Of Act’s Green-Wash Hogwash, and the Green Party’s Refusal to Denounce Either

DAVID SEYMOUR’S BOLD THRUST into green territory at last weekend’s Act conference has clearly rattled the Greens themselves. Even before Seymour’s keynote speech (the content of which had been leaked to key journalists well before delivery) the Greens had let it be known that they would not be offering any comment on its content.

This refusal to respond to the Act Leader’s environmental policies was, of course, a news story in itself. Why were the Greens signalling their anxiety so obviously? To the news media, it suggested that Act might just be on to something. Paradoxically, the Greens’ media strategists’ refusal to dignify Seymour’s remarks with a response did not, as intended, kill the story. All it did was make the Act leader’s speech more interesting.

Why was Act so keen to present itself as green? That was the first question to be answered. Why was a party with an appalling environmental record; a party that had proudly proclaimed its climate change scepticism; suddenly attempting to paint itself as the environmentalists’ best friend? Why was David Seymour so willing, unlike his predecessor, Rodney Hide, to declare publicly his belief in anthropogenic global warming?

The answer, of course, is because Seymour knows that the environment is about to become a crucial political battleground, and that silence on the key question of Climate Change (or, worse still, denial) is no longer a viable option for right-wing political parties. This puts the MP for Epsom well ahead of his National Party sponsors, whose lackadaisical approach to environmental issues (especially Climate Change) renders them acutely vulnerable to left-wing attack. Seymour hopes to spike the Left’s guns by transforming Act into a green party with neoliberal characteristics.

As a young man (much younger than his immediate predecessors Don Brash and John Banks) David Seymour does not need any reminding concerning the extraordinary pull of green politics on voters in the 18-25-year-old age-bracket. He, likewise, knows a crucial demographic when he sees one. A party that cannot attract a sizeable portion of the youth vote (something which Act has never quite managed to do) can have no long-term future in electoral politics. Becoming a green party with neoliberal characteristics is, therefore, Act’s last, best hope.

All the more reason, one might have thought, for the Green Party to be primed and ready to expose the absurdity of a green party with neoliberal characteristics at the very first opportunity. It’s not something that requires an overabundance of brain-power.

Take Act’s plan to privatise Landcorp, for example. This is being presented as the necessary prelude to establishing private, predator-proof sanctuaries in which endangered species can recover and thrive.

That the privatisation of Landcorp will be good for the environment is a claim based upon the state farmer’s supposed contribution to environmental pollution. But, as anyone who knows anything about Landcorp will attest, the SOE has an excellent environmental track-record. Indeed, its farming practices (especially in dairying) are recognised as the benchmarks for private farmers to follow. Its innovative land-use strategies and reforesting efforts have pointed the way in terms of “greening” the countryside.

Getting rid of Landcorp would, therefore, be a seriously retrograde step in terms of protecting the New Zealand environment – and Seymour knows it. He also knows that his proposed private sanctuaries could not possibly bear the burden imposed upon them by the dissolution of the Department of Conservation – his and Act’s true target.

The parties of the Right turned against DoC in the late-1990s and have been plotting ever since to first weaken and then destroy the prime defender and conservator of New Zealand’s clean, green image. Since coming to power in 2008, National has shamelessly starved the Department of funds, forcing repeated restructurings, job losses and an ever-greater dependence upon the commercialisation of the sort of outdoor pursuits most Kiwis once took for granted – and enjoyed for free.

The elimination of Doc would also allow the Right to revive its plans to mine for minerals in New Zealand’s conservation estate; and would clear the way for foreign buyers to take possession of the nation’s iconic landscapes.

Act’s so-called “environmental policies” are, therefore, anything but. Imposing peak-time charges for users of the roading network as a substitute for petrol tax may sound “green” – but only until you realise that it is nothing more than a device to lower the costs of the trucking companies by piling them on to ordinary commuters. Replacing a targeted Emissions Trading Scheme (which will, eventually, include the agricultural sector) with an across-the-board Carbon Tax would be equally regressive. Especially when such a tax is used to offset reductions in personal and company tax!

Seymour’s apparent embrace of “green policies” is, therefore, the exact opposite of what it appears to be. By “green-washing” its neoliberal approach to politics, Act hopes to do two things. First, to build up the party’s electoral base by luring young right-wing voters away from National. Second, it intends to absolve capitalism from having to accept significant restrictions of its actions – even as it pretends to support their imposition.

Why, then, have the Greens not seized this opportunity to expose the hollowness of Seymour’s conversion to green politics? Why not strangle Act’s green changeling in its cradle?

The answer, surely, lies in the Greens ongoing repositioning as a potential National Party coalition partner. While not identical, there are enough similarities between the Greens’ “green capitalist” policy offerings, and Act’s, to raise serious doubts in the minds of left-wing voters. Any attempt to debate the content of Seymour’s keynote speech could all-too-easily have ended-up drawing journalists’ attention to the Greens’ plans to substitute consumption and carbon taxes for the existing taxes on work and income: plans Seymour has openly endorsed by (equally openly) stealing them.

That James Shaw declined to use the occasion of Seymour’s conference speech to not only demolish his bogus green credentials, but also to reassure the Greens’ left-wing supporters that there are absolutely no circumstances which would allow the Green Party to be part of a governing coalition involving National and Act, is politically intriguing – to say the least. Big Business may be feeling reassured by Act’s belated conversion to Green Capitalism; but nowhere near as reassured as it’s being made to feel by the Green Party’s failure to instantly and publicly denounce it.

DAVID SEYMOUR’S BOLD THRUST into green territory at last weekend’s Act conference has clearly rattled the Greens themselves. Even before Seymour’s keynote speech (the content of which had been leaked to key journalists well before delivery) the Greens had let it be known that they would not be offering any comment on its content.

This refusal to respond to the Act Leader’s environmental policies was, of course, a news story in itself. Why were the Greens signalling their anxiety so obviously? To the news media, it suggested that Act might just be on to something. Paradoxically, the Greens’ media strategists’ refusal to dignify Seymour’s remarks with a response did not, as intended, kill the story. All it did was make the Act leader’s speech more interesting.

Why was Act so keen to present itself as green? That was the first question to be answered. Why was a party with an appalling environmental record; a party that had proudly proclaimed its climate change scepticism; suddenly attempting to paint itself as the environmentalists’ best friend? Why was David Seymour so willing, unlike his predecessor, Rodney Hide, to declare publicly his belief in anthropogenic global warming?

The answer, of course, is because Seymour knows that the environment is about to become a crucial political battleground, and that silence on the key question of Climate Change (or, worse still, denial) is no longer a viable option for right-wing political parties. This puts the MP for Epsom well ahead of his National Party sponsors, whose lackadaisical approach to environmental issues (especially Climate Change) renders them acutely vulnerable to left-wing attack. Seymour hopes to spike the Left’s guns by transforming Act into a green party with neoliberal characteristics.

As a young man (much younger than his immediate predecessors Don Brash and John Banks) David Seymour does not need any reminding concerning the extraordinary pull of green politics on voters in the 18-25-year-old age-bracket. He, likewise, knows a crucial demographic when he sees one. A party that cannot attract a sizeable portion of the youth vote (something which Act has never quite managed to do) can have no long-term future in electoral politics. Becoming a green party with neoliberal characteristics is, therefore, Act’s last, best hope.

All the more reason, one might have thought, for the Green Party to be primed and ready to expose the absurdity of a green party with neoliberal characteristics at the very first opportunity. It’s not something that requires an overabundance of brain-power.

Take Act’s plan to privatise Landcorp, for example. This is being presented as the necessary prelude to establishing private, predator-proof sanctuaries in which endangered species can recover and thrive.

That the privatisation of Landcorp will be good for the environment is a claim based upon the state farmer’s supposed contribution to environmental pollution. But, as anyone who knows anything about Landcorp will attest, the SOE has an excellent environmental track-record. Indeed, its farming practices (especially in dairying) are recognised as the benchmarks for private farmers to follow. Its innovative land-use strategies and reforesting efforts have pointed the way in terms of “greening” the countryside.

Getting rid of Landcorp would, therefore, be a seriously retrograde step in terms of protecting the New Zealand environment – and Seymour knows it. He also knows that his proposed private sanctuaries could not possibly bear the burden imposed upon them by the dissolution of the Department of Conservation – his and Act’s true target.

The parties of the Right turned against DoC in the late-1990s and have been plotting ever since to first weaken and then destroy the prime defender and conservator of New Zealand’s clean, green image. Since coming to power in 2008, National has shamelessly starved the Department of funds, forcing repeated restructurings, job losses and an ever-greater dependence upon the commercialisation of the sort of outdoor pursuits most Kiwis once took for granted – and enjoyed for free.

The elimination of Doc would also allow the Right to revive its plans to mine for minerals in New Zealand’s conservation estate; and would clear the way for foreign buyers to take possession of the nation’s iconic landscapes.

Act’s so-called “environmental policies” are, therefore, anything but. Imposing peak-time charges for users of the roading network as a substitute for petrol tax may sound “green” – but only until you realise that it is nothing more than a device to lower the costs of the trucking companies by piling them on to ordinary commuters. Replacing a targeted Emissions Trading Scheme (which will, eventually, include the agricultural sector) with an across-the-board Carbon Tax would be equally regressive. Especially when such a tax is used to offset reductions in personal and company tax!

Seymour’s apparent embrace of “green policies” is, therefore, the exact opposite of what it appears to be. By “green-washing” its neoliberal approach to politics, Act hopes to do two things. First, to build up the party’s electoral base by luring young right-wing voters away from National. Second, it intends to absolve capitalism from having to accept significant restrictions of its actions – even as it pretends to support their imposition.

Why, then, have the Greens not seized this opportunity to expose the hollowness of Seymour’s conversion to green politics? Why not strangle Act’s green changeling in its cradle?

The answer, surely, lies in the Greens ongoing repositioning as a potential National Party coalition partner. While not identical, there are enough similarities between the Greens’ “green capitalist” policy offerings, and Act’s, to raise serious doubts in the minds of left-wing voters. Any attempt to debate the content of Seymour’s keynote speech could all-too-easily have ended-up drawing journalists’ attention to the Greens’ plans to substitute consumption and carbon taxes for the existing taxes on work and income: plans Seymour has openly endorsed by (equally openly) stealing them.

That James Shaw declined to use the occasion of Seymour’s conference speech to not only demolish his bogus green credentials, but also to reassure the Greens’ left-wing supporters that there are absolutely no circumstances which would allow the Green Party to be part of a governing coalition involving National and Act, is politically intriguing – to say the least. Big Business may be feeling reassured by Act’s belated conversion to Green Capitalism; but nowhere near as reassured as it’s being made to feel by the Green Party’s failure to instantly and publicly denounce it.