NZ Herald Editorial: Public should see these coalition 'notes'

Editorial

One of the measures of a government is its ability to say "no". Its budget is limited by the ability of its economy to generate taxation with sustainable growth. And apart from that, some of the proposals put up for public funding will be simply not sound. The proponents may be persistent, even popularly persuasive, but a good government needs to be prepared to say "no".

It is early days but the new Government might find this particularly difficult. This might explain the mysterious "secret coalition agreement" with NZ First that Labour will not release. Winston Peters referred to a longer, 38-page document "soon" to be released when the eight-page formal agreement was published a month ago. He gave the impression the longer version would provide more detail and outline more precisely how the coalition partners would work together.

But when Jacinda Ardern was asked about a longer agreement at her Monday press conference, she had an entirely different view of the document. She regarded it as no more than "notes" of their negotiations. "Of course we made notes during the course of those discussions," she said, "including further areas that we may undertake some work." They were, "areas that we may explore together, that may be found to be unworkable, that may be found to be just fiscally irresponsible, that may never be progressed..."

Was that a long-winded, endlessly agreeable, relentless positive way of saying "no" to most of NZ First's desires? Let's hope so. Among those desires was a policy to move the entire port of Auckland to Marsden Pt. Another would have radically changed monetary policy. NZ First's election manifesto was a fruitcake of disparate ideas and undeveloped policy neither major party would seriously entertain.

Let's also hope the post-election negotiations were not simply a contest between a party that could say no to NZ First and a party that could not.

Peters was standing beside Ardern at the post-Cabinet press conference and did not look disappointed that she did not give the longer document the importance he had implied it had. But if it is indeed no more than notes of topics for further discussion by the coalition partners, the public has a right to know what they are.

Ardern went on to say: "At the moment we see some benefit [in a topic] and that it is something that we will progress, that is the point at which it will be made public." So at any point in the next three years, something Labour and NZ First discussed but could not resolve in post-election negotiations could pop up in the Government's programme. This is not a comforting thought.

The published Coalition Agreement was well received last month. It was more moderate and sensible than Peters had led many to expect with his dark, anti-capitalism remarks on the night he announced his party's choice. Now it turns out Labour might not have refused his wilder requests but filed them away gently in the hope they will be forgotten.

Peters will not forget, sooner or later Labour will need to say no.