When the Green Party faithful assembled for their annual “State of the Planet” address in Wellington in April, there was another party going on out the back: music and noisy voices, disrupting local MP Tamatha Paul’s warm-up speech.
The venue was an atrium that joins a collection of boutiques, offices and hospo ventures in buildings just off Courtenay Place. It was a good event space, except that behind the screens it opened onto a bar, which is where all the noise was coming from. Somehow, organisers from the Green Party managed to shut down the party party before Marama Davidson and Chlöe Swarbrick took to the stage, but it did feel a touch symbolic: the party wasn’t being taken seriously enough by the public. The public prefers the other kind of party.
And yet they forged on. It’s what they do. After two terribly difficult years, 2024 and 2025, recent polls show a consistent rise in support. This month 1News Verian and Talbot Mills both had them at 13% (up 2% and 4% respectively), while the Taxpayers Union Curia poll recorded 11.5% (up 1.8%). This suggests the Greens are at or even ahead of their 2023 election result, which was 11.6% and gave them 15 MPs, their best result ever.
The Greens are at or even ahead of their 2023 election result, which was 11.6% and gave them 15 MPs, their best result ever.
While Labour has still revealed very little of what it might do in government, the Greens are thinking big: this year they’ve released a plan to electrify the economy, a plan to end homelessness and a comprehensive tax reform package.
If, as looks very possible, there’s a change of government, the Greens will likely form an important part of it.
“In the words of the undefeatable, indomitable Warriors,” Paul declared in her opening speech, “This is our year!”
Plenty of Warriors fans could have told her April is a cruel month to be making predictions. As Helen Clark used to say, it’s usually better to under-promise and overdeliver. Still, while the Greens may be no more indomitable than the Warriors, it is true they’re both having a good year.
All they have to do is get the people in that other party out the back to put down their drinks and join them. So to speak.
Swarbrick used her speech to deliver some old-fashioned inspiration. “Nearly 100 years ago,” she said, “following world wars and the Great Depression, regular people across the world made the choice to work together not to fight against something, but to fight for something. Our great-great-grandparents created something humanity had never before seen: a social safety net that meant everyone would be able to survive and contribute. Those who came before us fought for free healthcare and education, guaranteed jobs and state housing. They made the seemingly impossible possible. We’ve done big things before, and we can do them again.”
I know it’s campaign rhetoric, but that doesn’t make it untrue. Who doesn’t believe, looking at the world today, that we have to make the seemingly impossible possible? Who doesn’t want to believe we can do it?
THE GREENS HAVE two core messages. They’re both simple enough to express, but they can be difficult to explain.
The first is that we have to change. We’re living beyond what’s called “planetary boundaries”, which is a way of saying we are using up Earth’s finite resources, destroying biodiversity and making the planet inhospitable to life.
There’s no “fix the economy and then we’ll sort out the planet”. The way we’re “fixing the economy” is the problem.
There’s no “fix the economy and then we’ll sort out the planet”. The way we’re “fixing the economy” is the problem.
This means that if we want the wellbeing and prosperity we need for decent, secure lives, if we want to make good on our values of fairness, equity and opportunity for all, we cannot keep on living the way we do. Our consumption habits, the way we behave towards each other, the way we make political decisions and, most of all, the structure of our economy: all of them must change.
And yes, change is hard, but it also offers great possibilities.
The second message is that the problems we face have a common cause. It’s the super-rich. Not “people who are well off”, but a tiny elite: Elon Musk and all who travel with him, the tycoons of the fossil-fuel industry, the financiers who enable them. They have created the climate crisis, the menaces of social media, the funnel that sucks wealth upwards even while they pretend it trickles down.
The oligarchs and techbros are not trying to solve the world’s problems, although they have the resources to do so. They’re causing them so they can make money from them.
These two messages are not the views of the two main parties. Both Labour and National want us to believe we can have the things we value without having to change and without having to confront the billionaires.
Theirs is an easy message to deliver, because it’s reassuring. It asks nothing of us and it doesn’t threaten the most powerful people in the world or in this corner of it.
Green policies turn those core messages into action plans. Energy reform, to leave fossil fuels in the ground and introduce rooftop solar with batteries at massive scale. Urban networks of electrified public transport, cycling and walking that are so frequent, reliable, safe and cheap they offer genuinely better travel options for many people much of the time. Conservation strategies to clean up our waterways. A proper commitment to social housing.
And tax reform, targeting the super-rich and offering a tax cut to 96% of us.
These things are all doable. They’re also essential, aren’t they?
The oligarchs and techbros are not trying to solve the world’s problems. They’re causing them so they can make money from them.
WHENEVER ANY PARTY announces a policy, its opponents go looking for holes in it. Sometimes they find them. This month alone the Greens have reminded us there’s a $5 billion hole in the government’s emissions plans and they also found a $500 million hole in its new KiwiSaver policy. And National found an error in the Greens’ tax plan. On it goes.
It’s fair enough to complain when political parties get their homework wrong, that’s an important part of the cut and thrust of political progress. But mistakes shouldn’t always become the main story.
In the Greens’ tax plan, $100m in annual spending was wrongly counted as revenue, creating a $200m annual error, or $800m over four years. As the consultancy Infometrics has now confirmed, the correct net revenue projection for the tax plan in the for the 2027/28 year is not $5.35b as originally announced, but $5.15b. This extrapolates to $20.6b over four years.
Pause on that. Twenty billion extra revenue over four years, contributed by the people who benefit handsomely from our current economic settings, for the government to spend where it’s most needed, while offering tax relief to nearly everyone. That’s the main story.
“But,” say the opponents of wealth taxes, “they’ll all leave!” Really? Where will they go?
“But wealth taxes don’t work!” This is true when they are filled with exemptions, but it doesn’t have to be true.
“But Labour won’t stand for it!” Well, look at it this way. Most people believe we have to stop burning the planet and most people believe we should live in a more equitable society. The central question is: how are we going to achieve these goals?
As the Greens say, it would be a good start to frame all our political decision-making with those goals. And the cornerstone is tax reform.
GOLLY, RECENT TIMES have been tough for the Green Party. Getting that record result in the 2023 election was good, but overall the centre-left lost the election, so they were out of power. That was bad.
Then it got really bad. The worst of it was the tragic death of Fa’anana Efeso Collins, a new and immensely well-liked MP, a brilliant orator who seemed, at age 49, to be surging into his political prime.
There was lingering internal strife around the former MP Elizabeth Kerekere and scandals over the behaviour of MPs Golriz Gahraman, Darleen Tana and Benjamin Doyle. In March 2024, co-leader James Shaw resigned; in June the same year Davidson stepped away from politics to deal with breast cancer. She wasn’t able to return until February 2025.
That all gave Swarbrick quite a lot to do. She had to manage the party’s MP problems. As spokesperson for climate change, finance and revenue she was responsible for the signature policies. And she had to lead a strategy for growth and regeneration, with a stronger party list, a united and well-functioning caucus, and clear policies and purpose.
It tells us a lot about Chlöe Swarbrick. Fiery crucibles? She’s been there.
In my view, it’s remarkable how well the Greens have survived the pressures on them this term. They didn’t collapse. They didn’t adopt the Labour path, shrinking into their shell and declining to produce policy. They didn’t implode with infighting, as National did in 2018-2020. They didn’t indulge in the kind of outrageously opportunist politicking that’s become the hallmark of NZ First.
That’s to the credit of the caucus they have now, and to the dignified and determined way Davidson has managed her illness and come back fighting. And most of all, it tells us a lot about Chlöe Swarbrick. Fiery crucibles? She’s been there.
MARAMA DAVIDSON TOOK part in an Oxford Union debate last November. The same forum David Seymour and Winston Peters have spoken in; the same one David Lange made world famous in New Zealand when he told the American evangelist Jerry Falwell he could smell the uranium on his breath. Seymour and Peters lost their debates; Lange won. Davidson won.
She told a supporters’ meeting on a wet night at the Māngere Mountain Education Centre recently that the debate had featured “some of the most awful and violent racism” she had ever encountered. And some of it was received with a standing ovation. But, she said, for her own speech she got “an even bigger” standing ovation.
The moot was, “This House believes the sun should have never set on the British Empire” and Davidson told them the phrasing was insulting. “The sun never has set on the Empire,” she said. “But the sooner it does, the better.”
In Māngere she said when she received the invitation she thought it was a joke. Discovering it wasn’t, she realised she had to do it but found it so frightening she decided not to tell anybody. Which is what happened: she flew to Britain with one assistant and kept it a secret even from the sister she stays with when she’s in Wellington.
She was the first wahine toa ever invited to speak at the Oxford Union and she decided she would tell her own story and let that be the argument. “I can’t say anything about this without saying who I am and where I’m from, and that is the point, I assure you, of speaking against Empire ... I am the river and the river is me.”
She said she believed in a future where power was “shared instead of weaponised” and the colonialism some of them seemed to hanker after was “the vessel to carry out the cruelty of capitalism”.
In Māngere, she said she was disappointed the media had not covered the debate, although she did acknowledge her secrecy hadn’t helped. That is very true. If you want journalists to write about an event, you’re supposed to tell them it’s on.
Davidson missed a trick there, but she didn’t miss a trick with the speech. It’s terrific, and you can watch it here.
THE GREENS GET it from all sides. You’d expect complaints from the Government parties, climate denialists and the hard right. But it’s surprising how often others take their shots, including Labour, many in the media, leftists who think the Greens have sold out, conservative greenies who want more pest-trapping and less politics, and everyone who fears climate action will be too costly or just too inconvenient.
Sometimes, these critics even echo the complaints of the culture warriors of NZ First, that the Greens are obsessed with Gaza and transgender issues.
This is not borne out by the facts. Of course the Greens care about the war on Gaza: they’d be a poor sort of progressive party not to. They care about gender politics, too, and don’t resile from it. But these are not the things they spend most of their time on.
One indicator of how the Greens deploy their time and energy is its media releases. This year, at time of writing, there have been 97.
Thirty address environment and conservation issues, including 16 on the biggest single topic on the list: climate change.
Another 30 have been in the broad economic sphere, including the cost of living, tax reform, poverty and homelessness.
Six have focused on democracy concerns and another six on Māori and the Treaty of Waitangi. Social issues account for 18 statements, with education getting the most attention (five) and transgender issues the least (one). There have been two statements about the war on Iran and none about Gaza.
I’ve also looked at the questions Green MPs ask ministers in Question Time in the House, and the pattern is similar. There’s a big focus on children and young people, especially in relation to poverty, abuse in state care, emergency housing and education. And another big focus on environment and conservation issues, including climate change and transport.
NATIONAL WANTS US to believe the Greens’ new tax policy is “economic lunacy” and a “wrecking ball for economic growth” that would discourage investment and drive talent and capital overseas.
This is hilarious. Which party refuses to entertain tax reform, keeping capital locked up in property? National. Which party underfunds essential core services? National. Theirs is the economic lunacy that sabotages development and productivity, reinforces our low-wage economy and drives record numbers of young and talented people away.
National’s economic lunacy sabotages development and productivity, reinforces our low-wage economy and drives record numbers of young and talented people away.
Other critics say the Greens are “not green enough”, that they focus too much on economic issues. This complaint is weird.
Political parties are supposed to care about the things voters care about, and right now the cost of living is top of the list. Why should the Greens be absent from the debate? Conversely, if they were, wouldn’t they be accused of being out of touch with ordinary voters?
There’s another reason the Greens talk about the economy a lot. As Swarbrick said in her State of the Planet speech in April, “We don’t have to trade-off between fixing the cost of living, the fossil-fuel crisis and the climate crisis. They are the same problem, all created by the same man-made rules.” Poverty is a climate issue. Energy security is a climate issue. The climate crisis is an economic issue.
And climate change is a multiplier of every other problem. If your housing or your health is poor, climate change will probably make it worse.
Critics sometimes say they preferred James Shaw as co-leader, because he was less into poverty and social issues. That simply isn’t true. Shaw spoke often about the related goals of fighting poverty and the climate crisis and is working on that relationship in a green economics role now.
Sometimes, the complaint is simply that the Greens are dreaming: Swarbrick’s “seemingly impossible” really is impossible. The wealth tax won’t work, emissions won’t reduce fast enough, the transition to a clean economy will be too hard. We won’t drive less, we won’t reduce our dairy herd, we won’t eat less meat. We’re good, thanks.
AND YET TRANSITIONS are already happening. More importantly, for transition to become popular and effective it needs the government to lead.
You can’t leave the car at home unless the government funds good networks for public transport, cycling and walking. To transition away from fossil fuels the government has to ban coal mining and drilling for gas.
Remember that central question? If we know we have to stop burning the planet and we should be living in a more equitable society, how are we going to do it?
As for rooftop solar, to achieve massive scale it needs more than Christopher Luxon and Simeon Brown mumbling talking points they’ve half-remembered from the Greens, as they did this week when they belatedly got on board with the idea. It needs the right regulations, industry training, incentives and a pro-active marketing campaign. Luxon and Brown have said nothing about how to roll out their new policy at scale. Just leave it to the market and keep drilling.
That puts the emphasis on individual choice. But the key is not what you or I choose to do by ourselves, it’s political and economic reform. This is why we need parties in parliament committed to strong climate action. National is laughably not committed. And Labour, on its own, has not shown that commitment either.
The reality is that the next centre-left government will be as progressive as the Greens are strong. And they’ll be as strong as the number of party votes they get.
Remember that central question? If we know we have to stop burning the planet and we should be living in a more equitable society, how are we going to do it?
Answer: With a government that uses climate and equity goals to frame its decision-making. No other party says this.
This post is the second in a three-part series on electoral options. The first examines the case for a “grand coalition” of Labour and National. The third, on the Opportunity Party, will follow shortly.
re "They are morally earnest, but economically naïve and politically immature." Any party that has been in Parliament since 1996 (originally as part of the alliance) and is currently the third largest in Parliament cannot be said to be politically immature. While I understand the concerns you’re raising, they rely on an older stereotype of the Greens rather than the policy platform they actually publish today. When you look at the detail, it’s not a silo of environmental idealism. Their economic programme is built around full employment, regional development, innovation, infrastructure investment, and evidence‑based regulation. Their tax plan gives most people a cut through a $10,000 tax‑free threshold, while targeting only the ultra‑rich and the biggest corporations. And crucially, their proposed wealth tax is explicitly designed assuming a level of avoidance and behavioural change. They model the revenue conservatively, not optimistically. That’s the opposite of naïveté.
Their social and economic policies are also deeply focused on livelihoods: housing security, income adequacy, public services, food systems, energy resilience, and community wellbeing. They publish a full alternative budget with detailed fiscal modelling — which is not something a politically immature movement does.
It’s also worth noting that much of their platform aligns closely with what’s now being called The London Consensus (see https://www.lse.ac.uk/school-of-public-policy/Research/London-Consensus) a framework developed by leading economists such as Mariana Mazzucato, Dani Rodrik, Joseph Stiglitz, and others. The London Consensus argues that modern economies need active public investment, mission‑driven industrial policy, fair and efficient taxation, strong public institutions, and environmental sustainability built directly into economic strategy. In other words, the Greens’ approach is not fringe; it is consistent with where many of the world’s most respected economists think advanced economies need to go.
You may still disagree with their priorities, and that’s fair. But the idea that they are morally earnest yet economically naïve doesn’t really line up with the breadth, modelling, and international alignment of their actual policy programme. In fact, if you compare the published platforms of the parties currently in government, the Greens’ set of policies is arguably the most integrated systems approach, linking environment, economy, social wellbeing, fiscal strategy, and long‑term resilience into a single framework. That is politically and economically astute, and very much the opposite of naïve.
Thank you for this fine piece of writing Simon. There's just one thing I'd like to comment on. You write 'And yes, change is hard, but it also offers great possibilities.' Forgive me, but you're only half-right on this one.
The biggest single impact we can make as families on environmental degradation and climate change is to own fossil-fuel-burning cars. And that change is easy.
We have had an electric vehicle on Waiheke Island for ten years now. Usual weekly fuel bill - around $4 worth of electricity. And yes, we've done plenty long-range road trips as well.
We used to have a car in town - and gave that up 20 years ago. Since then we have always used Auckland's public transport. No worries. We get around town and arrive at appointments on time more reliably than colleagues stuck in traffic.