Editorial: Unseemly double dealing

Tempting as it must be for the Prime Minister to play off her possible coalition partners against each other, probably she should not. She knows better than anybody the unseemly experience of 1996 when Winston Peters exploited an opportunity to do exactly that. The Government of the country should not be decided by a bit of horse trading over scraps of policy, titles to satisfy somebody's ego, and seats at the Cabinet table. It is much more important that two parties contemplating a coalition can reach broad agreement on the state of the country and its probable needs over the next three years.

Helen Clark's "exploratory" talks with both the Greens and United Future should be confined to a discussion of that sort. Then she and her senior colleagues should really decide which party they believe to be more in tune with their thinking and likely to be easier to deal with.

It would be idle to pretend that Labour's own political calculations could not also influence its choice. But that is not something it needs to discuss with the prospective partners. If it thinks an agreement with the Greens is more likely to keep faith with Labour voters, and avert constant sniping from the left, let it engage that party for more detailed negotiations and leave the other in reserve.

Neither the Greens nor United Future would appreciate being treated as a patsy at Labour's auction. The Greens seem particularly sensitive to that possibility and have already made contact with United Future in search of a common approach to the negotiations. That is what National and Labour should have done before allowing Mr Peters a free hand in 1996.

Of course it is harder for parties bidding for the dominant position in a coalition to give their rival prior right to deal with a party holding the balance of power. This year, happily, there is no contest for the dominant position. Labour will lead whatever sort of Government arises from the election. Helen Clark's preference, no doubt, is for a secure Labour-Green coalition without prejudice to the development of genetic research in this country.

But since the Greens are unlikely to drop their prejudgment of the safety of commercial release when the GM moratorium expires late next year, a more tentative governing arrangement seems more likely. Labour will want the Greens on side if not in the tent, as it were.

Labour leaders might take heart from the efforts of the Greens this week to suggest that United Future is closer to their view than Labour's on the question of the moratorium. That is plainly not true; Mr Dunne's party wants reasonable assurance of the safety of GM products before agreeing to lift the moratorium.

That is Labour's view too, but it has not been the Greens' position. If the Greens now say that it is, they have shifted ground significantly. It might in fact be the signal that they are looking for a way out of the corner into which they painted themselves and which brought them few additional votes at this election.

If so, then the way is open for Labour to follow its first inclination, which may not be in the wider interests of the country. The Prime Minister should beware: Mr Dunne's party might be full of novices to Parliament but it will have its pride. If Labour embarks on negotiations with the Greens and gets nowhere, their second choice might demand a higher price than it would ask right now.

It is up to Labour's leaders. The election has put all the cards in their hands. Their decision will be fateful.