Relationships Greens proposal ‘a bit cheap’ strong: Ardern
WELLINGTON: Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says New Zealand’s relationship with Australia is strong and so is her relationship with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.
Ms Ardern has just returned from the Apec summit in Vietnam and the East Asia Summit in the Philippines.
While she was there she twice had meetings with the Australian Prime Minister to push New Zealand’s offer to take 150 of the Manus Island refugees, which Australia has turned down several times.
After her last meeting with Mr Turnbull, she admitted there was a risk the issue could become irritating.
Questioned yesterday, Ms Ardern said the relationship with Australia was strong.
‘‘This relationship has such depth that it rides above any political issue of the day, that continues to be the case,’’ she said.
‘‘I would certainly characterise my relationship with Malcolm Turnbull as a strong one and a good one.’’ — NZN WELLINGTON: The first ripples of discontent have emerged in the new Government, as Labour and New Zealand First accuse the Greens of ‘‘cheap’’ horsetrading for considering a deal in exchange for supporting a wakajumping Bill.
Justice Minister Andrew Little said it would be ‘‘a bit cheap’’ to do a deal with the Greens in exchange for their support for the Bill, but it is generally not uncommon for parties to do some horsetrading.
His comments come as a Green Party internal email from justice spokeswoman Golriz Ghahraman — accidentally sent to Fairfax — revealed the Greens were considering trying to get a national day to commemorate Parihaka in exchange for support over the wakajumping Bill, a key part of the LabourNZ First coalition deal.
Ms Ghahraman floated the idea of a Parihaka day which is the subject of a Green private member’s Bill.
‘‘The Government won’t have the numbers to pass the [wakajumping] legislation without us, and if we decided to oppose it then they would need to consider other options such as approaching the National Party, who opposed the 2005 Bill,’’ the email says.
‘‘Opposing the Bill would cause political tensions, given the inclusion of the Bill in the LabourNZ First coalition agreement.
‘‘Our confidence and supply agreement gives us the independence to choose to vote against it.
‘‘Supporting the Bill would be seen as changing and weakening a longstanding and public party position. It would risk criticism from our core supporters.’’
The idea quickly ruffled the feathers of Mr Little and NZ First leader Winston Peters.
NZ First MP Shane Jones added the Greens could benefit from some expert advice from Helen Clark’s No 2, Heather Simpson, who is working in Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s office.
‘‘The sooner that Heather Simpson goes to visit the Greens, the better,’’ Mr Jones said.
‘‘The wakajumping Bill is an important Bill. It played a key feature in the development of the Government.’’
The Bill is a new addition to the Government’s 100day plan and would ensure a party’s proportional representation in Parliament, if an MP left a party.
Mr Little said Ms Ghahraman had not raised the idea of a Parihaka day in their discussions, nor had she suggested the Greens might oppose the wakajumping Bill. He said horsetrading over the issue would be poor form.
Winston Peters poured scorn on horsetrading tactics.
‘‘We’re not going to do deals. This is a matter of principle.
‘‘And the principles are, if wakahopping destroys proportionality, it has to be dealt with.
‘‘If Parihaka is a meritorious [idea], then it should be dealt with separately.’’
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said doing a deal with the Greens over wakajumping had not come up ‘‘in direct conversation’’.
She said she had not given much thought to a Parihaka day, but would be pleased to see greater observance of such days. — NZME
WHAT do the Greens think they’re playing at? Their response to the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) has done themselves, and the Government they’re ostensibly part of, a huge disservice. Honestly, it’s the sort of reaction one might expect from a clutch of radical student politicians: long on ‘‘principle’’, short on commonsense. If this is how the Greens plan to conduct themselves over the next three years, then they had better find themselves an electorate they can win (without Labour’s support) and fast. Because keeping their party above the 5% MMP threshold is likely to prove a constant struggle.
Perhaps they’ve convinced themselves that by waving their antiTPP banners across Twitter and Facebook they will pick up all those ‘‘woke’’ voters who’ve accused Jacinda Ardern and David Parker of ‘‘selling out’’ to global capitalism at Danang. How many might that be? Almost certainly a lot fewer than the very substantial number of generous Labour supporters who gave the Greens their party vote on September 23 to make sure they didn’t disappear from Parliament altogether. If the Greens aren’t willing to reciprocate that sort of solidarity, then there’s buggerall chance of it being repeated!
The Greens do not appear to understand that the key to improving their party’s position electorally, as well as strengthening its hand politically, lies in conceiving of the LabourNZ FirstGreen government as a single entity: one which must either hang together or, most assuredly, it will hang separately. Stealing their comrades’ electoral lunch, in these circumstances, can only damage the Greens every bit as much as it damages (and enrages) Labour and NZ First.
But, then, strategic (or even tactical) thinking would not appear to be the Greens’ strong suit. Was there noone in their caucus capable of imagining the grim spectre that was bound to be raised by their very public repudiation of the CPTPP? Not one person in their ranks with the wit to realise that by withdrawing their eight votes from the Government, the Greens would be driving
Jacinda straight into the arms of Bill English and the National Party? Did no Green MP pause to consider the ‘‘optics’’ of that? Of how much damage it would inflict on all three of the governing parties?
Even if Labour capitulated at the last moment, and agreed to pull New Zealand out of the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans Pacific Partnership — would the Greens count that as a ‘‘victory’’? If so, they’d be wrong. Such a public demonstration of the tail wagging the dog would be catastrophic for Labour and the Greens alike. And if Labour refused to be blackmailed and allowed the National Party to ride to its rescue? What would that say about the viability of the LabourNZ FirstGreen government? What would it mean for the relationship between Jacinda and James Shaw? Labour’s wrath would be terrible to behold — but not as terrible as their revenge.
It all could have been handled so differently.
All that was required of the Greens’ caucus was some evidence they understood that contributing usefully to the work of a progressive government requires just a little more in the way of political finesse than denying the right of free speech to a handful of National Front tragics in Parliament grounds.
On the CPTPP issue, for example, the Greens could have reached out to their Canadian counterparts for advice on how to build the largest possible political consensus around what should — and should not — be included in a multilateral trade agreement. In this, they would have been doing Labour a huge favour: making the arguments that the Prime Minister and her Trade Minister could not be seen to make, but which would, nevertheless, strengthen their hand in future negotiations.
As it is, by firing off all their ‘‘principled’’ bullets at once (and before their target was even within range) they have taken themselves out of the game.
Even worse, they have demonstrated, beyond reasonable doubt, that they don’t even know what the game is — or how to play it.
That is not something which can be said of NZ First.
Winston Peters has maintained a judicious silence concerning the desirability — or otherwise — of the CPTPP. He will study the problem professionally, from all angles, until he locates exactly the right point to exercise his leverage. My advice to the Greens? Watch and learn.
❛ Strategic (or even tactical) thinking would not appear to be the Greens’ strong suit