John Armstrong: McCully drive shows National's getting one thing right

National MPs seem to be so busy squabbling over leadership and contradicting one another over the Muhammad cartoons that it has been hard to discern anything constructive emerging from their Taupo retreat.

But the party is getting something right. With Don Brash's backing, Murray McCully wants to bring National's policy on port visits by nuclear-powered warships back into line with Labour's ban.

His push for National to give unconditional support to the status quo follows a review of last year's election campaign and is part of a wider effort to "inoculate" the party against falling victim to self-inflicted headaches again.

Another example of National making itself too vulnerable to attack was Government spending - a large chunk of voters being convinced National's tax cuts would inevitably entail the slashing of taxpayer-funded health and education services.

Senior MPs believe the inoculation campaign must be completed this year, rather than leaving potential problems hanging around until election year when attempts to fix them may look less than convincing.

For his part, Mr McCully has to convince defence hawks in the caucus that he is not merely putting political pragmatism ahead of his new responsibilities as National's shadow spokesman on foreign affairs.

He is conscious of the sensitivity. It is understood all he sought yesterday was the caucus okay for a discussion on nuclear policy at a later date.

He has carefully framed a likely policy shift within a wider rethink of National's foreign and defence policy, including such vexed matters as whether National commit itself to spending more on defence.

He has also consulted widely - from American officials to Jim Bolger, both as former party leader and former Ambassador in Washington.

A policy compromise had National going into last year's election on the back foot, trying to reassure voters there would be no change in the law banning nuclear ship visits unless National got a public mandate - either by referendum or the party making an explicit commitment in its election manifesto.

It was complicated and confusing - and put Dr Brash on the defensive.

His stock response was to say National had "no intention" of removing the ban. However, that begged the question of why he was mooting the possibility of a referendum if there was no intention to change the law.

His difficulty in mounting a convincing argument was also compounded by Labour constantly highlighting his alleged remark to visiting American senators that the nuclear ban would be "gone by lunchtime" if National won.

Mr McCully wants the party to expressly oppose port visits. He has not set a deadline but the whole point of the exercise is to clarify National's position as soon as possible so it is a non-issue long before the 2008 election.

Labour's reluctance to allow National to close down the issue could be measured by Phil Goff yesterday calling a press conference before the National caucus had even discussed Mr McCully's proposition.

The Defence Minister instantly turned the issue from merely being about whether National would keep New Zealand nuclear-free, into the wider question of National's overall credibility.

National had made so many "flip-flops" on nuclear ship visits that the public would not believe National had really changed its mind. The overall impact was to reduce public trust in National - not increase it.

Mr Goff may have a point. But Mr McCully's game-plan is to stop National from constantly gifting him and other Labour ministers easy opportunities to keep making it.