Green Party delegates reveal the motivations behind the effort to unseat James Shaw and the longstanding divisions that may not be healed with a new election, Marc Daalder reports
Analysis: Disillusionment with James Shaw's performance as Green Party co-leader likely won't be appeased if he earns the job back in the coming weeks.
Frustration over perceptions that Shaw failed to challenge Labour on climate issues and other Green Party priorities and that he wasn't in touch with the party's grass roots led to the historic decision to reopen nominations for his position at Saturday's annual general meeting.
Shaw was still backed by a majority of delegates at the conference, but the 29 percent who voted against him in an effective vote of no confidence crossed the 25 percent necessary to trigger new elections.
Newsroom spoke to a number of delegates from Saturday's AGM as well as current and former members for this article.
No obvious contender
Supporters of Shaw see the vote for a new ballot as the surprise result of a coordinated campaign. Those who oppose his leadership say it's simply the will of the membership.
At last year's AGM, 14 percent of delegates voted to reopen nominations and another 2.8 percent voted for a long shot challenger. Clearly, the dissatisfaction isn't new. Whether concerted effort from the most environmentally concerned and left-wing factions of the party helped tip the balance this time around is unclear.
AGM votes are conducted by delegates who consult with local branches about which way they should vote. Technically, delegates could go against the wishes of their branches. While Shaw's backers weren't willing to say to Newsroom that this had happened, they're certainly suspicious. The delegates who voted against Shaw unanimously told Newsroom it was the wishes of their branches.
Saturday's vote might also not have been representative of the membership's view for another reason. Branch meetings aren't always accessible to parents or people who work evenings and not every member who can attend one does. If Shaw enjoys more support than the 71 percent suggested by the AGM vote, those backers may well turn up to the next round of branch meetings to make their voices heard.
Either way, the anti-Shaw movement clearly didn't have a plan for what comes next. No one announced a plan to oppose Shaw in the hours or days after the vote - even as of Tuesday morning, there were no other candidates in the race.
Delegates conceded that Auckland Central MP Chlöe Swarbrick was always reluctant to seek the co-leadership, but explicitly described the vote to reopen nominations as making space for her to run.
Swarbrick imploded their effort to unseat Shaw on Monday afternoon when she announced she was happy with her current responsibilities.
Now, there are relatively few serious options for change. List MP Elizabeth Kerekere appears to be the most likely contender, as she said she was considering her options on Monday and would make any announcements after Green MPs meet for caucus on Tuesday morning.
Kerekere doesn't command the name recognition that Swarbrick does and has only been in Parliament for 20 months. She also admitted to breaking Covid-19 isolation rules during the first Omicron wave in March but hasn't received significant press coverage beyond that.
Some of those spoken to by Newsroom declined to comment on specific potential candidates, but others felt Shaw was likely to win out in a head-to-head against Kerekere.
The Green Party's rules allow for non-MPs to contend the leadership as well, but no specific names came up in conversations with members.
Grassroots concerns
If Shaw runs unopposed again, or if he wins out over a weaker candidate by a solid margin, the concerns of the factions that sought to unseat him are likely to go unaddressed.
Delegates summarised the concerns of their branch members, who instructed them to vote to reopen nominations, as relating to three specific issues: Lack of progress on climate change, a cozy relationship with Labour and distance from the membership.
Shaw is seen to be tied too closely to Labour, failing to challenge them in his role as Climate Change Minister and failing to win more ambitious climate policies.
Shaw has argued, often unsuccessfully, for more ambitious action in the past. He recommended a much more stringent Paris target to cut emissions than the one the Government ultimately adopted and saw a range of policy work delayed last year when the Ministry for the Environment's Budget bids failed.
When he touts victories, it's often unclear whether the result would have been identical under a Labour minister. Some of those victories, like the He Waka Eke Noa scheme for pricing agricultural emissions, have been widely panned by environmental NGOs as giving in to big polluters.
Complicating matters is the fact that the Prime Minister has said Shaw will retain his climate change portfolio even if turfed out of the Greens leadership. That raises doubts for members about whether a change in leadership would address their concerns about climate delay.
Other delegates say this could help the campaign against Shaw. It separates out the question of who is best suited to lead the Greens from the question of the Greens' ministerial portfolios and relationship with Labour. That could enable a change in leadership now and then a change in coalition arrangements at some later date.
For some of the delegates opposed to Shaw, the disagreement dates back to the decision after the 2020 election to sign a cooperation agreement with Labour. Although Labour has the votes to govern on its own, the Greens decided to retain a few ministerial portfolios and stay in Government rather than push for greater climate action from the outside.
Green Party delegates ratified the agreement at the time by 114 votes to 17. But the discontented see that deal as emblematic of Shaw's flawed approach to bargaining with Labour - too friendly and not pushing hard enough. If the Greens find themselves with all the leverage after the 2023 election, Shaw's critics ask, will he get them the best deal they can get?
Even those who support the deal sometimes think the Greens could be getting more out of it.
Finally, a wide range of Green Party members say Shaw has spent too little time connecting with the membership. Even his supporters concede he could attend a bit more to his duties as co-leader, rather than letting his ministerial work suck up all of his time.
The majority of Green members still seem to back Shaw, but the large minority who want to see him gone shouldn't be ignored. Since he took on the role in 2015, Shaw has been subject to criticism from the left-wing factions of the party. He has a tendency to be flippant about that opposition and to dismiss it. That only produces more ill will.
While it now seems likely that Shaw will hold on to the co-leadership job after the next round of voting, if there's no real contest for the position his victory would only paper over these divisions. Some serious soul-searching will be needed from Shaw if he wants to put this behind him for good, and from the activists who oppose him, if they want the party to move forward with success.
Of course, even if no real contender emerges, there's always the possibility that another vote to reopen nominations succeeds at the new ballot. The anti-Shaw delegates say Green members are aware this could be perceived as petulant and isn't all that likely. But even the threat of it underscores the seriousness of the discontent in the party.
