GREENS CO-LEADERSHIP QUEST GRINDS ON

Whether she really needs a co-leader or not, Jeanette Fitzsimons will find out just who it will be at the Party's Queen's Birthday weekend conference. The four contenders for the position are party organisers Russel Norman, Dave Clendon, current MP Nandor Tanczos and former MP, Mike Ward. As you expect of the Greens, it has been a campaign lacking the kind of in-fighting (at least in public) that might have made it interesting to the observer.

Both Norman and Clendon have committed themselves to building the party membership while leaving the parliamentary leadership to Fitzsimons. Conversely, both Ward and Tanczos have focussed on the importance of a parliamentary presence for the party to make real political impact. Green Party insiders have suggested that Russel Norman is the front-runner for the leadership. It would certainly be curious and a risk to select a co-leader outside Parliament but given the Greens grass roots nature as an organisation, it might not be an altogether silly idea.

"As you expect of the Greens, it has been a campaign lacking the kind of in-fighting (at least in public) that might have made it interesting to the observer."

Meanwhile, the Greens have not enjoyed huge profile this year. But that is not a huge deal for them, or any minority party at this stage in the electoral cycle. And the Party has been plugging away nicely enough (the latest Colmar Brunton poll put the Greens on seven percent support). Fitzsimons has also managed to hold the Party together through potentially destabilising internal discussions about the Party's position in the political spectrum and the Party's relationship with the Labour Government.

Arguably, the most critical strategic decision for the Greens this term is whether to focus more narrowly on the Party's well understood environmental theme or to play up the Party's sympathy and concern for the under-privileged and vulnerable. The latter complicates their message, but provides the means for the Greens to cut into the left hand flank of Labour's constituency and thereby significantly grow its Parliamentary team. With Labour fighting National in the centre, there is room for Greens on left, like ACT on the right. And without the same cash in the bank, the next election will be far more philosophy and brand driven. The Greens, if smart, could enjoy it.

"Belatedly, but fortunate nevertheless, the Greens also seem keenly aware of the need to maintain their distance from Labour."

Belatedly, but fortunate nevertheless, the Greens also seem keenly aware of the need to maintain their distance from Labour.  Fitzsimons has made it clear the Greens will not back Labour simply because it is not National. That is important. If voters cannot distinguish between the Greens and Labour, the former will suffer as they did at the last election. Recently, the Greens have taken a different line on the likes of industrial relations and the micro-chipping of dogs. Throughout the rest of the electoral term, that independence will need to become more pronounced and more strident.

STUFF TO DO WITH WORK

Call it what you like, it is fair to say the halcyon days of industrial relations are past us. No longer do we enjoy a healthy appetite of strikes, lock outs and negotiation by brinkmanship. Nowadays, the industrial diet offers little to excite. It tends to survive off a meagre diet of legislative amendments to the ERA and the occasional 'stop-work meeting' (we cant even bring ourselves to call them strikes these days!) Only Matt McCarten and the Unite Union's 'Super Size My Pay' campaign have done anything to stimulate memories of yesteryear.

Nevertheless, this is a Labour-led Government with strong links to the labour and union movements. Helen Clark will surely feel the need to feed something to her biggest constituency and funder this term - particularly with the Greens already making friends amongst employee groups.

"Sue Bradford's Minimum Wage Amendment Gill, having been drawn from the hat and having passed it's first reading, it has the potential to splinter the Labour caucus..."

Sue Bradford's Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill is a good place to start - because it poses some tricky challenges for Clark. Having been drawn from the hat and having passed its first reading, it has the potential to splinter the Labour caucus between those on the left (e.g. Darien Fenton, previously head of the Service and Food Workers Union) who favour support for the bill and their social partners in the union movement and those on the right (e.g. former Minister of Labour, Paul Swain) who may argue that abolishing youth rates will provide a major disincentive to employing young people at all. Clark and Michael Cullen may try to forge a third way between the left and right factions, by agreeing to oppose the Greens' bill, but promising to reduce the differential between the minimum adult wage ($10.25) and the minimum youth wage ($8.20).

Another interesting one is Wayne Mapps's Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill. It would enable employers to terminate an employment arrangement within the first 90 days. Its fans argue this would encourage employment. Its opponents claim it would only encourage exploitation. It is an idea that has already attracted support from the centre as well as the right, and indeed, three quarters of the Maori Party. The Government will certainly oppose it, but possibly with less gusto than the unions and the likes of Darien Fenton would like.

"Sue Kedgley's Flexible Working Hours Bill would be one step too far for the Government's relationship with business."

Something this government has talked of plenty is 'work-life balance' - the popular introduction of a minimum four weeks leave being the most tangible manifestation of that concept. Yet, it seems very unlikely we will see Clark & co legislating any further in this area. Anything along the lines of Sue Kedgley's Flexible Working Hours Bill which would provide employees with young children under 5 or disabled children under 18 with a statutory right to request flexible working arrangements would be one step too far for the Government's relationship with business.