KEY POINTS:
So much for the so-called "new political landscape". It would appear not to look terribly different from the old one.
Even when it seemed Labour had lost Taito Phillip Field's vote, it was overdramatising things to suggest the Greens had been vaulted into some kind of power-broking role.
The Mangere MP's announcement yesterday that he will still be casting his vote with Labour, despite resigning his membership of that party, would seem to mark a return to the status quo.
Not quite. Just as she will be pleased Labour has been saved having to go through the ugly and bitter mechanics of an expulsion, the Prime Minister will be grateful Labour retains Field's vote. But she will not be banking on keeping it.
Things are not as they were. The Labour-led Government can still only lay definitive claim to 60 of the 121 seats in Parliament. Helen Clark will still be glad she sought and obtained confirmation that the Greens will continue to abstain on confidence and supply.
But where does that leave the Greens? After Labour ditched Field and its majority on Tuesday, there was little argument that the Greens had more influence, though how much more was a moot point.
Jeanette Fitzsimons made it pretty clear that the price of reconfirming her party's abstention on confidence matters was Labour agreeing to hurry up implementation of the policy agenda listed in the co-operation agreement between the two parties.
The Greens will expect that understanding to still apply despite Labour getting Field's vote back.
So there should be more gains in policy terms for the Greens than there otherwise might have been.
Legislation is a different matter.
Even without Field's vote, Labour could rely on getting its Budget passed as the Greens would be abstaining on supply measures. The Greens consider the same supply criteria would also apply to crucial Government legislation implementing forthcoming cuts in business and personal tax.
The Greens briefly had an enhanced ability to amend or block other Government legislation should they have wished. But no longer.
However, Labour may have found the numbers from elsewhere or simply not put up legislation if it was going to crash. The paucity of controversial bills on Parliament's order paper suggests this might have already been happening.
The objections of Labour's centrist support partners, NZ First and United Future, may be a more significant deterrent to Labour bringing forward new legislation than the Greens, who are naturally more sympathetic to true Labour initiatives.
Overall, however, the biggest limit on the Greens' influence is that they played their biggest bargaining chip some 17 months ago after the Prime Minister pieced together her current minority Government.
Shut out of coalition, the Greens opted to abstain on confidence motions and votes on supply. In return, their co-operation agreement with Labour gave them control of policy development in a couple of areas - solar energy and the "Made in New Zealand" campaign - plus consultation rights across a range of others.
The upshot was that although the Greens could argue they were not part of the Government, their abstentions had the practical effect of propping it up.
Moreover, the co-operation agreement applies for the full three-year term. Even if she had wanted to do so, Fitzsimons could not have spurned the Prime Minister when Helen Clark rang for confirmation the Greens would continue to abstain on confidence matters.
The confirmation of existing arrangements underlined the imperative that post-election deals must stick for the following three years otherwise trust rapidly erodes and governing becomes impossible.
Any change in arrangements requires exceptional circumstances - such as the withdrawal of a coalition or support partner. Field's ejection from Labour was not in that category.
Fitzsimons would have been hard-pressed justifying trying to renegotiate her party's deal with Labour. Worse, the Greens would have been left high and dry after Field's announcement yesterday.
But the Greens were never interested in grandstanding.
They were not interested in a tighter agreement with Labour, guaranteeing confidence and supply in return for more policy concessions. Neither were they interested in a ministerial post.
The view is that with the current Government nearly halfway through its term, it would be extremely difficult to force the kind of major shifts in policy direction and bureaucratic thinking that the Greens are looking for. With this year's Budget pretty much written, there would be just one to go before the next election.
However, the Prime Minister was never going to offer a confidence and supply deal or a seat at the Cabinet table.
She did not need to once she could count on the Greens' abstentions.
Neither was she likely to do so, given her minority Government has a distinct pecking order. It will remain stable for as long as everyone knows their place. In the Greens' case, that is at the bottom of the pecking order, below Winston Peters and Peter Dunne, whose parties sacrificed independence in guaranteeing they would support Labour on confidence and supply.
They would not tolerate any sudden favouritism to the Greens.
However, the Greens clearly still expect to extract some policy gains from the Prime Minister following Tuesday's phone call.
Despite that, Fitzsimons has been careful to confine such talk to the contents of the co-operation agreement. This is because the document is flexible enough for Labour to give more without being too overt about it.
One clause stipulates the Greens be briefed on the forward programme for policy development in environment, energy, sustainable economics, transport, conservation, health and social development, "in order that specific areas for joint work can be agreed upon from time to time".
So far this clause has not been activated. But it offers a means by which the Greens could try to push new issues on to the agenda.
Even more pertinent is a list of "Budget initiatives". These include "building increased capacity for public passenger transport", "reducing the levels of child poverty" and "increasing overseas development assistance".
The agreement stipulates that Budgets over the term will include spending which goes some way towards fulfilling what are clearly Green goals.
However, these "Budget initiatives" are also things Labour wants to do. It will claim the money would have been spent regardless of pressure from the Greens.
At the end of the day, the Greens will not pack up their tent and storm off if they do not get what they want. For starters, the premium is on Government stability. Labour is also experienced enough in running minority governments by now so as not to overtax the Greens' patience.
Above all, current opinion polls suggest Labour and the Greens could form the next Government.
That is a major incentive for both parties to keep things tidy in the interim.
