The emerging Government
The Herald reports:
Act leader Rodney Hide and United Future’s sole MP, Peter Dunne, are likely to get ministerial roles outside Cabinet – a deal structure pioneered by Helen Clark.
I’m not very keen on these sort of deals. My belief is that all but the most minor portfolios should be held by Ministers in Cabinet. Call me a traditionalist but the weakening of collective responsibility is a concern. Now to be fair to Key, he is not weakening it – Clark did. He is just not reversing it.
Peters was an example of how badly things can go – a Foreign Affairs Minister who campaigned against the Government’s free trade deal with China. Dunne however did show that you can make such an arrangement work.
While Mr Hide is making strong comments about the policies, he is also saying he has no bottom lines in the negotiations.
“We were clear in this campaign that we would support John Key as Prime Minister,” he said.
“We will honour that commitment. We’re not about to swing our toys out of the sandpit because we don’t get what we want.”
A very mature approach, and one which will probably please many of their voters who want stability.
November 11th, 2008 at 8:21 am
Key doesn’t want his people to have to sit in a room and argue policy with Rodney Hide and Heather Roy – because he knows who would win those arguments.
[DPF: SIgh knocking him already. As far as I know it is Rodney and Heather who asked to be outside of Cabinet, and not National refusing to have them in]
November 11th, 2008 at 8:34 am
And he wants to keep the minor parties out of the loop so they just don’t have access to much strategic information. I suggest ACT demands a place at the table, not under it.
November 11th, 2008 at 8:38 am
Unfortunately this is pretty well a fact of life with MMP. Winston Peters extracted particularly hard bargains from Jim Bolger and Helen Clark.
A leader is caught between a rock and a hard place on this. The best a leader can do is to accept having to make such appointments and hope the incumbent can make a useful contribution to the work of Government. The leader needs to ensure however that the portfolio is overseen be one of his or her senior ministers who is kept fully ‘in the picture’ about what is happening.
November 11th, 2008 at 8:42 am
I wouldn’t worry about whether ACT is inside or outside cabinet. When the economy really turns to shit John Key will turn to Roger Douglas for advice. Roger Douglas will have John Key wrapped around his little finger in less than six months.
It wouldn’t surprise me if Uncle Roger didn’t holiday with the Key family in Hawaii this Christmas.
November 11th, 2008 at 8:42 am
ACT are a magnanimous partner who have entered an agreement prior to the election and are ethical enough to honour their word.
Rodders would do well to be Minister for domestic economy of something like that
November 11th, 2008 at 8:50 am
I think we’ll have to. If you’re concerned about the collective, it’s not like we can call you a classical liberal anymore
November 11th, 2008 at 8:54 am
A coalition needs to model itself on a “harmonious family” for success.
If Peter Dunne, and Rodney and John start arguing with each other constantly it would be like
being in a family where the everyone argues all the time.
All families have disagreements, but if this coalition is to succeed and build a better
NZ then all parties need to act with integrity and mana.
I for one hope the Maori Party come on board too, and make a significant contribution to
the next government.
November 11th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Did anyone see Rodney on Close Up the other night though? (or was it Sunday?). Anyway, you’d have thought he was the big boss, and not Key. I was very surprised. He was saying things like, oh National’s going to have to do this and we don’t agree with them on that. Key was sitting there looking a bit nonplussed as well. Sainsbury was saying, “well you know you’re only the junior partner”.
November 11th, 2008 at 8:58 am
Rodders does need to learn about hierarchy but national need a rodders too.
November 11th, 2008 at 9:02 am
This is just an indication that these parties are aware of their own internal issues and the environment created under MMP.
National obviously plan to be in power for more than one term – though I’d sure like to see how! Both ACT and National know that any poo heaps created by either party will be immediately cut loose – hence, no cabinet positons for ACT and Rodney quite happy to be outside cabinet. It’s an act of long term strategy.
As said above, Roger will no doubt be in an unofficial (as far as the media are concerned) advisory role. While Key and English will have their own ideas, and should use them, it’s inconceiveable that Roger Douglas will not influence the necessary cost cutting measures of the next 12months.
November 11th, 2008 at 9:05 am
Rodney should stick to his policies and persuade Mr. Key to ditch the ETS. I know John Key is a big fan of Al Gore (Yes, I saw Mr. Key coming out of the lecture theater where Al Gore held his public lecture in 2006 at the University of Auckland School of Engineering), but the ETS has got to be thrown out, because it hinders economic growth for no obvious advantage for a small country like NZ.
November 11th, 2008 at 9:12 am
What’s going on in National’s talks with the Maori Party? iPredict’s contracts on a coalition went from about $0.15 when it looked election night like National wasn’t going to need them, up as high as 70 cents when they were talking, and are now back down around 30 cents with “no agreement” looking most likely. What’s up?
[DPF: I have a column soon on that]
November 11th, 2008 at 9:19 am
It exposes another weakness of MMP NZ style. Because parties don’t make long term commitments to each other by way of formal alliance that spans elections they can’t be trusted around the table. However, the results of the last couple of elections show that the public has lost patience with the Dance of the Desperates and is punishing little parties which think they can play both sides of the fence.
ACT, the Greens and NZ1st are getting pathetic support from the electorate because of this contrivance and their silly OTT policies that are never going to be taken up. Don’t they realise that this is one of the most conservative electorates in the world and doesn’t like fast or wrenching change? Honestly, John Key seems to be the only adult who recognises that change can only happen incrementally and with broad consensus in NZ or else it gets overturned. Read Michael Basset.
JC
November 11th, 2008 at 9:30 am
JC, you may well be right on the gradualist approach. I’m just scared that the broad consensus he’s building is for the politicization of the Superfund and Pharmac.
November 11th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Balls in MP court – what do they want and what are they prepared to give up for it.
MP arent special cases.
November 11th, 2008 at 9:35 am
Ok, well how slow is slow then? Labour changed over 9 years and that was “fast and wrenching” enough to get them chucked. National have 3 years and a global recession. So how do they do nothing, and distinguish themselves from Labour and address economic concerns outside their control and stabilise the economy and encourage growth?
They either have to be magicians or the public are totally unrealistic in their expectations – the later I expect is true.
This morning the deficit Labour was running has increased by up to an extra billion. Some fast wrenching policies are not inherently “OTT”. Sometimes it’s called emergency action.
But while the MSM run stroies about a metaphorical puppy that John Key flip-flopped on instead of realistically outlining what is in store for most of the world’s finances for the next few years, the public will believe that money grows on trees, meat is made at the supermarket and that the government makes a profit.
November 11th, 2008 at 10:00 am
goodgod, Labour will be praying for Douglas to be on tele alongside Key
telling him that a 5% flat tax is the only way to go.
November 11th, 2008 at 10:02 am
I have been very critical of John key in the past for being spineless and wimpy etc etc, but I am beginning to think that the man has a very spineful and determined core which is beginning to emerge.
Although I would much prefer to see Rodney in cabinet and, thus, a more powerful position for ACT in this government, one has to admire the way that Key is pulling this one off. I can’t really see how ACT can exert a huge lot of influence on the government from outside cabinet, given that Key has the maoris and UnitedFuture as a backstop for support if ACT get too stroppy and (by National’s standards) too demanding.
I wouldn’t mind betting that ACT is being excluded from cabinet at this early stage because of some hitherto unknown demands from the maoris.
November 11th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Rodney didn’t help his case by dissing Key & leaving him waiting. In front of journalists.
November 11th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Cabinet is the engine room of Government. That is where all the key decisions are made.
If I were Rodney Hide or Peter Dunne, I would want to be in, even if it limited my ability to speak out, because that is where I could make the most difference. By accepting ministerial posts outside cabinet, they would be limiting their influence to only their portfolio areas.
I do not think that being in Cabinet need fatally restrict the small parties ability to make their own positions clear – especially not when it comes to offering policy for 2011. After all, they manage these things in Germany and Australia (Libs and Nats) and many many other countries with coalition governments.
November 11th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Lets not mistake who is calling the shots – it aint rodders, quiff boy or peter sharples.
November 11th, 2008 at 11:18 am
“JC, you may well be right on the gradualist approach. I’m just scared that the broad consensus he’s building is for the politicization of the Superfund and Pharmac.”
OK, Super..
IMO Super is extremely political because the money is heavily invested offshore to get the best direct returns. Yet this sort of capital is also desperately needed here and can impact capital development productivity and jobs. Bear in mind that exporting this capital gives Australia (say) capital and jobs which entices NZers to go there. I don’t think we’ve got this balanced right by a long shot.
Pharmac..
Is not a stand alone organisation but is a creature of the MoH with funding negotiated with the DHBs. Despite using it’s money efficiently Pharmac is unable to supply dozens and dozens of First World drugs.. that makes it very much a political issue!
IMO, both these examples require political governance and strategic thinking beyond the dollar signs because they impact on NZ being a desirable place to live, work, attract overseas business and tourists etc.
JC
November 11th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
JC, I think you’ve made my point. Next in line then is the Reserve Bank Act. Muldoon’s ghost….
November 11th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Goodgod,
An informed electorate has already demonstrated it has no problem at all with the former completely unacceptable idea of guaranteeing bank deposits or even guaranteeing interbank lending. We can and do react when we need to, but on a pragmatic and hopefully short term basis. Similarly, the electorate will react with approval to any further steps designed to keep us afloat and making way. What it won’t approve is some ideological change like a 5% tax rate from one party or a 60% rate from another. Witness the Greens.. once we saw them rise to 10% in the polls we quickly cut them back on election day to keep such foolishness in check for the difficult days ahead.
JC
November 11th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Did anyone actually have a 60% rate?
November 11th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
“JC, I think you’ve made my point. Next in line then is the Reserve Bank Act. Muldoon’s ghost….”
I did?
Yeah, I guess I did. Esp. when the RMA, ETS and EFA are clearly on the list. But if you look at it, our conservatism shows out where we institute things and then see them as inviolable. It’s also a quirk of our nature that we remove from our hands the tools we need to be flexible. Yet surely we shouldn’t need to do this under MMp because it’s supposedly much harder to have wild swings of policy?
What’s coming up is the perfect test for MMP in a monetary/no growth/exodus crisis. It’s a chance to blend interparty skills, concerns and vision to come through in sound shape. If it fails, that’s MMP done and we might as well go back strong one party govt.
JC
November 11th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
I agree David. Considering Peter and Rodney’s maturity and level of professionalism, I can’t see why they aren’t in cabinet. It would be a cleaner and tighter govt if they were. For the Maori Party it makes more sense for them to be outside cabinet if they got portfolios as with them it it more about relationship and support for specific concessions. UF and ACT are natural partners and should be part of a fully-fledged coalition govt.
November 11th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
I’d like to stop hearing Key talk about the challenging next 3 years… and hear him start talking about a holistic 10-year plan. He need to convince us that the long haul recovery is the absolute goal and that triennial elections are simply milestones en route to realising the plan.
It will probably take longer than 10 years to undo the damage done by Labour, but its a ‘digestible’ chunk of time. Over this period, the average NZers needs to learn about the fundamentals of our economy, the risk / reward tradeoffs, and the value of raising the bar for everyone, instead of myopic wealth redistribution. If that takes ‘state of the nation’ slots on TV every month then so be it.
Of course if would help if academia and the MSM could be purged of their little socialists drones – from profs and editors down. Not holding my breath.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:14 am
Well said, getstaffed! That was a very pertinent comment.