John Armstrong: Suva-trip quarrel only a minor spat

In the grander scheme of things, this week's difference of opinion between the Prime Minister and the Maori Party over New Zealand's attitude towards Fiji's military regime amounts to little more than a minor spat.

It is vital for the long-term health of his Government, however, that John Key and National's support partner learn from the mistakes in their botched handling of the disagreement.

It took the best part of three days for the Prime Minister to finally kill off Tariana Turia's naive and half-baked proposal that her colleague and fellow minister, Pita Sharples, be part of a Maori delegation sent to Fiji to talk to the military regime.

Turia's suggestion may have been well-intentioned. Claiming whakapapa with Pacific peoples, Maori may have opened doors closed to others. In that vein, Key was initially accepting of Sharples going in a private capacity or as Maori Party co-leader, rather than as a minister.

Key realises that prodding Commodore Frank Bainimarama on to the road back to democracy is probably going to require some clever diplomacy from some intermediary who has no axe to grind.

Dispatching Sharples to Suva did not fit that bill, however.

It is true the Maori Party is bound by collective Cabinet responsibility only in relation to the portfolios Turia and Sharples actually hold, thus giving them leeway to take a different stance from the National minority Government on foreign policy matters.

The "agree to disagree" provisions in the Cabinet Manual only stretch so far, however. The manual stipulates that when ministers represent the Government internationally, "they speak for the Government on all issues that foreign governments may raise with them in their capacity as ministers".

Sharples would have argued he was there in a private capacity, rather than speaking for the Government. But it is not possible to change hats quite so easily.

As part of its divide-and-rule strategy in the region, the regime would have portrayed Sharples as representing the New Zealand Government to undermine the firm stance adopted by Key and Foreign Minister Murray McCully that Bainimarama come up with a timetable for early elections.

Sharples would then have been obliged to do exactly that - represent the New Zealand Government's official position. Not doing so would have significantly weakened that stance and handed Bainimarama a propaganda victory. Sharples' journey would have ended up being pointless.

Turia's initiative was also badly timed, coming the day after Fiji had finally been punished for delaying elections through suspension from the South Pacific Forum.

She should have talked to Key before she mentioned the suggestion on TVNZ's Q+A programme last Sunday. That would have allowed Key to knock it down without risk of the Maori Party losing face, something its members no doubt feel has happened.

Key now acknowledges he should have vetoed the idea as soon as Turia raised it. His desire not to be seen heavying a co-operative support partner was no doubt a factor in him adopting a softer response to her suggestion. However, the Maori Party failed to pick up on his signals that the delegation would not get the Government's blessing.

Turia admitted the whole affair had not been "mana enhancing" - the phrase used in the Maori Party's support agreements with National to describe how the relationship between the two parties should develop.

However, she and Key should be grateful their first real falling out is over something which is not a potential "coalition buster" .

The question is whether both parties heed the lessons from the poor handling of the whole affair.

Because sooner or later, something with much bigger potential to upset the budding National-Maori Party relationship will land on Key's and Turia's desks.