Green Party’s identity crisis should be cause for a rebrand - Bruce Cotterill

Green MP Chlöe Swarbrick has been the party's co-leader since March. Photo / Mark Mitchell

THREE KEY FACTS:

• Chlöe Swarbrick became the new co-leader of the Green Party in March, and immediately let rip at the Government’s “bully boy behaviour”.
• Swarbrick replaced James Shaw, who was appointed male co-leader in 2015 and resigned in January this year.
• Controversy has marred the Green Party this year with scandals involving Golriz Ghahraman, Darleen Tana and Julie Anne Genter.

Bruce Cotterill is a professional director and adviser to business leaders. He is the author of the book The Best Leaders Don’t Shout and host of the podcast Leaders Getting Coffee.

OPINION

Most of us believe, or would like to believe, that those who put their hands up for public office do so with the intention of seeking something better for the people they represent and the country as a whole.

We are currently seeing an episode play out, almost daily, which suggests that such lofty ideals do not necessarily ring true.

Our own Green Party has become incredibly distracted as it stumbles from one public relations disaster to another. Last weekend the party held its annual conference. If there were themes about the betterment of the country, they quickly became lost in the noise about their people, their misdemeanours and their disagreements.

Since that conference, the headlines have continued. Few of them have been kind. Those who make up what’s left of the New Zealand Green Party are probably more distracted from their roots than any political party in this country has ever been. Their departure from those roots, coupled with their inability to deal with internal issues, has replaced what was once, many years ago, a constructive and outward-looking focus.

There was a time that I thought about voting Green. It was a long time ago and I was young and stupid. But they seemed concerned, honest and determined. My pastimes were swimming and surfing. They talked about looking after the oceans. They were genuinely concerned about the environment in those days. And they were determined to make the world a better place for everyone.

They were authentic too. I think that’s what resonated more than anything. Jeanette Fitzsimons and Rod Donald, tramping boots afoot and heavy-duty parkas wrapped around their bodies. Often their press calls took place by the bush or alongside the coast that they clearly cared deeply about. We thought they were different, perhaps a bit wacky even.

But even those of us who ultimately disagreed with their politics could see that they cared for this country. The country they had grown up in. With the Green Party’s early success, they had found a place, a platform, from which to discuss the things they cared about. They didn’t get into the arguments of others. They had views and values and substance. They seemed to care more about the future of the planet than themselves. They were consistent, measured and disciplined. Authentic.

Oh, how times change. That Green Party doesn’t exist any more and New Zealand is all the poorer for its disappearance.

Whether we talk about a business, a school, a sporting body or indeed a political party, plenty of organisations lose their way from time to time. In strategic planning reviews, we are often forced to consider the fact that our progress is not taking us towards our intended goal or our purpose. Sometimes it’s because we are off course. Alternatively, the destination or target may have changed without us noticing. Either way, a conscious change is usually required.

In the case of the Greens, that target is no longer the environment. Instead, their attentions are focused on the impoverished, the Palestinians, Māori and, most recently, each other. If these are the causes they wish to pursue, that’s okay. But these are not the aspirations of a genuine Green Party. In any review of their performance, it is awfully tempting to talk about the inappropriate behaviours in the parliamentary chamber, the shoplifting, the immigrant labour or the tantrums. But we don’t really need to, do we? Because there is a bigger picture.

In New Zealand, we don’t deserve the hard time we give ourselves on environmental issues. While our environmental standards might not meet the expectations of the protesting few, the reality is that we do better than most countries.

We talk about the environment a lot. We’re pretty good at recycling. We could do more of the obvious stuff. Eliminate waste. Recycle better. Think more clearly about plastics, old tyres and forestry waste. Our farmers are among the most environmentally responsible in the world.

But the reality is that the rest of the world doesn’t care as much as we do and they don’t do as well as we do either. We banned plastic bags from supermarkets. But, having just spent a couple of weeks in the USA, those same plastic bags are in every supermarket and every other store too.

While we’re being forced out of our cars by councils trying to slow emissions, those same cars are a way of life in America. You can’t go anywhere without them. The only difference is that America realised that early and built the roads before the Greenies got in the way. The roads are fantastic and, despite bigger populations, getting around is easier than it is here.

There are environmental nasties like Styrofoam cups and plastic utensils aplenty in cafes and hotels across North America. Plastic utensils! Even if you only need a spoon, you get a plastic bag with a knife and fork thrown in for good measure. Milk is brought to you in a non-recyclable plastic container. There is very little in the way of “in-cafe recycling”. When you’re finished, your plastic plate, paper serviette and plastic utensils all go into one bin with your food waste.

Green MPs (from left) Tamatha Paul, Marama Davidson, Julie Anne Genter and Chlöe Swarbrick wearing matching outfits in honour of their late colleague Efeso Collins in April. Photo / Mark Mitchell

Elsewhere, brand-new coal-fired power stations continue to be built. The electric car fad, only recently hailed as an environmental game-changer, is already starting to fade. The big motor companies are upgrading their fossil fuel alternatives.

Some big polluters are not party to the Paris climate accord. Meanwhile, we’re beating ourselves up for not meeting our emissions reduction targets under that same accord. According to this newspaper, our Government is planning “a tree-planting frenzy” to get our environmental efforts back on track. But we’re not going to change the environment on our own.

One of the reasons we do better than most is that those earnest Green party politicians from the 1990s, although they seemed a bit wacky at the time, gave us an environmental conscience. And, although it took time, we slowly changed our habits. I often wonder what Donald and Fitzsimons might have achieved if they had the social media channels available today.

However, the current Green Party show no signs of using those social media channels to lead another generation to a better environmental place. They don’t talk about the oceans or the bush. They talk about Palestinians, indigenous rights and the rainbow community.

And so they must face up to the strategic question above. Are they off-track? Or has their purpose changed? The party conference would have been a good place to do that. But, you know, they got distracted!

You see, the aspirations to be our environmental conscience have been overtaken by the desire to champion those whom they believe to be the downtrodden. I’m not saying that’s wrong. But I am saying that it’s inconsistent with their branding.

Are they proactively challenging us to improve our environmental habits? Or are they reactively championing minorities? If they are to be a socialist party, then that might not suit their green branding. Similarly, despite the power of that branding, they do not do their cause any good by using the platform to deliver a different message.

Their other issue is talent. In James Shaw they had a spokesperson who resonated with a large section of the electorate. But he’s gone, as have others, and with it so has much of their respectability. Despite their 15 parliamentary seats, the Green Party is forced to face up to its challenges with a continually decreasing talent pool. They’ve lost key people and the rot hasn’t stopped yet. With each new list MP it seems that the credentials weaken.

In the meantime, the environmental debate is constantly changing and it will continue to do so. The climate science is increasingly being challenged. We thought there was a trend to electric vehicles. That trend now appears as merely a fad, as sales slow and the big manufacturers pivot once more. The big polluters aren’t playing ball and show no signs of backing down. The well-intentioned small nations such as ours cannot make the strides alone that some would like to see.

I like the idea of a true representation of environmental issues in our Parliament. I’d like to see proper, well-reasoned and constructive discussions in our communities about how we can do better. I’d like to see us do the obvious things around our waste, our waterways and our oceans. And I’d like to see us acknowledge the challenges in each of those areas and to develop a plan that would see us lead the world.

But the people who incoherently scream mixed messages into their megaphones about a range of unrelated topics are not the people to lead that environmental debate for us.

And so perhaps it’s time for the Green Party to undertake a strategic review, one that would usher in a new brand that more accurately reflects their areas of focus and their values. The New Zealand Socialist Party sounds like a more appropriate label and a brand position that they would more likely live up to.

But, of course, they won’t do that, as doing so would remove the “Green positioning”, the one authentic platform that has put them on the stage they now occupy.