Claire Trevett: Will Greens travel down new path?

Claire Trevett

It was Dr Michael Cullen who put it most succinctly when, towards the end of his valedictory speech, he turned to the Green Party, wished them luck and added, "but loosen up a bit. Saving the planet needs to sound less like punishment for our sins if it is going to work".

The Green MPs listening roared with laughter. They would do better to follow his advice.

It comes at an opportune time as the Greens set off on their latest bout of existential angst.

Over the past month or so, they have been quietly re-focusing themselves. That it is happening quietly is not for want of trying.

They've been speaking but nobody has really been listening. New MP Kevin Hague got the plum spot of opening the general debate on Wednesday. He was armed with the second part of a four-part series of speeches by the MPs designed to set out the Greens' new "modern" approach.

Kennedy Graham had delivered the first part - an analysis of exactly how far up the proverbial creek the world was both ecologically and economically. But as Kevin Hague spoke, other MPs in the debating chamber were noisily packing up after question time and leaving.

Very few actually listened.

What he was attempting to explain was that his party had spent the past 14 years or so predicting economic and ecological collapse. Now that it had all come true, the party was turning its attentions to delivering the solutions to that collapse.

The four speeches will eventually set the scene for the Greens' response to the Budget by setting out their economic, social and environmental underpinning. It is supposed to be the heralding of a refocused, modern party.

The series of scene-setting speeches was Kennedy Graham's idea initially.

The Green MPs are right that they have to move on - the question is how far they should go and whether the party is losing a bit of its soul by doing so.

The Greens' attempts to sell their new vision so far has hardly set the world on fire. The intellectuals are increasingly taking over the happy asylum that once was the Greens. Soul searching and adjusting the message for a new time is a necessary exercise and this is the right time to do so.

But in doing so, they risk a case of mixed-up messages. The Greens used to be relatively simple. Everyone knew what they stood for in the 1990s: legalise dope, stop genetic modification, anti-nukes, save the whales, grow organics.

Their catchphrases today, "sustainability axis" and "Green New Deal", are not quite as self-explanatory, even to their own supporters.

The recession should be a dream come true for them. It delivers a cornucopia of opportunities to both say "I told you so", push for environmental solutions and take the high ground in defending the downtrodden.

It has also given the caucus members a new focus. In their own ways, all of them are now pushing the Green New Deal - a term borrowed from US President Franklin D. Roosevelt's prescription for the 1930s Depression.

Boiled down, what it means is that the Greens want all that money the Government is hurling at roads and infrastructure to provide jobs for labourers to instead go on greener alternatives.

The party has so far focused on the economic and environmental impacts of the recession. The social costs have been a side-dressing only.

How far it goes down this path could depend on the election of its new female co-leader at the end of this month.

The contenders - Metiria Turei and Sue Bradford - are embroiled in the exercise of touring the nation together to try to win over the members to their cause.

Metiria Turei, 39, is painting herself as the face able to capture a new generation. Sue Bradford, 56, is pushing her experience.

In a fair world in which promotions are decided on experience and impact, the job would go to Ms Bradford. She is a strong and high-profile advocate for the down-trodden at a time when the party needs just that.

She is acutely conscious that the Greens can come across as a tad too earnest and they they need to target messages in a way that captures the imagination - or at least attention. Her response to Dr Cullen's advice on loosening up was to send a "tweet" on her twitter account that she hoped "we might manage it without flakiness".

Paradoxically, she could be punished rather than rewarded for being too "Green". There are concerns her association with the anti-smacking law will put off soft-green voters such as suburban housewives worrying about decomposable nappies.

However, her greatest risk is she will come a cropper to the obsession for political parties to get "fresh faces".

In theory, the argument should not be so strong among the Greens, whose co-leadership structure gives them the luxury of being able to have both a fresh face and one that is not so fresh.

On marae, kuia get the best seats, but this is not so in politics. Metiria Turei is already widely tipped to have the edge because of this very thing. Although the members who will cast their votes tend to be middle aged, they know the value of capturing "young" voters before their voting patterns are set.

The members will have to weigh up whether they can take the risk of another relative unknown at a time when Russel Norman is still building his profile.

It won't necessarily be a killer. Jeanette Fitzsimons is leaving early for this reason - to give time for profile building.

Dr Norman is getting there - his decision to stand as a candidate for Mt Albert is a masterstroke. That it is a poke in the eye to Labour is an added bonus, but not the reason for the decision. It is fruitful territory for the Greens and gives Dr Norman a chance to become more widely known by Auckland voters.

The choice of female co-leader will also be critical for the Greens' future decisions on dealing with other parties - and their handling of their dealings with National under the two parties' memorandum of understanding.

Among their new messages is much talk about a new "sustainability axis" and an eschewing of the left and right divide in politics.

It indicates the party is considering revising its positioning vis-a-vis the two major parties. Despite the talk, given its visceral antipathy to National, this is unlikely to be anything more than window dressing.

Even its currently mild agreement with National to co-operate on highly specific initiatives, such as home insulation, must have caused some significant soul-searching within the caucus.

News that the Greens were supping with the Devil - even if it was only hors d'oeuvres - will have caused considerable disquiet among members as well, especially among those wedded to the party's social justice policies.

Its MPs will undoubtedly be asked to justify it at the annual conference at the end of this month.

But it will be the vote between Sue Bradford - steeped in grassroots protest and the advocacy soul of the Greens - and the newer, shinier Metiria Turei that will give the clearest signal on whether members fear the party will lose some of its soul by trekking further down its brave new path.