Katya Paquin
The Herald on Sunday interviews Katya Paquin, partner of Green co-leader Russel Norman, as she battles a brain tumour, first diagnosed in 2005. It is hard to imagine how challenging coping with that must be, and one can only hope that upcoming surgery is as sucessful as it can be.
Paquin and Norman met through the Greens, when she was an intern and Norman a secretary.
Paquin heads up the Green’s advisory unit, and has a law degree and honours in politics.
Her sister Anna Paquin, is of course the famous actress. A new series in the US called True Blood has Anna in the lead role as Sookie Stackhouse and I’ve watched the first couple of episodes. You almost do not recognise Paquin at first as she has long blond hair, and has that Southern US accent down so well. It’s a great TV show, which will get a cult following I predict.
Apart from the personal stuff on Paquin, there are some interesting political points in the interview:
The couple’s combined dedication to the cause goes back to their first meeting at work. Their common aim now, apart from conquering Paquin’s tumour, is to help the Greens get across the 5 per cent vote threshold at the general election.
This is the major challenge for the Greens – to stay in Parliament. As I have said previously I think a different strategy could have them close to 10%, but the polls have them perilously close to 5%.
It’s a campaign that will be run very differently this time around, they say, a campaign which will be strictly independent from Labour. There will be no “Jeanette and Helen limo” shots after Labour’s deal with New Zealand First in 2005.
“I felt she [Clark] sold us down the river,” says Norman. “I think it was a bit of a shock to the party, to all of us.
And if NZ First makes it back, Clark will choose them over the Greens again. Could anyone imagine Helen Clark spending so much political capital on defending Jeanette Fitzsimons or Norman himself?
Based on the polls Labour is “clearly” in trouble and “those polls have been pretty consistent”.
With the Greens now wary of Labour, Norman says they would consider working with National.
“It depends on policy. If we could have an agreement on a public transport system for Auckland, reduce our greenhouse emissions – for us it’s about policy gains so we will work on that basis with whoever, that’s what it’s got to be about.”
I don’t think there is any question that the Greens, if in Parliament, would always vote to have a Labour-led Government over a National-led Government if they are in a position to decide. This is of course why Labour takes them for granted.
However if National can govern without the Greens, but is still willing to negotiate a policy agreement with them in exchange for perhaps an abstention on confidence and supply, then it would be worthwhile to at least try and form an agreement. It might in the end prove impossible, but it would be nice to be able to say “We agree in these areas and will work together”.
October 5th, 2008 at 10:06 am
The policy concession National should offer for that agreement on confidence and supply is a carbon tax. The Greens have thought it through quite well, and it is enormously better than an ETS. And ACT also claim to support one (although it is a little hard to tell through Rodney’s rhetoric). And an ETS will be incredibly hard to get right.
October 5th, 2008 at 10:09 am
I agree with PaulL; and given that the ETS is so screwed up, repealing it an replacing it with a carbon tax would be popular as well.
October 5th, 2008 at 10:15 am
It looks like the “I only date girls who vote Green” beer mat worked for him!
October 5th, 2008 at 11:06 am
There is a lot of merit in a carbon tax – which directly hits carbon consumers (who are captive in NZ) instead of manufacturers (who can go offshore), and (I guess) could be zero-rated for exports (like GST) so we are not shooting ourselves in the foot with it (or shooting the planet in the foot because we are killing off relatively green industries in NZ to the benefit of non-green ones elsewhere). But I confess I dont know enough to be sure about how workable it would be.
I do not think it remotely likely that Labour will have a choice of NZ First or the Greens. Any chance they have of retaining power will need both.
I have written about this for my Grain of Salt column in Monday’s Rotorua Daily Post, observing that if Labour were able to put together a government:
The Greens would be in the strongest position they have yet held. They know they would be propping up an unpopular government, lacking in moral authority, that’s on its last legs.
Their support base is a lot larger than Act’s and it is a lot less sympathetic to Labour than Act’s is to National. The Greens do not depend on tactical voting to get elected.
The party is already furious at the way Labour takes them for granted and abstains on confidence and supply votes. To get their active support, Labour will have to pay high: a full coalition with major portfolios in cabinet.
The Greens have publicly stated that their priorities are Energy and Transport. Expect to see both those ministries under Green control, along with Environment.
Green policy is to cut Land Transport Authority funding of roads in half. They want a moratorium on building major new urban highways or motorways. They want higher taxes on diesel. They effectively oppose new power transmission lines and are basically hostile to most new electricity generation.
They may not get everything they want in coalition negotiations, but they are in a position to get a lot.
October 5th, 2008 at 11:18 am
The Greens really need a simplified message in the vein of what NZ First and ACT (to an extent) do – 3 or 4 key areas which they are going to push – energy, transport, and waste (or something), rather than relying on a vague brand, which their ‘excellent’ billboards tend to do. Surely if they could get some key concessions from National, they should take that and swallow the rest of the dead rats – e.g. employment legislation.
The revenue neutral carbon tax would’ve been preferable, but now that the ETS has gone through it’ll be tough to repeal that, though perhaps not impossible since no property rights (something toad has mentioned a few times) have been formally gained by ‘participants’ just yet. When that happens is when it becomes insanely difficult.
October 5th, 2008 at 11:26 am
Might we see the below in a few years? All those ‘hard right’ policies are a bit much for ol’ John aren’t they?
I don’t think there is any question that ACT, if in Parliament, would always vote to have a National -led Government over a Labour -led Government if they are in a position to decide. This is of course why National takes them for granted.
October 5th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
I would like to see National promise to legislate that all food items on sale in NZ label their country of origin. The Greens support such a policy but instead of forcing the issue with Liabour chose instead use their influence to support depriving families of the right to discipline their children…. The country of origin food issue has popular support right now and National should gazump Liabour on it .
October 5th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
I am not sure that the Greens are now in favour of the carbon tax. I went down to Auckland to listen to a presentation from party leaders on their Environment Policy. At the end I suggested from the floor that now that all parties had come to terms with the problems of an ETS that they should pause and reconsider the carbon tax. I said that we moved to the ETS because when the carbon tax was suggested by the Greens the others decided it was too hard. I suggested that if we had started off with the ETS we would now be debating the Carbon tax. I said the Greens had it right (if you believe there is a need for such policy – which I don’t) and that every economist I know here and abroad favours the carbon tax.
I was somewhat stunned however when Russel Norman said that they now favoured the ETS because if we needed to ramp up the penalties it would be unpopular to ramp up a tax whereas if the price of carbon increased then the Government could simply blame the market!.
So it seems markets are bad unless they can be used as a useful scapegoat and in this case the Greens have decided on the latter.
October 5th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
The Greens’ best opportunity to boost their own vote is to attack Labour, scooping up support from a large number of Kiwis who are disgusted with the Helen+Winston axis but would never vote for the right.
However, that would also reduce the chances of a left-wing government emerging, because it would help some voters make the shift from Labour to National. It would also make such a government harder to put together because it would increase the bad blood between Labour and the Greens. (And that in turn might frighten even more voters into National’s arms).
In the long run, the former strategy would be better for the Greens because it would increase respect for them on the left, it would give them more seats now, and the chance of a Labour-led govt after this election is slim anyway.
Never-the-less, I suspect they will choose to remain chummy with Helen, because they just can’t wait to get their hands on some power and chumminess offers the best short-term prospect of getting some.
October 5th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
I don’t get why folk think their billboards are so great…For me they are messy. The black background with the planet just looks morbid.
Not that any other parties are any better, I just don’t think they will give them the serious party vote lift they need for that magic 5%
October 5th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
This “Labour snubbed the greens” line is pretty old and demonstrably false. Peters and Dunne ensured the coalition structure by refusing to go with the Greens. Labour did not want to risk coalition with the Maori party as it looked too unstable. The current coalition agreement includes green abstention on confidence as well as agreement to consult and some policy gains for them.
Ask any Labour activist who they want to go into coalition with and they will say the Greens.
The numbers were:
LPGM=61
LPNZFU=61 with Green abstention on confidence
Labour does not take them for granted. Have a look at some of the environmental issues that have been dealt with such as carbon trading. To be frank the greens punch well above their weight if they will excuse me for using such an inappropriate metaphor.
October 5th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
The Stern report was a giant fraud in that any reasonable discount rate shows a huge negative cost/benefit impact of carbon reduction strategies so he adopted the ludicrous and arbitrary 2% discount rate.
See: http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-book440pdf
Given that both the economics and science of AGW alarmism are fundamentally unsound, there is no justification for either carbon tax or emissions trading at the present time.
October 5th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Yeah.
October 5th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Someone needs to tell Philbest that someone mentioned global warming, I need my fix of punditry
October 5th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
For what it is worth, I believe that MMP is proving to be a failing social experiment. The Greens lost heart and the plot when Rod Donald died, Anderton who? Dunne with the hairdo. gone. Winston First, jesus wept. I cannot even remember the others offhand. The Maori Party is still holding up and will need to be considered this year but I see them being subsumed in time by Labour or National. yeah, I may be the village idiot who fell off the turnip truck comin into town, but I sure have learned to trust my instincts. Watch this space.
October 5th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Interesting. Jeanette is pretty clear on a carbon tax being better. Sounds like Russel is softening on it. Hmmmm…..