Opinion: Ardern needed Peters at her side when National went for the jugular

No disrespect to Jacinda Ardern, but the Prime Minister could have done with having Winston Peters sitting alongside her during Tuesday’s near-farcical first sitting of the country’s new Parliament.

Had Peters been in the debating chamber in his capacity as Deputy Prime Minister rather than winging his way to Vietnam to attend the annual APEC summit in his other major role of Foreign Minister, he might have saved Ardern and her Labour colleagues from incurring quite as much embarrassment as that heaped upon them following their inept handling of the election of Trevor Mallard as Parliament’s new Speaker.

The word “might” needs to be stressed.

If it was the case that Labour knew it did not have the numbers to elevate Mallard to Parliament’s highest post — or, as is more likely, was unsure whether it still had the numbers because of absences on the Government’s side of the House and an accompanying blunder over the status of proxy votes — then there is not a great deal that Peters could have done to avert the resulting humiliation inflicted on the major party in the three-way governing arrangement.

The election of the Speaker could not have been delayed until Labour could scrape together the votes to guarantee Mallard’s installation as Parliament’s referee. To have tried to do so would have seen the strictly timetabled procedures required to be completed before Parliament can get down to normal business thrown into chaos.

Labour would not have just been even more the laughing stock. It would have left Ardern facing very serious questions about her party’s ability to guarantee stable government. 

From the moment National’s Simon Bridges and then Gerry Brownlee intimated that the vote on the Speakership might produce a result Labour would not have been expecting, the major ruling party’s hands were tied. 

Chris Hipkins, Labour’s Leader of the House and thus the Cabinet minister who must shoulder the responsibility for the debacle, was reduced to errand boy as he engaged in hurried conversation with senior National MPs and then conveyed what they had to say to his his leader.

Within minutes a deal had been struck which had Labour agreeing to reverse a cut in the number of seats on Parliament’s select committees —something which would have left 11 MPs on National’s backbenches twiddling their thumbs even more than is usually the case.

In return, National agreed to allow Mallard to be elected unopposed —  a pledge it had made earlier and then withdrew when it realised Labour might not have the numbers to do so alone.

Ardern dismissed National’s well-executed ambush as a “minor irritation”. If she believes that she is only fooling herself.

She would be better advised to take heed of Tuesday’s shambles for what it really was —an indication National will be ruthless and relentless in its efforts to delay, block or otherwise frustrate Labour’s extensive reform agenda.

Nothing is going to be sacrosanct when it comes to National finding the means to make life as difficult and unpleasant as possible for Ardern and her ministers.

There are two reasons why Bill English is taking such a tack.

First, National has convinced itself —if no-one else — that the complicated governing arrangement which has Ardern at its helm is an inherently unstable construct well capable of collapsing long before the next election rolls around.

Second, while the structure might be an accident waiting to happen, the likes of English and Steven Joyce do not have the luxury of being able to sit back and wait for that to happen.

Their futures in politics hinge on Ardern’s governing arrangement falling apart or looking very much like it is heading that way —and very much sooner than later.

If that does not happen, National’s old guard will be pensioned off.

The post-mortems that are the product of defeat are on hold for the time being, however.

National does not classify the result of September’s election as a defeat — at least not yet.

That stance may be somewhat delusional. But it will be reinforced by Wednesday’s revelation that legal papers served this week by Peters' lawyers on English and three other former National ministers were signed off the day before the election. 

What better evidence that Peters had no intention of partnering National in government following the leak of confidential information which showed he was being paid more by way New Zealand Superannuation than to which he is entitled?

What better proof that Peters’ assertion that he was negotiating in good faith with both major parties was a complete charade?

Privately, National will be delighted that Labour is now suffering the queasy feeling that comes through being hostage to someone who is sidetracked so easily by a personal grudge, rather than focusing all his attention on reinforcing the frail contraption which currently passes for a government.

Peters cannot be apportioned any blame for Tuesday’s fiasco in the House, however. 

His presence might not have changed the outcome. But it would have drastically changed the dynamics operating in the chamber prior to that outcome.

Peters is no lamb who goes willingly to slaughter.

He would have been sorely tempted to call National’s bluff.

That might have persuaded Bridges to back off.

The National front-bencher was already wearing egg on face for his complaint about the aforesaid changes to membership of select committees — changes which had been authorised by him just prior to the election in his then capacity of Leader of the House.

In seeking revenge, Peters might also have been tempted to urge Ardern to withdraw her offer of the post of Deputy Speaker to the Opposition, which was made in recognition of National holding the most seats in the House.

With National indicating it will be playing hardball from here on, Labour has nothing to gain in showing generosity to its old foe.

For Labour’s sake, it also has to be hoped that Ardern read the Riot Act to Hipkins and her party’s whips.

For the Government’s sake, it has to be hoped the same message was conveyed to New Zealand First and the Greens in equal measure.

The authority and durability of the the current governing arrangement rests on its slender majority not being constantly in the headlines.

To achieve the exact opposite on the very first day that majority is under parliamentary scrutiny does not bode well for this Government’s longevity. 

It renews questions about the wisdom of Peters being Foreign Minister.

The temperature in Da Nang —the Vietnamese City hosting this year’s APEC talkfest —may well be a pleasant 24 degrees or so at this time of year. 

The heat in the parliamentary chamber back home will not take long to reach boiling-point, however. And that is where Peters unquestionably needs to be.