Political review: Greens go for broke over GM

By VERNON SMALL

Roll up, voters, roll up!

See the Greens on the high wire!

Watch as they defy political gravity to bring down the only Government they can ever be part of!

Hold your breath as they balance their principles against political ambition!

But just remember ... when the Greens' Queen's Birthday conference votes to oust the Government if it lifts the ban on commercial release of GM organisms (GMO), it is no sideshow.

The most fervently anti-nuclear party will be threatening to explode the ultimate political nuclear bomb. The doyens of consensus will be taking a non-negotiable stance. The MMP tail will yet again be trying to wag the Government dog.

At its worst the vote could condemn the country to a period of unprecedented political instability, leading to another election as soon as October next year.

It could also condemn the Greens to the sidelines of politics for the immediate future.

The Greens are playing a high-stakes game, but it was a decision taken unanimously by the seven Green MPs ahead of the party conference.

"We would rather not be here than vote for a Government which let GMOs out of the lab," was co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons' bottom line.

But if it was a decision on a matter of fundamental principle, there were other dynamics at work too - not least internal politics in the days before the annual conference.

The recommendation will be one of two the party rank and file will consider from MPs.

The other, in the name of the leaders inside and outside Parliament, will mandate negotiations over a coalition deal with Labour after the election. (If it is approved the Greens would take the result of any coalition talks back to a special conference for ratification.)

It was apparent at the party's conference in Nelson last year that there is real scepticism among the grass roots about going into a coalition government at all.

The MPs are much more enthusiastic. They see the Cabinet table as the best place to make progress on Green policy, but they have a delicate path to walk.

The membership would never have agreed to a coalition deal that did not insist on the moratorium continuing. And it would probably have put that proviso on the MPs anyway.

By themselves recommending a tough line on GMOs the MPs have offered a (GE-free) carrot to the sceptical activists.

It might also help convince them that with one important victory under their belts they should be more amenable to swallowing other policy "dead rats" as part of a compromise with Labour. Those could include a more moderate line on free trade, and tacit agreement to Michael Cullen's superannuation fund.

While Fitzsimons has not ruled out other "bottom lines" there are unlikely to be any which would be coalition-breakers.

The release of GMOs is the only issue the Greens see as irreversible.

On others they may simply reserve the right to differentiate under the "agree to disagree" protocol in the Cabinet manual - as the Alliance did over a free trade deal with Singapore.

If Labour accepted an extended GMO moratorium it would no doubt want some pretty widespread Green compliance in return.

Yet the whole issue may be academic. Because Labour is showing few signs of bending.

Helen Clark's response to the "ultimatum" was strong and swift. She warned the Greens they were being "ridiculous", "Luddites", and single-issue politicians.

She was careful not to rule out talks completely. But there is a strong view in Labour that the moratorium is not for extending.

The present rules were a significant compromise carried by a slim majority in Labour's caucus. They are in no mood to agree to an extension which would cut so symbolically across the Budget's central theme - economic transformation through catching the "knowledge wave".

The irresistible force meets the immovable object.

The Greens have to hope that Labour has bigger fish to fry than an extension of the moratorium ... like two more years in power.

But those are issues which will only crystallise after the election.

The immediate concern for the Greens is the effect their hardline stance will have on their vote.

As always there are two schools of thought.

The Greens' leadership believes the party will be rewarded in a number of ways; by those who agree with their position (said to be two-thirds of the population); by the extra profile it will get in the media; by those who want to see minor parties stand on principle; and by those who fear a Labour Government with an absolute majority will grow in arrogance.

The contrary view is that voters punish small parties when they get too uppity; that Green-friendly Labour voters will be driven back to the mother ship because they will not want a Labour administration to fail; and that voters don't vote for single-issue parties.

If the Greens are wrong they are taking a big risk with their parliamentary future - on present polling they have precious little freeboard above the 5 per cent threshold.

If they do take a bad hit, they will be forced to rely on the liferaft of Fitzsimons' Coromandel seat.

The unanswered question is whether Helen Clark will reach for her own nuclear button - and withdraw endorsement of Jeanette Fitzsimons in that seat.

Late in the week her advisers were saying she was "reflecting" on the matter.

Top of her mind will be the trade-off between burning the Greens for their intemperance and risking wasting Labour's best hope for a significant coalition partner.

She might also like to consider two other things.

The first is the new-found spring in Winston Peters' step as he watches his rival minor parties running into heavy weather. He may be her only other coalition option.

The second is that a moratorium on GMOs is the Greens' Kiwibank.

If she wants them as a partner, now or in the future, she will either have to bend or offer another significant policy "win" ... so the tail can wag in a less threatening fashion.

nzherald.co.nz/ge

GE links

GE glossary