Editorial: No longer Labour's tame ally

Opinion

The Greens have taken a long time to realise that they have backed themselves into a political cul-de-sac. Unable to contemplate co-operating with a National-led government, they have left themselves at the mercy of Labour. And it has taken them three election victories to discover that Labour, like National, would sooner deal with parties that do not occupy its own side of the spectrum.

Labour is as wary of the Greens as National is of Act, and for the same reason. Labour and National need to draw their maximum electoral support from the left and right respectively. Neither wants another party to prosper on its territory. Any party that does so is not going to be spurned entirely, as it could be needed after the next election, but it is not going to be given much help either. As Labour has shown, if it can find alternative supporting parties to its right it will prefer them to the Greens.

So the Greens have taken the opportunity of a leadership vacancy to begin to reposition themselves. Jeanette Fitzsimons and her newly elected co-leader, Russel Norman, say the party is neither of the left nor right but represents a new dimension to the political axis and that they could now see themselves working with National or Labour governments. This declaration is an important development in our politics.

Environmental concerns are indeed a dimension quite different from the left-right axis of social policy. Left and right in political terms refers essentially to where a party stands on questions of individual freedom versus social equality. It is a moot point whether a clean, sustainable environment is best served by public ownership or private enterprise. Socialist countries 20 or 30 years ago were in a much less attractive condition than places where people had private property to maintain.

New Zealand has long had greens of the right and left. It was largely an accident of recent history that the left-wing Green Party made it into Parliament while greens of the right have continued to work in national and community pressure groups and run their own "green" businesses in some cases.

The left Greens got into Parliament because the political fulcrum had moved well to the right by the 1990s and Labour had to move with it, leaving room for a party to represent perhaps 10 per cent of the electorate who were left behind. Jim Anderton sought to represent them with his NewLabour Party but the Greens offered a fresher face for essentially the same policies and were more successful.

The Greens quit the Alliance before its demise and since the 2002 election they have been the preferred party of the left behind - a small but highly articulate constituency in the liberal professions and the arts. The Greens have now decided they need a broader constituency for survival. And with Labour in its third term they need to keep their options open if they are to have any leverage in public policy after the next election.

But they will need to pay more than lip service to their newly adopted stance. They will gain nothing by disclaiming they are left wing if they have policies that favour closed borders, industry protection and maximum state ownership of the economy.

Ms Fitzsimons suggests her party has some common ground with National in rejecting a "big all-powerful state" and preferring to empower communities. Global warming could be the testing ground. Having seen Labour back away from a carbon tax the Greens may be open to market methods of discouraging greenhouse emissions. National, too, may be open to new suggestions in that direction. We may soon see whether the Greens are serious.