The final list was voted on by Green Party members, after a draft list was created by candidates and party delegates in April.
“I am confident this exceptional group of people will take us to our best ever election result and into government in September,” said Green Party Co-leader James Shaw.
“We will be continuing our work on the big issues New Zealanders care deeply about – our people, our environment and our planet – and we will take that work into government.
“This list reflects the progress the Green Party has made in the 27 years since our inception. We are bigger, bolder and more diverse than we’ve ever been. We have supporters in every neighbourhood, town and city in Aotearoa New Zealand, and a candidate in most areas.
“I am thrilled that there will be highly skilled Green Party representatives in the next government and Parliament, who are experts in their given fields.
“Our returning MPs are joined in the top 20 candidates by new Māori and Pasifika candidates, a human rights lawyer and refugee, indigenous rights activists, climate change campaigners, business people, a farmer, a former diplomat, and a TV presenter.
“This list truly reflects 21st century Aotearoa New Zealand. Chloe Swarbrick will become New Zealand’s youngest MP in 42 years. In Jack McDonald we have one of Te Ao Māori’s leading young voices, Pasifika candidate Teanau Tuiono is a noted activist and expert on climate change, and human rights lawyer Golriz Gharhraman will become Parliament’s first MP who came to New Zealand as a refugee.
“The Green team will go into this critically important election united and determined.
“We will be a force to be reckoned with this election and in the next Parliament,” said Mr Shaw.
Green Party list:
1 TUREI, Metiria
2 SHAW, James
3 DAVIDSON, Marama
4 GENTER, Julie Anne
5 SAGE, Eugenie
6 HUGHES, Gareth
7 LOGIE, Jan
8 GRAHAM, Kennedy
9 SWARBRICK, Chloe
10 GHAHRAMAN, Golriz
11 MATHERS, Mojo
12 COATES, Barry
13 MCDONALD, Jack
14 HART, John
15 ROCHE, Denise
16 CLENDON, David
17 HOLT, Hayley
18 CROSSEN, Teall
19 TUIONO, Teanau
20 TAMU, Leilani
________________________________________________________________________
Melissa Lee – as may be discerned from the screenshot above – has not been demoted for doing something seriously wrong as Minister of ... 
Very good indeed.
As I said in the other thread, Swarbrick and Holt are way too high, not happy that Swarbrick is given a freebee into parliament, happy that Ghahraman moved up and will be in parliament, disappointing for those in 18, 19, and 20 that despite their excellent resumes they got bumped for a tv host.
Still, it is overall a very good list.
It’s a pity Leilani Tamu isn’t further up. I don’t have too much of a problem with Swarbrick being in there, the Greens do well in Auckland and there’s been a push for more representation there. She seems competent and hard working and committed to Green politics.
Am please about Jack McDonald, and John Hart being in on current %. Not sure about replacing experienced MPs that way, but I guess that’s incentive for them to go hard on the party vote.
It is a good list. My quibbles are minor and would just be a couple of order changes – swapping Coates with Clendon and swapping Tamu with Holt. I was glad Kennedy Graham jumped up a bit.
Swarbrick is underrated by many on the Standard. She is extremely hard working and I am sure she will bring more votes for the Green Party from a demographic that sometimes doesn’t bother voting.
As with the Labour list the order isn’t an indication of their ranking once elected – it just provides a picture of who will get elected depending on the percentage of party votes. Rather more accurate idea for the Greens as they don’t have electorate seats that need to be taken into account.
Denise Roche’s slide from 14 (provisional list) to 15 (final list) might just prove to be a career-ender. Unlucky.
12% would probably get Roche in.
Close run thing
I’m predicting 11.3 – 11.9%
14 seats = most likely (by a clear margin)
15 – 2nd most likely (slightly ahead of – )
13 – 3rd most likely
https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-30052017/#comment-1334805
Whats your prediction for Labour?
They’ll be on the Government benches, alongside of the Greens.
10 minute Morning Report interview with Swarbrick and Ghahraman: http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/201845785/greens-claim-the-strongest-line-up-of-female-candidates
Not knowing anything about Ghahraman prior I found she comes over really well and maybe even a future leader down the line.
14% for the Greens gets Holt in as an MP. This is clever-spread it around.
These election predictions may be too high if the cannabis vote goes to TOP.
The Greens are only contesting 29 of the 71 seats. Certainly not going to be an election winner and it will mean that those in the 42 other electorates are going to miss out on a lot of party recognition.
Im wondering how this works with the green rankings – reading (a blog which wont be named) – They are saying that there were rules for the greens in regard to gender – which looks like they have been ignored.
If the genders had ben swapped (ie – replace the females with males on this list) – there would be calls of sexism.
Can anyone explain?
No problem at all, James. In fact, the explanation pasted below is from the blog you read:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2017/05/final_2017_green_party_list.html#comment-1940050
[edited for quote clarity and to add link – weka]
I can’t see anything in the Constitution like that, and here is no cause 5.3.1. It refers to gender in regards to delegates and the Executive.
There is this,
“10.1 Procedures for the selection and approval of candidates for public office including the ordering of the Party List shall be determined by the Executive.”
5.3.1 probably refers to the Green Party Candidate Selection and List Ranking Process not the Constitution, but I can only find older versions online and there is no 5.3.1 in those.
There is this though,
“4.9.2.Gender – a maximum of 60% of candidates shall be male; a maximum of 60% of candidates shall be female”
12 women out of 20 is 60%
Farrar also says this,
“So for there to be only three men in the top 11, means that the members voted only three men in the top 13 – or they ignored their own rules.”
My voting papers had nothing about members having to take gender into account. The balancing gets done by the Exec at the end.
Farrar is a dick and I wouldn’t trust anything he wrote, nor take it at face value. Based on the past I fully expect he won’t correct his post.
+1
Farrar is just another version of Cameron Slater.
An upmarket version of Cameron Slater.
Btw, when are we likely have a decision in the Eminem case?
Edit: not related to the post I know but the slug’s name has been mentioned.
Afaik, the original list is complied at a conference. That gets given to the membership, who vote on it. The list can then be adjusted for gender, geography, age, ethnicity (candidates can be moved up to 2 places so as to keep the members’ intentions). The Executive can make final adjustments after that.
The only gender difference in the top 20 between the list given to the membership and the one today is that a woman replaced a man (so the voted upon list had 11 women and 9 men, the final one has 12 women and 8 men).
“If the genders had ben swapped (ie – replace the females with males on this list) – there would be calls of sexism.”
Because we live in a society that structurally favours men over women, which is why we need to intentionally rebalance the list. Sexism isn’t an even playing field, that’s the point.
I”m surprised at the gender balance in the list, but as someone on twitter pointed out, you might get that in a list based on meritocracy. How terrible, the Greens have a surfeit of talented women.
“Can anyone explain?”
The blog who shan’t be named was lying to you on a number of fronts, about how the GP works, how the list selection happens, and what sexism is.