KEY POINTS:
Foreign Minister Winston Peters will be buoyant when he flies out of New Zealand this afternoon on a three-week trip. He will be the central interview on Agenda this morning, which puts a bounce in any MP's step.
But between two long overseas trips he has attended to some pressing questions in his New Zealand First Party. It has put the party and himself in better heart. And he leaves in the knowledge that his party is setting out in fresh directions, or more accurately, retracing some old ones.
The political week began with a two-day caucus in Wellington. It was an important meeting for his MPs too, seeking leadership from him after strains between the parliamentary and organisational wing were publicly aired.
In an unseemly spat, party president Dail Jones threatened to demote in the list ranking two MPs, Brian Donnelly and Doug Woolerton, for exercising their conscience on the smacking vote.
The question facing Peters was how to deal with it without exacerbating the problems between the present MPs and former MPs who run the party.
Peters backed his present MPs but has avoided criticising Jones so far. Perhaps he does not want to reinforce any more than necessary the perception of disunity. The chances are that Peters did not admonish Jones in private either. Despite his pitbull reputation, Peters avoids confrontation and decisions that might offend people.
But the more important question facing the caucus was how it could make a greater impact. The slump in the polls to about 1 per cent has happened before but Peters always had the Tauranga seat as a lifebuoy in case the party polled under the 5 per cent threshold.
Without an electorate seat, 1 per cent is a lot more unnerving for a caucus of list MPs that scraped the threshold at 5.7 per cent last election.
The new direction becoming clear is simple: return to what has worked before. Expect to hear new twists on old themes such as asset sales, compulsory superannuation and immigration, though as Foreign Minister Peters will need to tread carefully on immigration to avoid dragging himself and the Government into disrepute.
That issue may be dispatched to others to handle. One of his MPs, Pita Paraone, issued a statement this week about Asians being over-represented in fish poaching statistics.
Pressing old buttons, Peters himself issued a statement this week about the sale of Crown land to foreigners.
The ructions going on over the decision by the foreign-owned APN media company to outsource sub-editing of its newspapers is the type of issue that would easily fit the party's refocus on its founding defining issues.
There also promises to be more on compulsory superannuation in the coming weeks.
It begins to add up to a plan for New Zealand First that has not been evident in the first half of the term. Being neither in Government nor in Opposition, New Zealand First has struggled to find a comfortable voice in the Parliament. It spends a lot of effort attacking National, seemingly too afraid to attack Labour in case it is seen as a threat to stability.
It has failed to find issues that other parties can't lay claim to. Ron Mark, for example, has long been associated with exposing faults in Corrections. But when the crisis in the department really arrived, Mark's good relationship with Labour appeared to inhibit the mongrel required to hold the minister to account.
The one exception on that score has, surprisingly, been Peters himself.
In the last days of the last session of Parliament he used questions to Health Minister Pete Hodgson to attack Pharmac over its decisions on Herceptin, the breast cancer drug. It was a model for his MPs to follow on other issues.
Time was not wasted attacking National. While Hodgson was not the primary target, Peters did not hesitate to criticise him when he found his answers wanting. And no one cried "instability".
However, Peters leaves today without having addressed some pressing questions.
He has not yet put the 2005 election spending issue behind him by handing over a cheque for the $157,000 the Auditor General found his party had unlawfully spent. That should have been a priority, not least to underscore a fresh start.
The other question vexing many in his party is whether he will stand in an electorate next election or try to turn the party into a true list party by design rather than by default, as happened when he lost Tauranga.
He has already committed himself to standing next year and his health appears to have improved markedly since a mystery virus, then a knee operation, laid him low.
The decision about whether to stand for an electorate has a huge bearing on the direction of the party.
Without the concept of an electorate safety net the party would be more focused on increasing the crucial vote, the party vote. But that may be too radical a notion for the traditionalist Peters.
Among the options of Whangarei (close to his turangawaewae), Tamaki (the best Auckland alternative) and Tauranga (his former seat) - all held by National - Tamaki has to be the best choice. It is held by Allan Peachy, who has made little impact.
A contest in that seat would raise his profile in the most populous area in the country. He could afford to lose it without being humiliated as he would be if he lost Tauranga for a second time.
And he actually spends more time in Auckland these days so it should be a more natural choice.
That decision - or announcement - may be some time away, he has indicated.
Peters is away for almost three weeks to Australia, then Gallipoli and Europe. He returns the week before the Budget.
The party is expected to boast more gains in the Budget to add to an already impressive list of gains from the confidence and supply agreement (increase in the minimum wage, increase in superannuation, Supergold card, Export Year, 1000 more sworn police officers) which it can show off to the voting public next year.
Boasting long lists of achievements has always been important to New Zealand First.
It is more important to New Zealand First than it was to the Alliance or is for the Greens or the Maori Party.
The Maori Party doesn't need a list for people to know it aims to stand for a strong, independent Maori voice in Parliament.
The Greens don't need a list in their bid to convince people they are the party for the environment.
New Zealand First did not have to have a list of achievements in 1996. Most people were clear what it stood for. That is the party's challenge for the second half of the term.
