Editorial: Govt more centrist than left

Opinion

What a difference one seat can make. The election result left Labour, Jim Anderton and the Greens with 57 seats in Parliament, one short of the majority they would need if Winston Peters' party kept to its intention to abstain on confidence votes. So the centre-left trio would need United Future's three seats on its side as well, but Peter Dunne's party would not support a government with Greens in the Cabinet. Thus began the bargaining that has ended with a Government that looks far more centrist than left.

The Peters party and the Greens have switched their original positions. New Zealand First, with one more seat than the Greens, have been induced to join the Government, the Greens have retreated to the sidelines. If the Greens abstain on vital divisions, the 58 votes of Labour, Mr Anderton and NZ First would be enough for the Government to survive. Helen Clark does not really need the extra three votes of United Future but she has secured those too.

The election numbers forced her to abandon the Greens for more centrist partners in NZ First and United Future, but she might have been quietly relieved to have that excuse. For the election was a close call between Labour and National and the Prime Minister spoke on the night of the need to "heal" the national rift. With Mr Peters and Mr Dunne in her ministry Helen Clark has no doubt disappointed many Labour voters who looked forward to a binding coalition with the Greens but she has avoided the excesses of environmentalism, social engineering and political correctness that a coalition of that character would have presaged.

Instead she has bought NZ First's support, at the price of making Mr Peters the Foreign Minister and Associate Minister for Senior Citizens, and has United Future on side with a revenue portfolio for Mr Dunne. Mr Peters makes an unlikely Foreign Minister, considering his previous opposition to immigration and foreign influences of all sorts. His greater interest could be in the senior citizens role where he wants to increase benefits for his party's principal constituency. They will get his card to carry and a small increase in the level at which superannuation is pegged to wage rates. Beyond that Mr Peters has also negotiated a review of the carbon tax, centrepiece of the Government's response to global warming, which will add to the Greens' disappointments.

Mr Dunne's role could be more significant for those looking for the tax cuts that nearly took National into office. As Minister of Revenue he will be well placed to propose tax relief, though since he has had to settle for a role outside the Cabinet he will be less well placed to argue the case at crucial times. Mr Peters, by contrast, is clearly content to be outside the Cabinet, and obliged to support its decisions only on issues within his portfolios.

The dilution of the doctrine of collective Cabinet responsibility is the most novel and interesting element of the agreements announced yesterday. They might give the small parties more opportunity to differentiate themselves than previous junior coalition partners have enjoyed. But since Mr Peters and Mr Dunne will have to spend most of their time on portfolios, and be seen most often talking about them, their parties will probably still struggle for the independence that spells political survival.

The Maori Party, which could have given Labour a centre-left government with the Greens, has been excluded from Helen Clark's arrangement, and it is probably content to be. The new party needs to demonstrate independence before it does anything else. Helen Clark has the deal she probably always wanted - agreements that allow Labour and Mr Anderton to continue governing effectively alone with vital allies to their right. She can ignore her left and bear to the centre, which is the course that has taken her this far.