KEY POINTS:
This week we started to see some startling developments involving small parties that never would have been contemplated in the infancy of MMP 10 years ago.
The United Party, whose antipathy to the Greens has been legendary, hosted a joint press conference on Tuesday with the Greens, the
Maori Party and Act - over abolishing sedition laws.
That was unusual enough. Then yesterday it became evident that United Future and the Greens are leading a revolt, with the likely support of the Maori Party too, that threatens an embarrassing defeat for the Government over its law to restrict access to births, deaths and marriages records.
The difference between these events and other bills that might have stalled is that this is not an accident of circumstance.
It is the result of organisation between former adversaries who have decided to combine forces into an informal and occasional bloc to better use their collective muscle, with the ability to act almost as a second opposition grouping.
And it involves a minister of the Crown, United Future leader Peter Dunne, in a more active level of opposition politics than seen before. More of the same is promised.
Circumstances were different 10 years ago. The first MMP Government was a majority coalition and the work programme was heavily prescribed in a detailed coalition agreement.
But Labour is in its third term leading its third minority Government, with a more piecemeal work programme than its first two terms. That offers much greater scope for smaller parties.
The confidence and supply agreements Labour has with New Zealand First and United Future, and the abstention agreement it has with the Greens, means there is no question that it has the confidence of the Parliament to govern.
But as Prime Minister Helen Clark has endlessly said, everything else must be negotiated on a case by case basis.
In her first term she had solid support from the Alliance and the Greens for the first set of reforms. In the second term she could seek support from either a conservative or left group of parties. The hand she has been dealt in the third term is a lot trickier.
The smaller parties naturally do not support everything put to them, but even when they do, they usually guarantee to support it only to select committee, meaning any bill that is not a confidence issue is vulnerable.
The Greens' six votes, the Maori Party's four and United Future's three make 13. That means that if they combine they can prevent any legislation proceeding if it also happens to be opposed by National's 48. Act's two votes makes an even bigger bloc of 15.
The effect of the bloc would be the same whether or not Phillip Field had left Labour to become an independent MP.
The combined numbers of the four minor parties - the Greens, the Maori Party, United Future and Act - hasn't changed but the relationship among them has.
They have common ground on issues such as democratic and human rights, civil liberties; freedom of speech; extending bureaucracy; and issues of poor process. Think micro-chipping dogs; a transtasman therapeutics drugs agency; heavy-handedness by China; and imposing a stadium on the Auckland waterfront.
The issue that threw the parties together in the first place was the Auditor General's report last year on unlawful election spending.
Discussions have taken place regularly at chief of staff level on parliamentary administration matters and legislation but that has also evolved into closer political contact.
The first joint action among the small parties - that didn't quite come off - was a walk-out of Parliament last year over the behaviour of the major parties in the midst of the election spending fiasco.
Since then contact between parties has increased across a range of issues.
Green MP Keith Locke worked closely with Act leader Rodney Hide opposing the Auckland waterfront stadium. Greens co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons and Dunne have had several quiet meetings.
The Maori Party has always had a strong relationship with the Greens. It is still having discussions with United Future over Turia's Foreshore and Seabed private member's repeal bill. And let's not forget that Turia accepted an invitation last year to be guest speaker at the Act conference.
Occasional contact has developed into trusting and working relationships where issues deem it possible.
Locke took the initiative on the Law Commission's report calling for repeal of the sedition laws. He noticed a press statement by Dunne and set about contacting the others to see if there was something they could do jointly.
The effect of a joint press conference was still dramatic, but with neither Labour nor National having a clear position on whether they want repeal of sedition laws it became more of a prelude to yesterday's more substantial collaboration.
Dunne took the lead on opposing Labour's proposed restrictions in access to births, deaths and marriage information. The Greens changed their position and yesterday delivered a joint letter to Internal Affairs Minister Rick Barker with the hope that the Maori Party will join them after next Tuesday's caucus, and possibly Act as well.
So why is New Zealand First not among the grouping of smaller parties.?
The fact is they have not been invited - but even if they had been, they almost certainly would have declined.
New Zealand First is more conservative than the others, but above all it has always regarded itself as a cut above the other "minor" parties. It is the "third" party (with only one vote more than the Greens) and only last election abandoned its aim to be a major party.
New Zealand First has only just determined on a course of action for the second half of the term to strengthen its brand with some of its old issues. Joining an occasional collective would run counter that.
Ironically, it was the insistence of New Zealand First leader Winston Peters to forge a novel arrangement with Labour that now allows Dunne to adopt his more active opposition role.
Peters and Dunne are both ministers outside cabinet and, peculiarly, outside Government. Both have liberties around collective Cabinet responsibility that allow them to practise it only when it relation to their own portfolios.
Peters' role as Foreign Minister places greater restraints on him to take care with how he opposes Labour.
Dunne as Revenue Minister is in a less sensitive position and he is more free to oppose without it mattering.
The next question is how much all this will matter to Labour.
