Editorial: Alliance may make Greens a greater force

Since entering Parliament under its own banner in 1999, the Green Party has established an enduring presence. But its proportion of the vote has been stuck in single figures and its influence on public policy largely invisible. During most of the Labour Government's tenure, when the Greens might have been expected to hold sway, they seldom commanded attention. Behind the scenes they may have exerted influence on climate change and public transport, but the decisions belonged to the Labour Government. The Greens, unwilling to be part of a close coalition, were cold-shouldered for the most part.

Now, however, in a seemingly less propitious environment, they are signatories to a memorandum of understanding with a National Government. This agreement, under which the Greens and ministers will work together in several policy areas, clearly owes a great deal to the all-embracing approach of the Prime Minister, as well as to a new pragmatism in the Greens.

The Greens went into the last election saying they could not support a National government, and watched John Key's Administration quickly cancel several of their pet policies under Labour. These included a $1 billion home-insulation fund, a compulsory biofuel quota, the banning of incandescent light bulbs, and a moratorium on new fossil-fuelled electricity generation. But resentment has been superseded by Mr Key's readiness to engage the minor parties, and his subsequent comments about the health and environmental value of insulation work.

The agreement may also owe something to the imminent retirement of the Greens' co-leader, Jeanette Fitzsimons. Her unwillingness to compromise lent a certain purity to the party but also denied it a place among the decision-makers. Russel Norman, her fellow co-leader, was unconvincing when he sought to play down the major shift in the Green's approach.

He insists the memorandum does not affect their independence, and involves only a good faith working relationship for the introduction of a home insulation fund, the development of a New Zealand-based regulatory system for natural-health products, and to update the country's energy-efficiency strategy. But limited purposes cannot conceal the deal's political significance.

There is no apparent political cost for the Government. It gains some environmental credibility and, potentially, a degree of bargaining clout with another minor party. This may be opportune, considering the disagreement with the Maori Party over seats on the proposed Auckland Council. However, if this issue came to a vote in Parliament, the Greens would side with the Maori Party, as they would on most issues.

Additionally, they know that they must tread carefully. A party built on idealism cannot be seen to take unprincipled decisions. Nor, in Mr Norman's words, can it afford "to be anyone's lackey". Its supporters, many of them liberal professionals and academics, are on Labour's side of the main political divide, and would also struggle to tolerate any display that smacks of a lust for power.

Nonetheless, the memorandum of understanding signals a more constructive role for a party that has prided itself on sitting, however impotently, in left-field. It may be especially timely for its agenda, as recession tends to deflect attention from environmental concerns. The Greens need to keep those concerns in the public mind, and playing a part in policy-making, albeit limited, will help it do so.

The party could even begin to appeal to a broader section of the electorate. The partnership may just provide the impetus to make the Greens a greater force.