The question that has been on many non-Green Party voters' minds was whether the party would verge to the left once co-leader James Shaw leeaves the party?
Meanwhile, some Green Party members were asking the opposite question: could a more strident co-leader accelerate progress on the issues the party is focused on?
On Friday morning, Chlöe Swarbrick pitched herself as being the answer to both questions while announcing her intention to run for the co-leadership.
She described herself as a “researched radical” who wanted a “livable planet, wealth tax, rent controls, healthy rivers and a guaranteed minimum income”.
“I've also proven my ability to work with people across the aisle, to grow our movement and change hearts and minds without compromising on values”.
Swarbrick said she admired Shaw’s ability to build consensus and create policy that has survived the recent change in Government.
“What I bring to the table is not only that consensus building, but also I think that capacity to mobilize our communities as I've amply demonstrated, in for example, Auckland Central”.
The political world has had its eye on Swarbrick ever since her long-shot run for the Auckland Mayoralty. She came nowhere near winning, but caught the imagination of younger voters who volunteered in droves.
Swarbrick became something of a voice for Millennials and Gen Z, who often have much more radical politics than their more mainstream older counterparts.
Her ability to rally support and organize a campaign helped her to defeat both major party candidates in Auckland Central, an electorate which often party votes for National, in 2020.
This victory convinced the wider Green Party to contest more electorates in the 2023 election and it ultimately won two more: Wellington Central and Rongotai.
Her popularity and influence makes it unlikely that any of her caucus colleagues will challenge her. But, as she pointed out herself, the Green Party is unpredictable.
Election process
Nominations for the co-leadership close next Wednesday and will be followed by a policy conference and party-wide zoom calls to engage with the candidates.
The various party branches then discuss among themselves and fill out ballot papers which are returned on March 8. This process happens even when a candidate is unopposed.
Other possible candidates include Julie Anne Genter, who has ministerial experience, and Teanau Tuiono, who could position himself as Davidson’s eventual successor instead.
Marama Davidson has now signaled she will stay on to contest the 2026 election, despite sounding unsure during Shaw’s resignation announcement.
Swarbrick said it was her intention to work alongside Davidson to grow the Green movement and “achieve tangible, real-world, people-powered change”.
Part of her strategy could be to boost the Green Party’s presence in local elections. The party has previously won mayoral races in Wellington and Dunedin, as well as some councilors.
Swarbrick said, as co-leader, she would work to grow local branches to run campaigns in next year's local body elections and “beyond the election cycle”.
“We will continue to grow our Green Party caucus, as the leading movement of the political left, and ultimately we can lead government,” she said.
A Swarbrick-Davidson leadership would have climate change and wealth inequality as the party’s “central focus” — which means tax reform will stay near the top of the agenda.
“It has been mind-numbing to consistently hear members of the government saying they want a more productive society, without looking at the elephant in the room, which of course is our tax system,” she said on Friday.
Shaw’s shadow
Peter Dunne, a former Labour and United Future MP turned political commentator, said the Green Party had an opportunity to establish itself as the leading opposition party.
The Labour Party has been significantly diminished by its election loss and its attempt to pivot towards the centre has divided and de-energised its caucus.
“Labour looks set for a time of significant internal debate—no bad thing in itself—but one that has the capacity to widen further the divisions already evident within the party. All of which creates new opportunities for the Greens,” Dunne wrote in a newsletter.
“A more sharply defined position on environmental and social justice issues, that resonates with ‘teal’ voters in middle class electorates—like Auckland Central, Rongotai, Wellington Central and more—is an important next step the Greens need to take”.
However, Shaw faced backlash within the party for his moderation and pragmatism which could make it difficult for a new leadership duo to win widespread support.
“Whatever future leadership combination emerges within the party is unlikely to be as moderate and pragmatic as Shaw. That means that potentially the Greens could be less influential in the future,” Dunne said.
56 Comments
Well since it hasn't even been a week since one of you "Tauranga Ratepayer/Hobsons Choice" types said there weren't any Maori, the comments are rather rich.
If you can't see why then I really can't be bothered explaining it to you, I'll leave it to Winston
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDRJj0UKO6M
I could accept a person of 50% Maori blood is a Maori below this the are by definition of mixed race whihc is a difficult issue being at what % of Maori bloodline qualifies as Maori and then as we can now identify as a different sex/gender can I self identify as Maori. Not being argumentative Te Kooti but I trust you see the issues and surely it is better to define what in 2024 constitutes a Maori and then if that confers rights that others do not have?
It just show's the level of ignorance that so many of you have grown up here and yet struggle to define what it is to be Maori.
There is no concept of blood or % in Maoridom. You whakapapa back to the whenua, to your hapu and back to your waka. If you can do that, you are Maori. That is why elders as so important, they know where everyone fits in.
My great grandparents were born in New Zealand and that is far back as anyone in my family knows. No one knows who their parents were or their ethnicity, although we all look pakeha. However given that my great grandparents were born here I likely have some Maori ancestry but am not sure, do I count as Maori?
I would see Chloe as a more social lefty than a greenie - so the push will be for more state intervention rather than more sensible environmental legislation
Swarbrick has dyscalculia and a history of depression and anxiety. Swarbrick sees a psychologist weekly and is on anti-depressants
I have a feeling this could end badly for her
I fact checked the above before making this comment. I find it interesting that Swarbrick has taken on economics-related debates if she has dyscalculia. That would be a significant disadvantage if she had to debate the economy as a PM, as she's said she'd like to eventually get to be.
Ironically she can leak that but the greens would never have a disabled candidate in parliament with the Green party ableism in their actions actually causing more harm to the disability sector in a few years than what has happened over more than 3 decades.
But a little light neurodiversity on the side, while in advertising making completely clear she never has any of the common effects of that neurodiversity in day to day living, well that is just good for branding. It was no omission of actual issues but rather more cultural appropriation of the neurodiverse community just to look good for the zeitgeist. Which is actually more harmful in the long run as it pushes us further back from real effective change & she is lifting the ladder up from everyone with disabilities pulling equity and access further away.
Using mental health and neurodiversity as an excuse for bad character actions that are completely not typical of most the population with those conditions actually harms public perception. It is not inspiring. It is maddening that neurodiversity is now being used as a get out of jail free card while tainting all those with the conditions who are more often victims and law abiding at higher rates then the general population but face far more stigma from negative actions of these politicians.
Not in parliament, not in electorates, not on the list, and literally no inclination for equity or diversity for disabled people either. Its sad when parties on the right actually care more for disabled access to even live in NZ then the Greens. Greens have little to no care for actual equity for disabled people. It is all marketing. Hence the little light neuro on the side to still retain a vote from about 10% of the left leaning population but all those so called disabled equity policies are thrown out the door, contradicted and disabled access is removed in real terms by their party at the first opportunity. If the greens cared about equality then 25% of parliament MPs would have significant disabilities and a co leader would need to have a significant disability as well (in the aims of equality and equity). Instead of stripping disabled access in wellington they would need to have accessible transport and parking for disabled people to even attend parliament at all.
Take the clean car tax policy which targeted the only transport for mobility impaired disabled people with the highest of taxes leaving many disabled people without enough funds so their ability to retain mobility transport was then cut, and renting transport became massively more out of reach. The greens are still literally advocating for increasing stripping of disabled families access to the community, stripping access to the CBDs, stripping their access to medical care, education, housing and work. If you think that was equitable then you have been sniffing greens rear side too much.
Better to have a party that is honest and easy to challenge in court than one that demonizes disabled people at every opportunity in their ads, strips access & medical care, lies all the time and decides to remove your access to justice for living needs.
I don't support any political party, but politics is the contest of ideas and I am a strong proponent of any government coalition having a healthy opposition. As such, I think that Swarbrik is going to be the breath of fresh air that the Greens, stagnant in their 10 - 15% support range, and (de facto) Labour, like a deer in the headlights on a strange road, need. Besides, she's energetic, thinks outside the box, etc..... I think she'll make the next 2.5 years a helluva lot more interesting & entertaining. Go Chloe!
Stagnant at 10-15%?
They received 11.6% of the total vote the last election (their second highest percentage ever going back to 1990).
The election before that? 7.9%, then 6.3% in 2017.
And now they have to try and better that without James Shaw.
Excuse me for not sharing your optimism, despite my congruence that strong voices in opposition are healthy. Sadly, without pragmatists like James to provide some balance, this lot will appear far more extreme.
Feckin ay. Hear hear!
Some of the comments here towards her are downright disgusting and really is a reflection of the commenters. Maybe they have unacknowledged mental and behavioural issues.
Owning, addressing and taking responsible action to addressing her health challenges should be commended in a world that still wants to stick it's head in the sand regarding mental health. By being honest and transparent she is actually encouraging others to be open about their own challenges. Addressing these issues must be difficult enough - being stigmatised for it only adds insult to injury. It should in no way reflect on her ability to perform her tasks or her worth as a human.
She was highly researched in the cannabis referendum debate and spoke a damn sight clearer than any of her political counterparts.
A lot here have very preconceived and judgmental thinking - y'all might want to address those issues first.
She is sorting her personal issues. She's not there to look after anyone else.
Ever thought that through addressing her own health she might actually be learning effective tools that enable her to do a better job communicating and developing intra personal relationships than any of her political counterparts?
I disagree with you. She communicates badly with people she fundamentally disagrees with. She is also a nutter.
I think the current Tripartite Coalition Government is the best thing that could have happened to NZ after the previous 3 years of radical Leftist Identitarian Lunacy from Labour.
We get a chance to roll back all of that Marxism, and we get to keep the likes of Chloe Swarbrick on a short leash by exposing her ideology whenever she pushes it..
'Shaw faced backlash within the party for his moderation and pragmatism'
I would have thought in todays political world that moderation and pragmatism are actually attributes.
Quite clear what course the Green Party is heading, whoever the new co-leader is.
If they stuck to Green issues they would do well, but let's face it they are going to get even more looney.
Until the Green Party becomes a bona fide Green Party they will always remain as irrelevant as they are now. The majority of New Zealanders have nothing in common with a party that is so far left of left it will always be the bridesmaid. At the next election Labour will be forgiven and those who normally voted Labour will return to the fold as they realise they achieved nothing in voting green who are mere toothless tigers and will always be.
For those on low incomes who are discriminated and marginalised in society and excluded from the community by lack of physical access Chloe would be a literal death knell. I for one am hoping NZ never rings that bell and largely ignores her and her ableist abusive policies and rhetoric. It is clear she has no real world experience or scientific knowledge and what is more cringe is that she abuses her position and populism to only bolster her own ego.
Sadly while she is the least sustainable candidate by far with the least experience in green sustainable practices, in the greens she commands most the social media attention with her abusive hateful actions stealing media attention. At least her delusion of leading the greens to win PM truly are a distant chance.
I have no doubt that Chloe Swarbrick (I don't use umlauts or macrons in English language words or names) believes in her many radical Leftist identitarian causes.
I also have no doubt that she also thinks that everyone else should also believe them, and for the same reason as her.
The issue I have with her, is that she is an extreme Leftist Identitarian nutter who thinks that she knows better than us ordinary folk, and who will willingly legislate away your and my right to free speech and self-determination on even the most basic of matters if she was given the opportunity.
And for that reason I think her goals and ideology should be exposed at every turn so that ordinary people can see just how murderous her Leftist Marxist ideology is.
If you think her ideology isn't Marxist in nature please would you elaborate on how you came to that conclusion.
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.