A spectrum

Published: September 28, 2005

by frog

“They went in frightened, and they came out terrified.”

That’s how Breakfast’s Paul Henry described his impression of business leaders meeting Jeanette and Rod last night. It is also the tenor of much of the media coverage of the meeting: the Greens tried to charm business; they failed.

However, if you look at the media coverage (see, for example, here and here), you’ll find four talking heads dominating: Auckland Chamber of Commerce head Michael Barnett; Business Roundtable executive director Roger Kerr; Federated Farmers president Charlie Pedersen; and Wellington Chamber of Commerce chief executive Charles Finney.

Among the forty or so businesspeople who attended the meeting, there was a spectrum of opinion about the Greens: from outright hostility to genuine sympathy. (This spectrum would also exist among businesspeople generally.) It would certainly be fair to say that Barnett and Kerr – the two who have been most vociferous in the media since the meeting – were down at one, far end of this spectrum. They certainly shouldn’t be considered representative. For example, it should be no surprise whatsoever that Kerr – the man who was hoping for an office down the corridor from Dr Brash when the latter became Prime Minister – would lay scorn upon the Greens (calling us “retarded” among other things). He lays scorn upon anyone who doesn’t share his doctrinaire, New Right economic prescriptions – including the Labour Party.

Of all the media I’ve seen covering the business meeting, two were particularly adept at picking up on this reality of a diversity, a spectrum of opinion among business.

Firstly: On her show yesterday, Linda Clark had a discussion with Rod and two people attending the meeting: Graeme Purchase of TrustPower and Chris Morrison of Phoenix Organics and the Sustainable Business Network. Of these two businesspeople – Purchase was the more critical, and Morrison the more sympathetic – but both were far more reasonable and balanced than the hysterical soundbites of Kerr and Barnett.

Secondly: Newstalk ZB political reporter Katie Duncan did a thoughtful comment piece this morning on business and Green ideas coming together:

Clearly there is some stereotyping going on. Many in business would tell you the Green idea of economics is a BarterCard and an honesty box at the end of the driveway beside the paper bags of organic fruit. And likewise, many Greenies would denounce capitalism as innate and insatiable greed fuelled by the Cambodian sweat shops churning out over-priced over-hyped labels.

But if you put the suits and sandals aside, there are successful examples of the two worlds merging as one. And in the near future, whether they like it or not, there will need to be more collaboration between the two, so they might as well get to figuring it out now. Increasingly environmental issues are creeping into the business world, rising fuel costs for example. The jury is still out on the peak oil date, but that too, is likely. So here, the corporates must not only look to decreasing consumption, but also to alternatives. This is where there is a strong argument for private investment in energy research.

Likewise for the Greens, competition from China means it is simply not good economic sense to turn your back on the world’s fastest growing economy, no matter how valid the cause. Marry the two ideas, a trade agreement with a view to labour market standards, and you might be getting somewhere. No one will ever give you a bad reason for something they want to do, which is why business on a whole has a great argument for the endless number crunching. It is also why the Greens have a great argument for energy efficiency and organics.

If you look at the state of the Western World and New Zealand’s place in it, the answer lies in an increasingly explorative innovative economy that tackles the big issues like climate change, energy generation and fuel consumption. Business plus Greens equals a good balance. It will be interesting to see if opposites really do attract.

Unfortunately, some of their colleagues in the media didn’t follow Duncan and Clark’s example, going instead for a predictable “business hates Greens” hatchet job. Conflict is news, I suppose, but a more balanced approach would have been refreshing.

In any case: real and perceived antipathy between particular businesspeople and the Greens can only be ameliorated with closer contact. I’d hope that last night’s meeting was but the first of many at which views are frankly exchanged.

UPDATE: Russell Brown has this reasoned response to the meeting:

The Greens met with business leaders, some of whom left in a snit because the Greens had been unwilling to “compromise” on their policies. Do these people understand Parliamentary democracy at all?

It would be silly for the Greens to now suddenly perform a backflip on their manifesto. That’s what their supporters voted for. But that’s hardly to say that they will somehow be able to ram through contentious policies, whether in or out of a coalition. There is, for instance, overwhelming (about 83%; ie everyone but the Greens, New Zealand First and possibly the Maori Party) Parliamentary support for existing foreign trade policies.

I personally disagree with some Green policies, while on the other hand, I note that David Haywood found that on energy policy the Greens are considerably more in touch with reality than any other Parliamentary party. The likes of Roger Kerr (who has a bit of a nerve calling other people “extreme”) and Michael Barnett need to calm down a bit.

UPDATE 2: David Farrar has a post on the meeting about as rational and tempered as Kerr and Barnett’s comments. I have, of course, responded in kind :)

frog says

Published in Economy, Work, & Welfare | Parliament by frog on Wed, September 28th, 2005   

Tags:

More posts by frog | more about frog