The Green Party list for this year’s election is dominated by sitting MPs and women, with co-leaders Marama Davidson and Jamwes Shaw swapping top roles and first term MP Chlöe Swarbrick promoted aheaad of longer serving MPs to number three.
The initial list promoted some activists over current MPs – see Initial Green Party list lacks gender, climate balance – and a small group of Green activists wanted to sump some MPs – see Left-wing Green faction wants to axe co-leader James Shaw, and Eugenie Sage and Chlöe Swarbrick.
But after party membership had their say on the list MPs have been reinstated up then order, with women dominating the top positions – this is curious given past Green preference for gender balance.
The revamped ranking:
- Marama Davidson
- James Shaw
- Chlöe Swarbrick
- Julie Anne Genter
- Jan Logie
- Eugenie Sage
- Golriz Ghahraman
- Teanau Tuiono
- Dr. Elizabeth Kerekere
- Ricardo Menéndez March
- Steve Abel
- Teall Crossen
- Scott Willis
- Kyle MacDonald
- Lourdes Vano
- John Ranta
- Lawrence Xu-Nan
- Luke Wijohn
- Kaya Sparke
- Jack Brazil
- James Crow
- Elliot Blyth
- Richard McIntosh
- Gerrie Ligtenberg
Tuiono has been dropped down from fifth. Current MP Gareth Hughes is not standing again (he has been virtually invisible for years anyway).
It sort of makes sense that all the MPs standing again get the top rankings, and I think Chlöe Swarbrick’s ranking is largely deserved.
But if the Greens just make the threshold they could have only one of their seven MPs as male, or possibly two of eight (their current proportion).
In the past the party was staunch in promoting gender equality but that seems to have dropped in their priorities. The lack of men up the list is a shame but perhaps the Greens have become less attractive to men wanting to make a mark in politics.
The Greens have two big battles ahead of them.
They keep pleading for more donations, saying they have insufficient funds to effectively contest the election.
And they have been polling close to the 5% threshold. Unless Swarbrick can do a deal with Labour and win the Auckland Central electorate the Greens have to make the threshold to survive – her prospects there may have figured in deciding on her promotion.
Labour are less likely to give up one of their Maori seats for Davidson, who will contest Tāmaki Makaurau. Shaw has never seriously tried to win Wellington Central off Grant Robertson.
The rest of the candidates are described by Davidson as
…young climate fighters fresh off the school strikes, new Māori and Pasifika voices, an environmental lawyer, a psychotherapist with a passion for improving access to mental health, and a first generation Latin American immigrant.
…but there are no standouts there, and most are unlikely to have much chance of getting into Parliament.
Stuff: Green Party list promotes ‘hello boomer’ Chloe Swarbrick
I think the ongoing promotion of an inaccurate retort from Parliament is trite and irrelevant to Swarbrick’s credentials as an MP, it just shows how shallow the media can be.
NZ Herald: Chloe Swarbrick gets a major promotion in the Green Party
Chloe Swarbrick’s had a huge promotion in the Green Party and now outranks two ministers and an under-secretary.
After her 2016 Auckland mayoral campaign, Swarbrick was recruited by the Greens and scraped into Parliament at ninth on the list.
She’s since made a name for herself addressing mental illness and on legalising cannabis and will go head-to-head against new National Party deputy leader Nikki Kaye for the Auckland Central seat.
The Spinoff: Green Party list ranking revealed: can this group lift them over the threshold?
Party press release: Green Party Unveils Its Candidate List For The 2020 Election
Your NZ 
artcroft
/ 25th May 2020More Green fraud. They aren’t green and aren’t into equality either. Sad 🙂
Duker
/ 25th May 2020You welcome to make your own rules which you think they should follow…mansplaining as its called, but these are general Green principles
ecological wisdom.
social justice.
participatory democracy.
nonviolence.
sustainability.
respect for diversity.
artcroft
/ 25th May 2020How about they follow the rules they set for themselves.
Kitty Catkin
/ 25th May 2020The old idea of reversing things to see if they make sense applies here,
Which party stands for ecological stupidity, social injustice, inequality, non-participatory democracy (which is nonsense), violence, unsustainability and disrespect for diversity? None.
Duker
/ 25th May 2020All the parties play identity politics, its no coincidence that Nikki Kaye and Paula Bennett were consecutive National deputy leaders after no women in the position previously.
The idea that the Greens MPs had to be equal genders is a strange one ( usually sourced to a misleading meme from Farrar) as their party rules only mention the list as a whole- which is the case. The target demographic of their voters is heavily skewed towards women so no surprises there
Pete George
/ 25th May 2020I call bullshit on that. Past Green lists (before last election) had fairly balanced gender through the top of the list.
From the Green’s Democracy and Constitutional Reform Policy: “Gender balance and diversity in decision-making bodies should be supported.”
…but not in the Green caucus?
duperez
/ 25th May 2020Looks like it gets down to what the word ‘supported’ means.
Duker
/ 25th May 2020Wow ..the B word.
Wheres the requirement in the Green party list rules. ? A link for that , you know …evidence. The last election saw 2 male MPs drop off the list at the very last minute, so maybe you were confused over that , but the Turia thing was big news at the time
Farrer isnt that different from Slater for his falsehoods he spreads, he was after all up there as a Dirty Politics blogger, and the phrase wasnt used because he was truth and accuracy.
Pete George
/ 25th May 2020Short memory? Or just more of your dirty diverting?
.
From 2015:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11529612
Yes they were caught out when two male MPs pulled out just before the last election. But since then gender equality seems to have become something Greens just want of other organisations and groups in Parliament.
Pete George
/ 25th May 2020From 2011:
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1111/S00514/national-party-undermines-percentage-of-women-in-parliament.htmhttp:/www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1111/S00514/national-party-undermines-percentage-of-women-in-parliament.htm
That’s DEHAUNTY, not Farrar or any other squirrel.
Duker
/ 25th May 2020Half the Cabinet
Im sure you know the difference between ‘The List’ , and ‘the Cabinet’ , so dont know why that non evidence is raised
The gender balance ratio is in the evidence I supplied Delahunty is just stating the obvious. Her words dont say 50:50 either.
Theres plenty of kiwiblog stories including this from 2013 saying ‘at least 40%’ of list is female – as it is now. Thats been their definition of balance for some time
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/03/green_list_quotas.html
And the idea of rigid gender balance , where did that come from.
Apparently an email from a Green party member that was leaked to Whaleoil… hahahah thats his evidence
Dirty Politics Slater and Farrar side by side….
Interesting that Farrar gets into their sexuality…
“At No 15, you have a bisexual European female with brown hair. And you even have a ginga quota with No 12 being a straight male European with red hair.”
Wouldnt it be great to list Nationals top 5 by their sexuality…..any surprises to be found there
Plenty of falsehoods from Farrar and his intense interest in the Greens list
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/tag/list_ranking
The gender balance is there in the list according to their published rules ( and supported by evidence), not some dirty politics nonsense from Farrar-Slater
Duker
/ 25th May 2020Heres my evidence …love that word
Here is the rankings rules – in priority
8.2.1 The balance criteria for the list ranking process are in priority order:
a) Māori – a minimum of 10% of candidates shall be of Māori descent, defined on the basis of thestated whakapapa on their Candidate CV.
b) Gender – a maximum of 60% of candidates shall be male; a maximum of 60% of candidates shall be female. Gender is defined on the basis of the answer to the open question on the Parliamentary Candidate Declaration and Nomination forms.
c) Region – a minimum of 40% of candidates shall be from the North Island; a minimum of 20% of candidates shall be from the South Island. Region is defined on the basis of residential address, at the time the Candidate Pool closes for list-ranking purposes. North Island includes all offshore islands normally associated with the North Island, including the Chatham Islands because they are part of Rongotai Electorate; South Island includes Stewart Island, and all offshore islands normally associated with the South Island, Candidates whose residential address is outside New Zealand do not count as either North or South Island for the purposes of the balance criteria.
d) Age – a minimum of 10% of candidates shall be under 35, defined as age on the date the Candidate Pool closes for List Ranking.
Who would have guessed strict gender equality isnt mentioned and gender is one of 4 criteria.
Click to access gp-candidate-selection-and-list-ranking.pdf
Pete George
/ 25th May 2020Evidence from the Green list:
If they get the same number of MPs as current (8) they will have 25% male MPs again.
If they increase to 9 MPs they will have 22% male.
If they increase to 10 MPs they will have 30% male.
If they increase to 11 MPs they wil have 36% male.
If the increase to 12 MPs they will have 33% male.
So on their current list Greens will probably get nowhere near achieving their number two priority.
Duker
/ 25th May 2020Its the second stage BEFORE the maori, gender,region,age ‘balancing’ is done
Or as Weka puts on the standard 2 weeks ago
https://thestandard.org.nz/the-green-party-list-2/
artcroft
/ 25th May 2020How convenient. Just the list has to be gender equal, but not the winnable positions. An exercise in window dressing and nothing more.
Duker
/ 25th May 2020Wow …just noticed that political parties do window dressing ?…Ill let you onto my little secret , they do the same with policies as well…hshsh..scandalous I know
Meanwhile the national party website has the ‘Team’ tab taken down while furious window dressing takes place.- one set of mannequins replaced by another.
artcroft
/ 25th May 2020Not the Greens though. Surely they are the principled paragons of virtue and honesty they always claim to be. They wouldn’t put up a facade. They are in parliament to improve standards and support the most open and transparent government in history.
Kitty Catkin
/ 25th May 2020But of course, Art. Surely you don’t think otherwise ?
Duker
/ 25th May 2020” list has to be gender equal, ”
Thats a falsehood. Both male and female are between 40-60% is the only rule on gender.( 2nd priority)
Maori is at ‘least’ 10%(top priority) and at least 10% under 35 ( lower priority)
There is no rule about MFMFMF etc , thats a lie spread by Farrar/Slater and taken up by others as gospel
Pete George
/ 25th May 2020As I have already posted
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1111/S00514/national-party-undermines-percentage-of-women-in-parliament.htmhttp:/www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1111/S00514/national-party-undermines-percentage-of-women-in-parliament.htm
That’s DELAHUNTY, not Farrar or any other squirrel.
Duker
/ 25th May 2020“Over half of our MPs are now female, this is in stark contrast to National ”
From your link and from Delahunty back in 2011.
So what was your point again, was it that The Greens list rankings arent keeping their rules, but they are 40-60% is required number over their whole list. Voters decide whos in and who isnt.
Yet to find the rule – other than [deleted, you keeping making an assertion with no evidence] – that the MPs must be at 50:50 ratio.
Really cant believe you are digging a hole over this when its clear there is a broad definition of gender balance and like other parties existing Mps tend to ‘float to the top’
Gezza
/ 25th May 2020No surprise to see Swarbrick heading up to the top. Smart cookie. Tuff too. Always gonna go places.
David
/ 25th May 2020Bloody sexist party, I have cancelled my membership in disgust.
At a time when men have no positions at the very top of NZ its a tragedy that the Greens have not put a stake in the ground for mens rights, and when I say men I am talking about the ones that can lift heavy objects and run with them not the ones that claim they are feminists.
At a shameful time in NZs history where the chief justice, governor general, head of state, PM are all women why wasnt James put ahead of Marama.
Corky
/ 25th May 2020‘Dad…why do you vote for stale old white males?’
‘ Well, son…read this: ‘
***…young climate fighters fresh off the school strikes, new Māori and Pasifika voices, an environmental lawyer, a psychotherapist with a passion for improving access to mental health, and a first generation Latin American immigrant.***
‘Geez, dad. You’re brainy as. That’s worse than Covid!! ‘
Duker
/ 25th May 2020Whats the common criteria with Muller and his coterie of close backers , Kaye, Bishop, Willis… all have service as party hacks around the beehive ( and related secondments) or as they should be known CADRES
Corky
/ 25th May 2020Yeah, ah..we aren’t talking about National. If I was you, I’d take dad’s advice.
Gezza
/ 25th May 2020a small group of Green activists wanted to sump some MPs
Is that “sump” a typo? Or is that what they REALLY DO want to do to them? Just thinking I suppose one shouldn’t entirely rule that out? 🤔
Alan Wilkinson
/ 25th May 2020Time to rename and rebrand:
The Groans for Gender Inequality.
Gezza
/ 25th May 2020It’s been the Feminist & Environment Party for the last few years now. They stuffed up their Maori credentials supporting Key’s Kermadec Sanctuary without requiring proper consultation with affected iwi.
Alan Wilkinson
/ 25th May 2020Could always go up and consult at the roadblock I guess. Or just leave them to agitate and vegetate.
Kitty Catkin
/ 25th May 2020Gender Inequality Groans, Alan; then they could be the GIGs.
Maggy Wassilieff
/ 25th May 2020I’d much rather a Party put up the best man for the job (figuratively speaking).