Editorial: Voters want clarity on NZ First

Opinion

Come September 17, voters will have assessed the policies of the various political parties and decided which warrant their support. For some, the process will be straightforward; for others, there will be a balancing act. But for all who vote, it is an exercise undertaken in some shape or form. Why, then, should we not expect political leaders to have done the same assessment of party policies, and to have told voters which of their opponents they are prepared to work with after the election?

In most cases, we know, of course. Labour, for example, has, to all intents and purposes, ranked its potential coalition partners, and the Maori Party this week ruled out working with National. The glaring exception remains New Zealand First. It began this election campaign coveting a rerun of 1996, when voters made it the kingmaker without receiving any indication of which way it would jump. Only slowly has it dawned on Winston Peters that an electorate that has become increasingly savvy with proportional representation does not relish a repeat.

The New Zealand First leader has been fond of claiming that the only people who ask him about the party's coalition preference are the media. But today's Herald DigiPoll survey tells a different story. A total of 50.9 per cent of voters said they wanted New Zealand First to declare its preference before polling day. Finally, it seems, that message has been accepted, however grudgingly, by Mr Peters. On Wednesday, he said that he was "going to leave nobody in any doubt as to where we stand as a party in 2005".

As always with Mr Peters, it will not be that simple. There will be no position as unequivocal as that, say, of the Greens and the Maori Party. Nor is there likely to be anything to match the clarity and fundamental soundness of United Future's policy of opening post-election negotiations with the party that wins the most seats. As always with Mr Peters, the devil in his statement lay in the small print.

It is unlikely he will state a coalition preference, as such. That is because he is probably swinging towards the view that New Zealand First's best approach would be to offer support to the governing party from Parliament's cross-benches in exchange for policy concessions. His hand has been tipped that way by the trend of the election campaign. New Zealand First's strong initial position has been eroded by, first, the polarising effect of the tight contest between Labour and National, and, secondly, the flight of centre-left sympathisers who feared he would, as in 1996, favour National. Mr Peters' criticism this week of National's tax cuts and its "secret agenda" was an attempt to woo back those erstwhile supporters.

He is also aware, however, that this strategy can go only so far. New Zealand First's support appears to be balanced reasonably evenly between those with a preference for a coalition with National, those who favour partnering Labour, and those who want the party to decline a formal coalition agreement. In such a polarised contest, New Zealand First will be confirmed as a minor player if it drives more of its supporters into either the Labour or National camps. A carefully couched statement about the benefits accruing to a party positioned on the cross-benches appeals, therefore, as the course of least resistance.

This would fall short of the preferences enunciated by the other minor parties. If delivered in terms that did not eliminate the possibility of a coalition agreement, it would also be less than voters want, need and deserve to know. In that case, their response would deliver the final judgment on Mr Peters' lack of bearings.