CHLOE SWARBRICK HAS A LABOUR PROBLEM

Green Party co-leader Chloe Swarbrick has consistently argued that New Zealand's current economic model is unsustainable, yet she is confronted with the prospect of cooperating with a Labour Party that has no intention of abandoning the neoliberal status quo. And, in doing so, she risks the wrath of her supporters who expect better. 


THE GREEN PARTY co-leader Chloe Swarbrick has built her political identity on a clear and uncompromising critique of the economic status quo. She has consistently argued that New Zealand’s current economic model is unsustainable, entrenching inequality and leaving working people, renters, and younger generations locked out of security and opportunity.

Yet as the Greens head into an election year, Swarbrick faces two interlinked challenges that threaten to blunt the radical edge she clearly wants to represent. The first is the prospect of entering coalition with a Labour Party that has shifted further to the right, embracing market orthodoxy and austerity. What Bryce Edwards of The Democracy Project has described as 'National-lite'. The second is the internal dynamic within the Greens themselves, where centrist figures such as co-leader Marama Davidson and MP's like Julie Ann Genter appear more comfortable with compromise and partnership with Labour, even at the cost of alienating the party’s more radical base. 

The coalition dilemma is not new for the Greens. Since their inception, they have wrestled with the tension between being a principled movement and a 'pragmatic' partner in government. Labour has abandoned much of its progressive identity, preferring to reassure markets and middle-class homeowners rather than confront the structural drivers of inequality.For Swarbrick, whose politics are rooted in exposing those very drivers, the danger is clear: coalition with Labour risks transforming the Greens into a junior partner whose radical demands are diluted, delayed, or dismissed. Which is exactly what occurred last time round, yet Marama Davidson regards the Green Party's role in the Jacinda Ardern-led government as a success. 

But the Green Party’s credibility with left-wing voters depends on its ability to distinguish itself from Labour, not to be subsumed by it. If the Greens are seen as merely propping up a government that perpetuates inequality, they risk losing the very constituency that Swarbrick has worked to mobilise.

This is not just a theoretical concern. Labour’s record in government was marked by timidity in the face of crises. Housing affordability worsened, child poverty targets were  missed, and climate action was compromised by deference to agribusiness and corporate interests. Swarbrick has been one of the few voices willing to call this out directly, framing Labour’s failures in government as symptoms of a deeper unwillingness to challenge neoliberal orthodoxy.  Yet she is now confronted with a Chris Hipkins-led Labour Party that, as Bryce Edwards has observed, '...has thoroughly internalised the lessons of its 2023 defeat, not by resolving to be bolder, but by resolving to be blander.' 

Yet coalition politics would likely lead to Chloe Swarbrick having to restrain her anti-capitalist critique. The Greens would be expected to present a united front, to celebrate incremental gains, and to mute their sharper criticisms in the name of stability. For a politician whose appeal lies in her refusal to play that game, the contradiction is stark. And Swarbrick risks the anger of her supporters who expect better.

The second challenge lies within the Greens themselves. Marama Davidson, Swarbrick’s co-leader, has, more often, taken a more conciliatory approach to Labour. That 'conciliatory' approach led her and fellow co-leader James Shaw accepting ministerial positions within the Labour Government in 2020.

Former Green Party MP Sue Bradford sharply responded that it was 'a sad day for the Green Party. If you can’t speak out strongly on climate change and homelessness and have no real power on either, what’s the point of being in parliament?' 

While Chloe Swarbrick embodies the insurgent, radical edge that attracts younger, more disillusioned voters who see Labour as part of the problem, Davidson represents the liberal slice of the Green's that supports Labour's centrism. The risk is that this duality confuses voters, leaving the Greens without a clear identity. Are they the uncompromising critics of inequality, or the reliable partners of Labour? If they try to be both, they will probably end up being neither. 

For Swarbrick, the stakes are high. Her political project is not simply about winning seats or ministerial portfolios; it is about shifting the narrative, exposing the myths of neoliberalism and building momentum for transformative change. Coalition with Labour threatens to derail that project, reducing the Greens, once again, to a support act in a government that has little appetite for radicalism. Worse, it risks alienating the very voters who look to the Greens as an alternative to Labour’s cautious centrism. If those voters conclude that the Greens are indistinguishable from Labour, they may disengage altogether or seek new political vehicles outside Parliament.

The best that Swarbrick can do is to find a way to maintain the Greens’ radical edge. That means refusing to let Labour define the terms of debate, continuing to expose inequality and climate inaction, and making clear that any gains achieved are not ends in themselves but steps toward a larger transformation. It also means navigating the internal dynamics of the party, ensuring that Marama Davidson’s centrist inclinations do not eclipse the radicalism that gives the Greens their distinctiveness. 

Ultimately, the Greens’ dilemma reflects a broader crisis of the left in New Zealand. Labour has abandoned its progressive roots, leaving a vacuum that the Greens are uniquely positioned to fill. But to do so, they must resist the gravitational pull of coalition politics that drags them toward compromise and conformity. Swarbrick’s challenge is to hold the line, to insist that the economic status quo is not just unsustainable but intolerable, and to build a movement that refuses to settle for tinkering at the margins. If she can do that, the Greens may yet emerge as the vehicle for genuine transformation. If not, they risk becoming just another party that talks about change while defending the status quo. For a generation facing deepening inequality and ecological collapse, that simply isn't good enough.