Row brewing in Parliament as National targets Peters

Gerry Brownlee

With Parliament about the get down to the serious business of government versus opposition, the National Party is homing in on Winston Peters.

The New Zealand First leader has got them fired up for two reasons -- he backed Labour with the numbers to form a government and he took a senior ministerial position in return.

Adding spice to this double whammy is National's angst over the way the Government was formed, which it considers to be constitutionally dodgy to say the least.

Although the first week of the new sitting was taken up with the sombre business of tributes to Rod Donald and David Lange, that didn't stop National getting in some early strikes.

Deputy leader Gerry Brownlee is National's front bench hit man with the task, alongside foreign affairs spokesman Murray McCully, of taking Peters down -- if they can.

Last week Brownlee tuned up for battle, questioning Governor-General Dame Silvia Cartwright's role in the formation of the Government and Peters place in it, as well as a personal attack over "the baubles of office".

The ham-fisted criticism of the Governor-General appears to have been deliberate. Brownlee knew it would generate a horrified response and eclipse media coverage of the Speech from the Throne, and it did.

His leader, Don Brash, had to bail him out but probably thought it was worth the trouble. He also has serious reservations about constitutional aspects that surround the Government.

Brownlee went too far by saying he had lost confidence in Dame Silvia, and later tried to turn attention from that comment by saying he thought she had been hoodwinked.

That is extremely unlikely. Several constitutional experts have said she performed her duties exactly the way she is supposed to, and suggesting she didn't grasp what was going on between the political parties is absurd.

Brownlee, however, is on firmer ground when he questions the appointment of a senior minister outside cabinet bound by collective responsibility only in the areas covered by his portfolios.

This is new MMP territory, and Prime Minister Helen Clark says it is all part of the learning curve.

It sure is. The cabinet manual, which sets out what governments can and can't do, is going to have to be changed. Not "torn up" as Brownlee says, but there will have to be a serious re-write.

The manual, which apart from the Treaty of Waitangi seems to be the only written part of a constitution New Zealand has, appears to be open to change whenever a new Cabinet arrangement is needed to secure a multi-party agreement.

Brownlee is suggesting a more substantial document is needed. He could have a point there.

Peters is in the middle of all this because he is a senior minister, holding the foreign affairs portfolio, but isn't in the Cabinet.

Whether he is actually part of the Government remains in dispute. He says he isn't, National says he is. Clark says he is, but uses the term executive government. Perhaps this confused situation will become clearer when National takes it to the debating chamber, as it surely will.

Then there is the "baubles of office" line of attack.

Peters is vulnerable to this, and highly sensitive about it.

He said during the campaign he wasn't going to accept any "baubles" and then he did. He says he had no choice, because both Labour and National asked him to change his stance so that a government could be formed.

Peters accused National of hypocrisy, and said it offered him anything he wanted in return for his support.

That didn't stop Brownlee launching into another "baubles' attack last week, as Peters prepared to leave on his first foreign assignment.

The response was vintage Winston Peters: "If they're looking for trouble, they've come to the right place."

He threatened that if National "potted" any of his MPs while he was away he would blow the whistle on National's campaign funding.

He claimed backers gave donations in exchange for a slice of state-owned companies if National won.

Peters doesn't issue warnings like that unless he has something to back them up. If he gets into the debating chamber, under parliamentary privilege, and starts backing up his allegation there will be a thunderous row. Labour will love it.

Another contentious item high on the agenda is the party-hopping legislation, brought back on Peters insistence as part of his deal with Labour.

National is creating havoc over that as well, with Brownlee accusing Peters of needing a new Electoral Integrity Act to guard against members of his caucus deserting NZ First.

They haven't shown any sign of doing that, probably because a bunch of MPs without Peters would be in nowhere land, but National can snipe away at him.

All these issues will get a thorough going over during the grandly-named, 19-hour occasion called The Debate in Reply to The Speech from the Throne.

This free-for-all takes up the best part of two weeks and MPs can raise anything they want. National's members have a lot they want to talk about.

- NZPA