Audrey Young: Unholy government alliance in strife

It is a tough job but somebody has to do it. So said former New Zealand First president Doug Woolerton in Parliament this week about leader Winston Peters having become Foreign Minister.

Woolerton was wickedly echoing Peters' hammed-up humility at the time the announcement was made, when he claimed to have answered the call to serve one's country.

After Peters' first foray into the international arena this week, at the Apec ministerial meeting in South Korea, Woolerton's words might be more true than facetious.

Despite Woolerton's resignation as president over Peters accepting a ministerial post, the party leader is likely to find little objection to his appointment when he faces members at his annual meeting in Rotorua tomorrow.

He no longer works his magic with his caucus colleagues in the way he used to, but to the wider party he is still the charmer who can do no wrong.

The conference will be at the venue where he pledged during the election campaign not to accept the now immortalised "baubles of office" that he later did.

The steady stream of controversies emerging from the Apec meetings is more likely to galvanise the party behind Peters.

He will play the theme of persecution by the media rather than by former Foreign Minister turned Trade Minister Phil Goff, but it has been an unsettling start.

And if the negative press continues to envelop Peters, he may win public support to the view that he is not being given a fair go.

The events of the past week show where the vulnerability in the arrangement will lie - not within his own party but in Peters' relationship with Labour.

Prime Minister Helen Clark and Peters have not insignificant matters to sort out as well, namely New Zealand's attitude to the United States' overtures to improve the relationship.

The differences between Clark and Peters on this issue in the past week have been stark - the former sanguine and the latter enthusiastic.

Clark has to decide whether to entrust that task to Peters, in the knowledge that his likely success could reflect badly on her.

Under a private agreement between Peters and Labour, the only person who can supersede Peters is Clark. But Goff came close this week, in substance if not form, in what amounted to a very messy beginning.

Hints of trouble began last week when Goff as Defence Minister gave an interview to the press about the defunct Anzus Treaty. Under Labour that subject has previously been off-limits for the Defence Minister and has been the domain of the Foreign Minister.

Goff publicly frowned on Peters' intention to "browbeat" China about the trade deficit with New Zealand and disputed Peters' comments about monitoring of English language schools.

He revealed that Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer had inquired about how the New Zealand Government arrangements would work - a disclosure that Downer himself was surprised had been made by Goff.

And he capped it off with a comparison of Peters to a mother-in-law who best kept her distance.

Peters has an abundance of goodwill to Labour at present and differences will be minimised in this honeymoon phase of the arrangement.

But he is known to take offence easily and Goff and Labour will have to handle him with more care in future, especially with National's old scandal-hand Murray McCully on the Peters case.

Goff's sudden loss of diplomacy is intriguing. He is such an accomplished politician and it is difficult to imagine that his behaviour in Korea this week was other than deliberate.

In less than a week he has fashioned for himself a role that neither Clark nor Cullen can afford to take - a credible member of the Government with the ability to publicly castigate Peters.

Goff could be forgiven for feeling a sense of cynicism at the bastardisation of collective Cabinet responsibility that allows Peters to criticise other ministers but not vice-versa, and to claim the fiction that he is not in Government.

Whether Goff was given licence to act as he did in Korea or acted from resentment is unclear, though the latter is more likely.

But the comments by Goff, who has leadership aspirations, will do him no harm with the left of the party, some of whom are privately holding their noses in having to work closely with New Zealand First.

That is another reason for Clark and Labour to handle Peters with care.

More than any other factor, the thing that undermined New Zealand First's relationship with National was the attitude of the latter to the former, or at least perceptions by NZ First that they were considered scum.

But Labour has a better track record in managing other parties and will be more alert to any potential undermining of the governing arrangements.

Peters is frustrating National at present with his heavy travel schedule and absences from Parliament. He is off to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Malta next week and will return to his legal challenge against National's win in Tauranga the following week.

(If he wins, there is a possibility that he might not contest the seat but put up someone like Ron Mark or Brian Donnelly.)

Peters' earliest next appearance in Parliament will be December 6. When he eventually settles back for a stint, what may become apparent is that he is in the Government but his MPs are not.

For some purposes they may act as a team, but Peters for much of the time will be forced by the Opposition to speak for the Labour Government.

A greater degree of separation between Peters and his caucus would not be a dramatic event. The distance has been growing for several years. The pre-election and post-election events simply exacerbated it.

There is resentment at the way Peters conducted the campaign with little consultation and at the way he blamed others for it.

Despite the caucus backing Peters to accept a ministerial post - it didn't initially - there is a little resentment that they were forced to back a broken promise.

But none of that resentment should be interpreted as revolt, not even from Woolerton.

Peters' frequent absences have given his MPs the chance to play a more active role in Parliament than they have been used to. They may come to enjoy his trips more than he does.

Like a group of orphans, they have decided to rally together to try to prove they can foot it without always having to rely on the head of the family.

Despite their resolve, that will be the toughest job.