of the electorate, and in 2023 at long last be a real part of government. That strategy has though only lasted until not much more than halfway through the term, and shorter in fact given the similar rumbling that commenced in the media over the New Year holidays.
Build lots nuclear power plants. France showed how it was done with much older tech/materials than today. Give it a snappy name like the Manhattan Project and it will demonstrate governments think "climate change" is a serious problem - rather than vehicle to roll out pet social policies.
-
- Had Germany spent $580 billion on nuclear instead of renewables, and the fossil plant upgrades and grid expansions they require, it would have had enough energy to both replace all fossil fuels and biomass in its electricity sector and replace all of the petroleum it uses for cars and light trucks.
-
- Had California spent an estimated $100 billion on nuclear instead of on wind and solar, it would have had enough energy to replace all fossil fuels in its in-state electricity mix.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/09/11/had-they-b…
So you is now they?
You have a high opinion of politicians if you think they can change a climate. They can't even Kiwibuild, light rail or get kids to school/out of poverty. Your expectations are way, way too high. Though I spose if they can't build a house no wonder they steer clear of nuclear power plants.
and Japan had the highest ever disaster claim, now just short of one $US Trillion for their Fukushima plant. There are "Black Swan" events one cannot guard for, no matter how good the safety rules are. The German parliament and the vast majority of German people supported that decision, knowing full well that a disaster like Fukushima might destroy their nation
One thing then not to be overlooked. Japanese resilience. For instance Tokyo their capital, together with Yokohama, 1923 140,000 earthquake fatalities. Yet the nation overcame that sufficiently in just over ten years time to embark on a campaign that fired the first shots of WW2. The great Fukushima tragedy was addressed, contained and absorbed economically, by way of comparison, at least a heck of a lot more readily and efficiently than NZ itself handled the Canterbury EQs of the same year.
Hard to see California being better off with building nuclear as the Vogtle expansion is now up to $30 billion, and not even finished yet around 13 years after construction began.
Solar in particular in California is a great solution as their demand peaks in the afternoon on hot sunny days, and it's much faster to get it installed.
Closing the older plants does look a bad decision though.
I'm not sure but I think you will find if they at first did not succeed they would be more than happy to keep doubling down and trying again.
I'm still not sure how this works with communism either. I guess if they limit the number rich people to just high ranking Greens members, we can limit our luxury imports so when we reduce agri and hort exports and still keep some semblance of a trade balance. Also, we could force the poor to do manual farm labour and building them houses on location will mean cheaper land.
Environmental issues need social justice to be able to properly resolve them. As the Green party has ALWAYS said - read their Charter. And as the values party said before them.
It is all about keeping within planetary resource limits and that requires a fair distribution of those resources.
Key comment "The vote exposed a rift within the party over its involvement in the Labour Government"
They aren't in the Labour Government. The Greens have never been in government as they have never been in a formal coalition.
One day they will work out how MMP works and then they can negotiate for some real change. But in order to do that, they need to stop signing up to Confidence and Supply agreements solely with Labour before the election, and it wouldn't hurt them to say they will work with other parties as well.
... Helen Clark showed the way , if Labour don't need the Greens , you can always boot them up the bum ... and fear not , 100 % they'll still be hanging around , wagging their tails , hoping for some scraps ...
They'll never jump fence and snack at the Gnats house ...
... Greens are Labour's loyal lapdogs ....
Green Dog. You mean as per Blue’s Clues (courtesy of grandchildren?) “ Green is one of Red’s friends currently attending pre-school in the class of Miss Marigold. She is not able to speak but can manage to create sounds as pants and barks. She is a puppy who loves to knock over block towers as proven in Blue’s sad story.” nb, Little substitution of colour to suit the local narrative.
Historically yes - the green youth vote green is primarily based on the SJW rather than the Enviro causes.
But I think going forwards we may see a few more move to the right, particularly the older, more urban and affluent voters. After all the right in NZ, is still quite left leaning compared to overseas.
100 to 110 "significantly increase emissions" lol - this is what the Green party are known for, rabid chewing of the common mans leg. Avoiding investing in infrastructure to make the country liveable and productive is another.
The low spending on "the climate emergency" is probably due to the business cases failing at Treasury. "This spurious spend has no benefits identified" To the airport or die!!!
“To the airport or die.” So where the heck are the Greens then relative to the new wide bodied jet airport proposed with this Labour government’s blessing in natural land in Central Otago? Just how much carbon & emissions sinks into construction & future operation? Just how much will each New Zealander have to cough up individually in carbon tax in compensation for that particular footprint.
Interestingly the anti 110kmh brigade will cause more people to fly which is probably a bigger polluter, particularly once more people have electric cars. Driving Auckland to Napier for example now doesn’t take that much longer than flying once you account for getting to airport early, boarding, waiting for luggage, getting from the airport, etc. A 120kmh speed limit would be even better!
"A l'exemple de Saturne, la révolution dévore ses enfants"
“Our Government, led by James as Minister, has been shown not to be reducing emissions, not to have ambitious mandatory targets, but to actually be weak," former Green MP Catherine Delahunty said earlier on Monday.
Clearly she doesn't possess two brains cells to rub together. It has obviously escaped her attention that the government is not led by James or any other Green. I have little doubt that he would have moved the climate dial further and faster had he the ability to do so, but reality is clearly not her strong point-or that of a large chunk of the party.
A former MP and hardly unique in persona & ability either. You know, reading two columns & comments on here today concerning the Greens and on reflection and with regard to all their convoluted, idealistic and irrelevant history, have to think NZ’s parliament would just be better off without their presence.
I rate some green MPs up there with the best - Shaw, Swarbrick, Genter, Ghahraman. They aren’t the standard old fuddy duddy anti change brigade that has been leading us to mediocrity. But they do definitely need some balance from the right to make sure they don’t go all crazy. I would say our parliament would be a lot worse without them, and we would have a much bigger brain drain. Aren’t the greens the only party that wants lower house prices for example.
It is clear most of the commentators on this story are not aware of the statement of basic principles by the Green Party - the Green Charter:
Our charter
This is the founding document of The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand.
The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand accepts Te Tiriti o Waitangi as the founding document of Aotearoa New Zealand; recognises Māori as Tangata Whenua in Aotearoa New Zealand; and commits to the following four Principles:
Ecological Wisdom
The basis of ecological wisdom is that human beings are part of the natural world. This world is finite, therefore unlimited material growth is impossible. Ecological sustainability is paramount.
Social Responsibility
Unlimited material growth is impossible. Therefore the key to social responsibility is the just distribution of social and natural resources, both locally and globally.
Appropriate Decision-making
For the implementation of ecological wisdom and social responsibility, decisions will be made directly at the appropriate level by those affected.
Non-Violence
Non-violent conflict resolution is the process by which ecological wisdom, social responsibility and appropriate decision making will be implemented. This principle applies at all levels.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.