Greens taking one for the team

Twenty years later, we’re still coming to grips with theMMPreality that democracy is no longer a winner-take-all contest. Fashioning a majority – and not merely finishing in front of everyone else – is the prerequisite forMMPsuccess. Even so, many voters have jibbed at the deals National has done in Epsom, to ensure the Act Party’s pliable presence in Parliament.

A similar backlash may ensue if Phil Goff wins the Auckland mayoralty this week, since his exit from Parliament would trigger a by-election in his Mount Roskill seat. Already, the Greens have said they won’t run a candidate in the Roskill electorate race, which will significantly boost Labour’s chances of retaining the seat.

Is Labour really at so much risk in Roskill that such deals are necessary? ‘‘I think the risk is sufficiently high,’’ says Greens coleader James Shaw, ‘‘ that we didn’t want to risk it.’’ What tells him the risk exists? ‘‘National had a very high party vote, and [Labour] have a new candidate. Phil Goff had a massive majority but that was built up over many years…‘‘ It’s not that Shaw has seen any polls indicating Labour is in trouble. ‘‘We’re just being cautious.’’

Right. So will this be a one-off deal, or will it happen again at next year’s general election? It’s a one-off for now, Shaw replies, but he’s hasn’t had any conversations yet with Labour about an electorate strategy for 2017. A National victory in Roskill, he points out, would alter the current power balance in Parliament. Given that changes to the Resource Management Act are in the offing, he says, the Greens couldn’t gamble on Labour’s ability to hold the Roskill seat. After all : ‘‘One of the advantages ofMMPis that it helps to moderate the ruling party’s more extreme tendencies. Certainly with theRMAreform, it comes down to Peter Dunne, and the Maori Party who are as twitchy as we are at some of what [National] have got in mind.’’

Unconvincingly, Shaw tries to draw a distinction between the coded ‘‘cup of tea’’ voting signals conveyed in Epsom, and the Greens open messaging to Roskill voters. Regardless, won’t the Greens’ tactical abstention somewhat debase the currency of any subsequent by-election victory by Labour? To Shaw, the end clearly justifies the means. If the alternative is a defeat, he replies wryly, handing a victory to National that would change the balance of votes in Parliament simply wasn’t a risk worth taking. Besides, Labour and the Greens have just agreed in writing to cooperate to change the government. ‘‘Working against each other to hand the government a win would be contrary to the spirit of that agreement, and also to the letter.’’

So far, Labour’s reaction hasn’t exactly been effusive. Given the Greens’ willingness to take one for the team, wouldn’t it be nice if Labour showed him a bit of gratitude? ‘‘Um.…yeah, I guess. I haven’t seen any commentary from Andrew [Little] or anyone in response to our press release that came out the other day.’’ Have they said thanks yet? ‘‘Well to be honest with you, I don’t know. I’ve been travelling this week.’’