John Armstrong: The watermelon friends

The Exclusive Brethren? Did anyone mention the Exclusive Brethren? That thorny topic was off-limits on Tuesday evening as a stream of National MPs, including Don Brash and his deputy Gerry Brownlee, made their way from the Opposition wing in Parliament House to nearby Bowen House where the Greens' midwinter party was in full swing.

That National should grace the Greens with its presence was noteworthy enough, given the two parties have long been anathema to one another.

Even more remarkable, given their anger over the Brethren's surreptitious role in last year's election campaign and what National knew about it, Green MPs reciprocated the following evening, making the journey in the other direction after being invited to a party hosted by the National caucus.

The relatively high turnout of National MPs - and senior MPs to boot - at the Greens' function had tongues wagging, the more so given that there were few Labour MPs present.

Their number did not include the Prime Minister, who had taken up an invitation to cut the cake at yet another function - the birthday bash of Labour's support partner, United Future, whose offices are several floors below the Greens'.

Word has it she apparently took some delight in cutting through some green-tinged icing in pointed reference to her supposed allies upstairs, with whom Labour has a loose co-operation agreement.

However, Helen Clark's absence from the Greens' function had already been interpreted as a mild rebuke for four of their MPs voting down the microchipping of working farm dogs the previous week.

If the Greens had been sent to Coventry by Labour, the warming of relations between the Greens and National has been so surprising and so sudden, it looks like Parliament's version of speed dating.

Not so long ago, the Greens were fingering National for being behind the Exclusive Brethren's attempted sabotaging of the Greens' election campaign. But its leadership has taken on board Nandor Tanczos' warning that the party's positioning to the left of Labour resigns it to relative impotence. If it can deal only with Labour, it has little bargaining power.

The slap to Labour over dog chipping and the subsequent positive feedback from outside Parliament have left the Greens feeling somewhat liberated.

The party will formally debate its strategic positioning soon, but there is clearly a strong mood to shift from the "never work with National" line espoused by the late Rod Donald.

But it would be a mistake to assume this week's schmoozing portends some deeper relationship of the coalition kind.

National is making a real effort to keep on good terms with United Future and expects that will pay a post-election dividend. It also hopes some post-election arrangement might be possible with the Maori Party.

But there is no realistic expectation of a deal with the Greens. The Greens' line is that they are willing to work with other parties which share their policy agenda. But everyone knows that for every item on which the Greens and National might agree, there are at least 10 others where they are fundamentally at odds.

Take Wayne Mapp's private member's bill establishing a 90-day probation period for new employees. The Greens denounced the bill as the thin end of a National Party agenda to allow employers to dismiss workers at will and called on other parties to stop the measure in its tracks.

National consequently still sees the Greens very much in watermelon terms - green on the outside, but red on the inside - whatever they may say about taking "independent" stances and however much National would welcome a potential new coalition partner.

Yet while the relationship might not go anywhere in policy terms, the bonhomie flows from a recognition that both parties stand to gain from co-operation in the House.

That was apparent with Green backing of National's amendment on microchipping farm dogs.

Some National MPs were firmly of the view they should have returned the favour this week by backing Sue Kedgley's bill introducing a comprehensive GM labelling system on food products. It would have seen Labour losing another vote in Parliament as NZ First, United Future, the Maori Party and Act supported the measure.

However, those wanting to back Kedgley's bill lost the argument in the National caucus with the majority understood to have put National's reluctance to impose extra costs on producers ahead of tactical considerations.

The decision is being regarded in some quarters as a missed opportunity, given there would have been little harm in allowing the measure to go before a select committee even if National did not want it to proceed further.

There will be other opportunities. With the smaller parties noticeably more flexible about how they vote rather than being locked into competing Labour and National blocs, the present Parliament is far more fluid.

Labour does not put legislation in front of Parliament which will be defeated. But it cannot stop private member's bills coming on to the parliamentary order paper.

The willingness of the Maori Party to vote all such bills to select committee level combined with NZ First and United Future treating them on their merits make it harder for Labour to block them.

The co-operation over private member's bills is echoed by wheeling and dealing at select committees. Other parties can gang up on Labour, which no longer always gets its own way because it now cannot guarantee having a majority on most committees.

The co-operation is also extending into areas where parties previously jealously guarded their entitlements, such as speaking time in the House or supplementary questions to ministers.

Labour has been routinely feeding Winston Peters spare questions from its stash when his limited daily quota is exhausted as he uses them to punishing effect on National.

It has also given some to Peter Dunne. But United Future is projecting a far more balanced stance towards the two major parties, despite Dunne being a Government minister and his party's status as Labour's support partner.

On two occasions, United Future has secured supplementary questions from National with which to make a point against the Government.

National has yet to offer such assistance to the Greens. That may be only a matter of time.

It might not be quite a case of the old quip about my enemy's enemy being my friend. But given the Greens' frustration with living in Labour's shadow and National always wanting to cause Labour maximum aggravation, camaraderie would seem to be flourishing out of mutual self-interest.