It has not taken long for Jacinda Ardern’s trademark smile to carry the hint of a not so self-satisfied smirk; her grin on occasion transforming itself into something of a gruesome grimace.
Well may she bask in the euphoria of power. But the unrelenting pressures which come with the job of prime minister grind down the incumbent from day one.
Ardern may be a walking advertisement for cheeriness and all-round bonhomie. But she is in charge of what amounts to the most complicated and potentially fractious multi-party governing arrangement in New Zealand’s history.
It would be considerable assistance to her if Winston Peters, for one, made the effort not to make it even more complicated.
She would be wise not to hold her breath for that to happen, however.
Having rubbed shoulders with the Trumps and the Trudeaus in international forums in Vietnam and the Philippines, Ardern’s return to New Zealand was a journey from the sublime to the ridiculous.
Or so it might have seemed to her, judging from the fuss surrounding what has become known as the “secret document” —a 33-page addendum to the coalition agreement between Labour and New Zealand First.
Most people —could they be bothered to take any interest in the matter — would conclude that the fracas would struggle to qualify as even a storm in a tea-cup.
It certainly pales into insignificance given the policies and measures being released as part of the Government’s 100 Day Plan, such as Wednesday’s directive tightening up New Zealand’s overseas investment regime, especially with regard to the sale of farmland to foreigners.
The importance of the “secret document” rests in what it might reveal about the coalition’s agenda beyond the contents of the eight-page formal agreement signed by Ardern and Peters following more than four weeks of negotiations.
The latter document seemed rather spartan. Something was missing. It listed a host of items, many of which the two parties would have agreed within seconds to implement.
It begged the question why the coalition talks had taken so long.
The day after the signing of the coalition agreement, Peters confirmed the addendum would be released.
That suggested that its contents would prove very instructive about the balance of relations between the coalition partners, particularly their respective positions on policy matters where there was no agreement.
Peters’ willingness to release the material and Ardern’s blocking of that release said it all when it came to speculating which party would get a better press when the document saw the light of day.
In the document’s absence, however, attention quickly shifted to Ardern’s lacklustre handling of the conundrum that Peters created for her.
Not since the near grave that she and Grant Robertson dug for themselves and Labour during September’s election campaign on the vexed question of the introduction of a capital gains tax has the party’s leader of a few short months looked as flummoxed as Ardern has done this week.
She defended her refusal to release the addendum by dismissing it as as nothing more than a collection of “notes” taken during the coalition talks.
That played straight into the hands of the Opposition by making it look like she had something to hide.
Faced with accusations that she was breaching the Official Information Act by refusing requests for the release of the document, she argued it had been written by two parties rather than by anyone in office and was thus not discoverable under the provisions of the act.
That refusal to accept that the document was discoverable jarred heavily with the new role of Associate Minister of State Services (Open Government) allocated to Labour’s Clare Curran.
The latter was a laughing stock on Wednesday when asked in Parliament to list her priorities in the new portfolio.
Her reply that her priority was that “this will be the most open, most transparent Government that New Zealand has ever had” almost brought the House down.
Ardern endeavoured to recover ground by releasing a Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade document on the negotiation of a revised Trans Pacific Partnership deal — an area where National had steadfastly refused to disclose information when it was in government.
There have been hints the Foreign Minister may be asked to head to North Korea, while Myanmar could also be a focus. (Source: Other)
The tactic was too subtle and made little impact, however.
It was anyway quickly overshadowed by a fresh development in Peters’ bid to seek legal redress for the breach of privacy occasioned by the leaking of the embarrassing fact that for the past seven years he received more by way of state-funded New Zealand Superannuation than he was entitled to.
Ardern would have surely winced on hearing that Peters has filed a draft statement of claim at the High Court seeking financial damages from two journalists who reported the overpayment.
Peters’ obsession with exacting revenge on National, whom he believes was responsible for the leak and its timing amidst an election campaign, should serve as a reminder to Ardern that when you strike a deal with him, you get the whole package in return.
Nothing more and nothing less. You don’t get to choose the bits you like and discard the bits you don’t.
Any other politician in Peters’ shoes would have been cringing with embarrassment at being overpaid the pension.
Peters, however, viewed the leaking of his personal circumstances as a matter of personal honour. It was a call to arms.
You might have thought that choosing Labour as his party’s coalition partner would have been sufficient by way of punishing National, his one time political home.
In Peters’ case, however, revenge is a dish best served ad nauseum.
The Prime Minister has sought to avoid Labour suffering collateral damage from Peters’ blinkered behaviour by saying that his decision to take court action is a “personal matter”.
Having to wave aside questions as to whether she agrees with Peters’ course of action makes Ardern look weak.
That is simply not good enough.
The offensive Peters has launched against the media is as disgraceful as is Ardern’s silence.
Her willingness to rush to the aid of refugees detained on Manus Island does not sit comfortably with her failure to defend press freedom back home.
It will weigh heavily on Ardern that Peters’ three previous spells as a minister all ended with him being sacked from the Cabinet.
The circumstances of dismissal differed in each case. But there was one common feature.
Peters and trouble have a fatal attraction. The first five weeks of the current Labour-New Zealand First coalition have not offered any reason for Ardern to be confident that things will be any different this time.
SHARE ME