Differentiation vs delivering

For the first time in their history, the Green Party is in government, with ministers and a confidence and supply agreement and the ability to change things directly rather than through the long, slow process of persuasion. And this seems to be leading to tensions. While the latest round seems to be focused on their decision to dump surplus parliamentary questions on the opposition so they can be used to hold the government to account (rather than wasted on pointless patsies), there's also underlying dissatisfaction with the decision to support the odious waka-jumping bill, and concerns about the Greens being lost in government. On the latter front, former MPs are talking about the need for the Greens to carve out their identity and differentiate themselves from Labour. Whereas I think they've already done something better, by delivering the hugely symbolic policy of banning offshore oil exploration. This is a solid Green policy, with multiple benefits - shutting down the pollution chain, protecting marine life from disruption and reducing the risk of future spills. And its one which I think runs contrary to the natural instincts of their partners. While Labour has talked about climate change, telling a significant industry in a marginal electorate that its days are numbered is not something they would naturally do (just look at how they treat coal on the West Coast). And NZ First are even less inclined to. But thanks to the Greens, the exploration pipeline has been closed off, at least for now. Slightly less huge, but still significant and symbolic and similarly against the instincts of their partners is cutting off government support for irrigation projects, which is a step towards cleaning up our water.

Unfortunately, supporting Winston's waka-jumping legislation is probably going to be the price of this. The Greens may be able to demand a sunset clause, but unless Winston decides to drop the whole thing, they'll have to vote for it as the price of getting along. Differentiating yourself by opposing or vetoing key policies of other parties is something you can do outside of government, but not when you have ministers as part of a formal support arrangement. It can happen - see for example Peter Dunne's opposition to National's gutting of the RMA, which delayed it for a whole parliamentary term until the Maori Party sold out the environment for a few corporate donations. But you only get to dig your heels in against your partners once without significant damage to the coalition relationship. And I'm just not sure if this is either the time or the issue for it. It might be better to save that card for the next American war...

So far at least the Greens seem to be delivering significant policy gains, which should keep their supporters happy for the moment. The question is whether they can keep delivering, and keep delivering big, attention-grabbing things as the costs and compromises mount up. Lest we forget, the Maori Party claimed to be delivering for their supporters, but after the symbolic victory of "repealing" (re-enacting under a different name) the hated foreshore and seabed legislation, what they mostly seemed to deliver was ministerial salaries to their leaders. And that simply wasn't good enough. Whether the Greens are doing enough is an exercise for their members and supporters at the next election...