The Jack Tame and James Shaw korero

Written By: - Date published: 9:54 am, April 29th, 2024 - 22 comments
Categories: greens, james shaw - Tags: ,

Ahead of his leaving parliament, James Shaw was interviewed by Jack Tame on TVNZ’s Q & A yesterday. Tame is at his usual excellent standard, choosing this time to facilitate the conversation rather than pushing on the hard questions.

Shaw is open and relaxed, much more than in the past. There are some surprises – Shaw talks about being open to working with a National government – and enough time to let a fuller extent of Shaw’s thinking unfold.

This is politics as it should and could be: human, honest while retaining boundaries, insightful without the need for politicking. Also refreshing is seeing two men at the top of their game who can have a conversation without all the bullshit normally associated with interviewer/politician.

Two things stand out most for me. Tame asking and Shaw answering throughout the 30 minutes about the value of pragmatism and building relationships across political difference. The enduring nature of the Zero Carbon Act, one of the few things to survive the current government, and its existence in large part is because of Shaw’s willingness and ability to work within a negotiation and compromise frame with the right wing parties. This was a position he was long criticised for, so it’s gratifying to see the importance laid out here and in the context of time longer than a three year term.

He tells of his relationship with a National MP who couldn’t be further from his own politics and background, and here is the true meaning of political health: where we can relate with each other as humans first and the political landscape arises from this. It is core Green Party kaupapa he is exemplifying, as well as his own personal approach, and he lays out clearly how it works to get shit done that survives.

(not explored in this interview, but from my perspective, the reason why Shaw’s approach worked was because the Green Party itself holds strong green and left political positions. What Shaw did wasn’t centrist) .

The other stand out is the depth of feeling Shaw still has about what happened to Metiria Turei during the 2017 election campaign. Something here about coming full circle from the sacrifices Turei made for speaking truth to power, Shaw’s support for her and the need to immediately pick up the mahi of keeping the party together for the election and then the long rebuild to where the Greens are now.

The question Tame didn’t ask, that I have long wanted to know, is how much Shaw and the Green Party caucus knew about Turei’s speech, and why they didn’t foresee what would happen. It was something impossible to come to at the time, but would have been good to know now.

James Shaw leaving parliament is a big loss to the Greens, but as he explains the Greens are in a very good state at this time, even with the ongoing grief of Efeso Collins’ death, and the challenges of two MP controversies.

Shaw’s departure is a bigger loss for the country, we are losing an outstanding MP and Minister who has held an almost unique position and set of values. I hope for our sake he is able to take those into another career now that is equally beneficial for us all.



22 comments on “The Jack Tame and James Shaw korero ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. tsmithfield 1
    29 April 2024 at 10:58 am

    I don't agree with all Shaw's politics obviously. But I have always liked and respected him. He seems like a genuinely good person with a great heart. I think Parliament is poorer for losing him.

    • AB 1.1
      29 April 2024 at 11:12 am

      Fair enough. But I think that you have a dilemma here. His politics (that you don't agree with) is nothing but the material substantiation of his metaphorical "great heart" (which you admire). To turn this into something other than a flat contradiction, you have to argue that his heart would be better served by a different politics.

      • tsmithfield 1.1.1
        29 April 2024 at 11:24 am

        To be fair, I am probably in less disagreement than I was hearing that he was open to the idea of doing a deal with National. That just seems sensible politics to me, and puts the Greens in a much stronger position which ever party they go with.

        My areas of disagreement are not so much with his environmental focus, but likely more with his economic policies.

        • AB 1.1.1.1
          29 April 2024 at 11:36 am

          I think you are trying to separate the inseparable again. What is the purpose of Shaw's concern for the climate and the environment – does he think these are intrinsic goods in themselves? Clearly not – they are a necessary precondition for the type of society he wants, which is expressed in his economic policy.

          • tsmithfield 1.1.1.1.1
            29 April 2024 at 11:59 am

            From my perspective, I think it is the market that will solve the climate and the planet.

            That can be seen already in numerous technoligical advances due to the fact that people can make a buck from it.

            For example, solar panels, EVs, etc etc. Technological developments will also make our farming industry environmentally sustainable.

            And, at the same time, people will be lifted out of poverty because the new technologies will also result in new jobs.

            In my view, the role of government is to shape the market, and raise awareness in the voting public of the importance of climate. Thus, those public expectations will drive companies to find solutions to meet those expectations.

            • Phillip ure 1.1.1.1.1.1
              29 April 2024 at 4:18 pm

              Do you have any idea when this techno-rapture will happen..?

              Does it clash with the religio-one..?

              • tsmithfield …
                30 April 2024 at 5:45 am

                Look around you. Tech is everywhere now. For example, if you have a newer house it will have double-glazing and good insulation. That reduces the need for energy to keep the house warm.

                Does your house have a heat pump?

                Technology will continue to expand.

                How else will we reduce our need for fossil fuels if we can’t find alternatives and ways to reduce the need for them?

  2. Anne 2
    29 April 2024 at 11:18 am

    Two things stand out most for me. Tame asking and Shaw answering throughout the 30 minutes about the value of pragmatism and building relationships across political difference.

    That was once the norm. in NZ. Good relations and life long friendships were common across both parties – Labour and National. I recall one former long serving Labour minister (now dead) telling me that the robust debates in the Debating Chamber stayed there. More often than not the protagonists would be seen afterwards playing a game of Snooker or something similar. He had much respect and liking for former PM Keith Holyoake – as a person.

    The rot started to set in after Rob Muldoon became PM.

    • thinker 2.1
      29 April 2024 at 12:49 pm

      I was thinking something similar.

      The bar is so low in NZ politics (heading towards plutocracy IMHO) that a politician who's prepared to front up like Shaw did is considered exceptional.

      While I don't disagree with the timestamp of your Muldoon reference though, I don't think all the blame can be heaped on him alone.

      I think JFKs assassination marked a change in global politics from "swords to ploughshares" to "swords and more swords" and politicians whose power became more subordinate to hidden power-bases.

      Time was, for example, when ordinary workers paid their annual subs to the Labour party in return for a small share of the support base. Now, a party that was funded by collective mum's and dads' $5 contributions wouldn't get a ticket to the lottery, let alone win a prize.

      • Anne 2.1.1
        29 April 2024 at 3:06 pm

        ".… I don't think all the blame can be heaped on him alone."

        Agreed, but he set the tone. I know the identities of two people who conducted break-ins and stalking of individuals in the name of collecting information on them. I was one of their targets. Unfortunately I didn't know they were the culprits at the time.

        Rob had his own mob to do the dirty work for him. They were called [unsurprisingly] Rob's Mob.

  3. AB 3
    29 April 2024 at 11:28 am

    It was a good interview. Though I thought James allowed himself to get a bit hijacked by the perennial question of whether Greens would you work with National. Tame comes back to it in every interview.

    I would have liked Shaw to say something like this:

    If Chris Luxon had called me up and said, "James, I don't want to have to work with ACT, they are far-right, libertarians who'll damage our society. Can we talk?" If Chris had done that, then absolutely I would agree to talk and try to limit the damage. But he didn't do that and he was never likely to. Because the role of ACT is to say out loud the things that many in National actually believe, but won't say in public.

    • alwyn 3.1
      29 April 2024 at 1:02 pm

      Wouldn't James have had to say something rather more like. "I would be willing to co-operate with the National Party on Climate Change activities. However the Green Party membership refuse to even consider at this option."

      Wouldn't that have been closer to reality?

      • weka 3.1.1
        29 April 2024 at 1:36 pm

        That's what he did say.

        • alwyn 3.1.1.1
          29 April 2024 at 3:06 pm

          That's really all I was trying to point out to AB. He was trying to suggest something that was impossible. The Green Party, in my opinion mistakenly, were never going to approve of what AB is saying Shaw should have continued to push for. One shouldn't blame James because he didn't propose something to Luxon that Shaw's own party would never have allowed.

          • adam 3.1.1.1.1
            29 April 2024 at 4:24 pm

            Because this government is engaged in economic wreckage by the purity of its ideology. Any support of them will eventually, cause wreckage.

            Not a hard economic concept to get your head around.

    • weka 3.2
      29 April 2024 at 10:30 pm

      I just relistened to that bit in the interview. The question from Tame was what policy could the Greens have stopped? And a bit later, Shaw himself poses the question as what if the Greens could have blocked ACT/NZF from government.

      Last year I would have said no fucking way. Six months into this slash and burn government, where really our only hope is they immolate themselves, I can see why he thought it a good idea to present a plan to the members. He also said it would be very risky, both ways.

      (I agree with you about the role of ACT and the likelihood of Luxon choosing the GP over them).

      • weka 3.2.1
        29 April 2024 at 10:31 pm

        I'm not saying Shaw is right on this, but I think his point was valid. It would have caused a big ruckus in the party though.

  4. Belladonna 4
    29 April 2024 at 3:28 pm

    I agree that it was an excellent interview, asking questions (and receiving answers) which would be impossible for an MP who is not about to retire, to give.

    Trying to think of other bills which gained cross-party support – and the two which come to mind are Seymour's End of life bill, and Louisa Wall's Marriage amendment bill (same-sex marriage). Both of which might be called 'social' legislation, rather than political – (as in, there was support for these amendments right across the political spectrum (of course, there was also opposition right across the political spectrum).

    So, an even greater achievement for Shaw in getting cross-party support.

    One of the great weaknesses in our adversarial parliamentary system, is the default 'oppose' stance from the opposition-of-the-day to any legislation introduced by the government-of-the-day. IMO, it's lazy politics, playing to sound-bite journalism.

    • Obtrectator 4.1
      29 April 2024 at 6:18 pm

      One of the great weaknesses in our adversarial parliamentary system, is the default 'oppose' stance from the opposition-of-the-day to any legislation introduced by the government-of-the-day. IMO, it's lazy politics, playing to sound-bite journalism.

      I agree wholeheartedly. No individual or organisation has a monopoly on good ideas, and certainly not on bad ones.

      • adam 4.1.1
        29 April 2024 at 7:34 pm

        No individual or organisation has a monopoly on good ideas, and certainly not on bad ones.

        I don't know I think the public service has tried to take the cake for a monopoly on stupid ideas. And the private sector by its very nature is monopolistic.