Green Party co-leader James Shaw has announced he will resign from party leadership in March, but stay in Parliament long enough to usher his members’ bill through the house.
“Our historic election result in 2023 ushered in a new era for the Green Party. Now is the time for a new co-leader to work alongside Marama to take this new caucus into the future,” he said in a statement.
Shaw served as Climate Change Minister for six years in the two Labour-led Governments and has led the Green Party, alongside Metiria Turei and Marama Davidson, for the past nine years.
When first elected to the leadership in 2015, Shaw said his goal was to lead the party into government and “safely out the other side”.
“We are the only government support party to have increased our support during our time in government, and we did it in each of our two terms in government,” he said.
The Green Party dropped out of government in the 2023 election, as political favour swung to the right, but it added one seat to its caucus and won three electorates.
Shaw signalled he would stay on after the election, only long enough to help settle the first-term MPs which will make up the majority of its 15 person caucus.
The number of new MPs will grow to nine once Shaw leaves Parliament, including a replacement for third-term MP, Golriz Ghahraman, who resigned amid shoplifting charges.
It sets the stage for the Green Party to reinvent itself and attempt to drive the agenda for left-leaning politics in the decade to come.
Succession season
Green Party co-leaders are elected by the membership and nominations will open on Wednesday and a replacement for Shaw should be selected by March.
Since the party membership also ranks the candidates on the electoral list, it can be used as a rough proxy for popularity among the rank and file.
Chlöe Swarbrick is number three on the list and would likely have sufficient support to secure the leadership. However, she hasn’t signalled that she wants to take on that job.
Next is Julie Anne Genter, who has been in Parliament since 2011 and served as minister. She unsuccessfully contested the co-leadership after Metiria Turei resigned in 2018.
Finally, second-term MP Teanau Tuiono holds the fifth list spot and was floated as a possible replacement for James Shaw when some members attempted to oust him last year.
It is also plausible the party could select one of the first term MPs or even somebody outside of Parliament, although the latter option is unconventional.
Davidson will stay on in her role for at least the next year but wouldn’t commit to contesting the 2026 election as a co-leader.
Pragmatic idealism
James Shaw and the party’s defining achievement has been ushering in the Zero Carbon Act, a law which requires NZ to bring net-emission to zero by 2050, with bipartisan support.
“We passed the landmark Zero Carbon Act, with unanimous support across Parliament, which made us one of the first countries in the world to place the Paris agreements 1.5 degrees temperature target in national legislation,” he said.
“I'm really pleased to see the zero carbon act survive its first real acid test and the recent change of government”.
While the Greens have always been a leftist party with social justice values, more attention has been paid to its economic and social policies in recent years.
This may be partly because the party has secured virtual political consensus on climate action and locked the net zero emissions target into law.
Shaw said it was the right time for a new co-leader to take the caucus forward. However, his departure doesn’t necessarily mean a sudden shift in ideology for the Green Party.
Both co-leaders rejected that characterisation that Shaw was the party’s “centrist linchpin”.
“One of the things that we often joke about is the extent to which we're typecast in these kinds of caricatures. That is just a function of politics, and when I am no longer here someone else will get typecast with that [identity]”.
He told reporters that pragmatism was a way to deliver idealism and the two concepts were complementary, not contradictory.
“The Greens, for many decades, have talked about building consensus and that means building consensus with people who fundamentally disagree with you, not just with people who already agree with you”.
Green MPs were often working to build consensus and looking for “non-tribal” ways of working in Parliament, he said.
“That has been a tradition of ours long before I got here and I expect that to continue”.
Examples include a memorandum of understanding with John Key’s National Government and Golriz Ghahraman’s close working relationship with National’s Gerry Brownlee.
A members’ bill, drafted by Lawyers for Climate Action and sponsored by James Shaw, was drawn from the ballot after the summer break.
Shaw intends to stay in Parliament to “shepherd” the bill through the legislative process. If passed, it would recognise a right to a sustainable environment in the existing Bill of Rights.
He hopes Parliament will hold a conscious vote for the Bill. That could allow him to chalk up one more pragmatic, bipartisan, idealistic win before riding off into the sunset.
96 Comments
Firehouse red more like it. Whatever credibility they could previously muster now scarcely exists. Whatever foundation Jeanette Fitzsimmons and Rod Donald laid hardly remains. That good and necessary mission was hijacked to create an outfit in which the wacky, shrill and implausible have far too much sway.
Like him or not, the only partially sane individual in the Green Party (maybe C. Swarbrick might qualify too) is now leaving.
There is now free rein to the ultra-woke, activist, racist, ideologically extremist, moaning, self-entitled, self-righteously far-left section of the Party. There is very little "Green" in the Green Party now left.
A panel of seventeen international judges has just decided that it is plausible that acts of genocide are being perpetrated against the Palestinian people. And NZ is sending soldiers to the Red Sea to fight against the only nation taking physical action in support of Gaza, Yemen. Just saying.
I love the way people waffle in the safety of a different country. Its war not genocide the Palestinians are going to pay for what they did, the whole country is complicit and nobody will be able to stop it. All the aide is being pulled as well and I was totally shocked to find it was all coming from the WEST and not a single Arab country is prepared to front up with the cash despite all the "outrage and protests".
In other countries, the green party draws support from across the political spectrum. In NZ there is consensus on Climate change issues so the only way the Greens survive is to be nestled to the left. Greens did well this election cycle because Labour did poorly. nothing more to it. I like James Shaw, if for nothing else he dealt with various in party scandals with integrity and compassion. But I doubt his moving on will affect Green support. Maybe just their effectiveness.
My comment was in response to the much up-ticked comment "How they run their party is a good indicator of how they would run the country - into the ground".
The Green Party went from 6% to 8% to 13% in the last three elections. They are hardly being run "into the ground" as far as I can see.
My comment was intended to forecast the Greens management incompetencies effect on the country should they ever gain power, not on their basketcase of a party whose incremental support reflects the usual dissatisfaction of the extreme left with Labour.
The ACT vote increased from 0.5% to 8.64% over the last 3 elections. ACT + NZF now have approx the same vote as Greens + TPM.
I hope that clarification helps.
Incorrect.
5.8. The Co-Leader, Party Co-Convenor and Policy Co-Convenor positions are elected annually at the AGM:
5.8.1. One woman; and
5.8.2. One person of any gender.
5.8.2.1. If no women are nominated for Co-Leader, Party Co-Convenor or Policy Co-Convenor, nominations for one Co-Leader, Party Co-Convenor or Policy Co-Convenor position (as the case may be) must be re-opened.
5.8.3. For the Co-Leader positions, one must be Māori.
5.8.3.1. If no Māori candidates are nominated for Co-Leader or only one Māori candidate is nominated and their nomination is not endorsed by Te Rōpū Pounamu, nominations for one Co-Leader position must be re-opened.
5.8.3.2. If two or more Māori candidates run, Te Rōpū Pounamu endorsement is not required for eligibility.
5.8.3.2.1. However, Te Rōpū Pounamu may, if they wish to, formally express their support for one or more Māori candidates.
Why Maori? Wouldn't Pacifica be more inclusive? Maori are a Polynesian Pacifica ethnicity. I've an odd feeling my grandchildren some time in the future will read about selection rules for ethnicity and gender and be flabbergasted. Somewhat similar to how not permitting Catholics or Jews to be MPs was commonplace or not permitting atheists to sit in parliament until they had sworn an oath on the Bible.
Judging by the synchronised pantomime with the female co-leader of TPM in the pre-election debates would suggest it is simply a nod, for impression, towards capturing the let’s say, indigenous vote. Similar reasoning to wanting the voting age lowered to 16. Anyway if that was the case,on the day TPM certainly took the honours didn’t they.
A shame to see him go, while I can't always say I agreed with everything he stood for, but he came across as an intelligent, genuine man with a legit passion for trying to solve environmental issues which is something I can respect. While I haven't voted for them I feel the concept of a strong environment focused party is important for the country going forward - without Shaw they lose even more of those credentials in that regard. A pity, as it seems nobody else in the party can resist putting their foot in it at regular intervals.
Yeah he could help figure out how best to cut the DOC funding, which endangered creatures to mine into extinction, and what waterways will be stand-beside-able. /sarc
National is the polar opposite of the Green Party. If anyone jumped between those parties they would be shown to be completely without conviction. The idea of a blue-green party makes no sense and would be purely to capture votes, not about wanting to change NZ for the better.
It would be his to explain after years of claiming to have an undergrad qualification & refusing the Master's University to release any information.
https://waikanaewatch.org/2023/09/17/more-on-james-shaws-alleged-degree…
It is an offence under Section 20 to make a false claim of qualifications. You don't have to have a axe to grind to think this is out of order for an MP/citizen.
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1981/0113/latest/DLM53562.ht…
My understanding is he was instrumental in setting up the Cap and Trade scheme which is absolutely fundamental to our environmental goals (and could achieve some of them single-handed if used appropriately). Huge impact and we are well ahead of most countries with this policy.
He was a major reason I continued to vote Green and my vote could be up for grabs next election. A lot of the rest of the party leaves me cold.
Is this the same scheme that overseas speculators ran amok? The same one that received no bids for the purchase of carbon credits? I don't know the ins and outs of the the ETS but it sure had some major unintended consequences. I'd suggest one of the big three or four financial consultancies had a big hand in this and they'd eat JS for breakfast on it.
That's the one. Note my caveat 'if used appropriately'.
The basic fact is we have a scheme that puts a falling lid on carbon emissions with a pricing mechanism to push those emissions reductions to the areas where it is cheapest to do so. All the government has to do is run some auctions and set some guard rails - a beautiful, decentralised system if the politicians can stop fiddling with it and keep the lid falling appropriately.
Other governments are picking winners, running fast to incentivise behaviour and spending large, here the market figures it all out and the government collects the royalties, paid by all of us according to our emissions without us even realising.
But does it work? I'm not sure it's much help in reducing carbon emissions or any help to pay the enormous carbon credit bill NZ will have in the future. Has it put any money into research for decarbonisation?
It seems to me that it is not popular with the farmers who are now leaning on local councils to penalise foresters for growing trees. It looks more like a marvelous theoretical construct to financialise forest credits to trade in a new financial market. It looks good but does very little and it is not a scheme that politicians can resist screwing with.
Style over substance.
Forestry and the net vs gross argument is tricky - I would prefer to see exotic plantations excluded for the sake of their negative externalities. Others will simply look at the net emissions values but may support some restrictions on where or how much plantation is permitted.
Does it work? My question is how could it not work. We have a binding, reducing emissions budget. Do you think that industry won't comply with government rules and will emit without the associated permits? I doubt that. Admittedly agriculture is currently out of the scheme unfortunately, but I'd be surprised if their emissions were growing significantly enough to counteract the rest of society.
They would need to be elected first
What a weird idea that politicians can only be politically effective once they are in power, as opposed to politicians being politically effective which earns them that power. The former is thinking from people who don't really understand politics and are a bit too eager to excuse their politicians.
The following extract is just the stuff we don't need in legislation. I voted ACT at local constuency level and W 1st for list. I pretty certain this was the type of wording W 1st did not want in legislation and I think he would have been around as a handbrake during the Bill stage. Not much has ever come of him trying to get the the so called treaty principles out of legislation. From the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act 2019 (late 2019)
"5 Section 3A amended (Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi)) After section 3A(a), insert: (ab) with respect to section 5G (which relates to nominations for the Climate Change Commission), particular attention is required to seeking nominations from iwi and Māori representative organisations: (ac) with respect to section 5H (which relates to appointments of members of the Commission), the Minister must, before recommending the appoint- ment of a member to the Commission, have regard to the need for the Commission to have members who have technical and professional skills, experience, and expertise, and innovative approaches, relevant to the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi): (ad) with respect to sections 5ZG and 5ZI (which require the Minister to pre- pare and publish an emissions reduction plan), the Minister must include in a emissions reduction plan a strategy to recognise and mitigate the impacts on iwi and Māori of reducing emissions and must ensure that iwi and Māori have been adequately consulted on the plan: (ae) with respect to section 5ZS (which requires the Minister to prepare a national adaptation plan), the Minister must, in preparing a plan, take into account the economic, social, health, environmental, ecological, and cultural effects of climate change on iwi and Māori:"
Based on this I'll vote ACT even if I don't like 75% of their other policies.
I'm not surprised by this announcement. For much of the last year he's been back seat to the trio of "gender" woo woo and Gaza nutter activists. It was only a matter of time before their last rational and environmentalist member was shoved. I believe he was shoved after the election last year.
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.