John Armstrong: Hide and Peters both awkward bedfellows

Rodney Hide. Photo / Mark Mitchell

History repeats? Well, yes and no. Acutely aware of the gross discomfort that Winston Peters and his accident-prone New Zealand First Party caused Helen Clark during the final weeks of her Government, Labour is doing its darndest to ensure John Key is similarly tarred by National's association with Act, another walking disaster.

So far, though, there is no evidence Labour's gambit is working. There are good reasons why it won't - at least in the short term.

The question Labour is posing to National is the same one National posed to Labour before the last election: why is the Prime Minister expressing confidence in a minister who should be sacked for not being straight with voters regarding - in Peters' case - a party funding scandal and - in Rodney Hide's case - his keeping secret his knowledge of the very chequered past of one of his MPs.

Here the similarities end. Peters was eventually stood down by Clark from his foreign affairs portfolio after the Serious Fraud Office began investigating New Zealand First's finances. Hide remains in his job.

He will continue to do so unless he is found to have committed some other political crime on a par with hiding David Garrett's past.

One explanation for John Key being so relaxed about any potential fallout from Act's implosion is his and National's popularity. He is in his first term. Clark was at the latter end of her third. The electorate was in a mood for change and needed reasons to convince itself Labour should be dumped.

There is currently no such mood for change - just as there wasn't in 2002 when the Alliance broke in two over Government policy on Afghanistan.

That is a far more apt historical comparison. As Key has done with Act, Clark made sure Labour was insulated from the infighting in its minor partner by making it clear it was none of Labour's business.

In contrast, in 2008 Labour found itself treacle-deep in the sticky mess surrounding expatriate billionaire Owen Glenn and questions about how much it knew of a donation to New Zealand First which Peters insisted for months had simply not occurred.

Clark also needed to keep Peters and NZ First happy to have the numbers to govern. Her support for Peters began to consequently look like power for power's sake. Key, in contrast, knows he can rely on the votes of Act's four MPs even if their caucus disintegrates and some or all become independents.

The other major difference between now and 2008 was the pivotal role played by Peters as the leader of a party facing major questions about the sources and use of donations it had received. Responsibility for Act's problems is shared by others as well as the leader.

So far, Hide's biggest crime has been a failure of judgment. Serious as that might be, it is not on a par with the allegations Peters was facing and the subsequent expose laid out for all to witness at a privilege committee's inquiry.

Hide's (sort of) mea culpa response to Act's crisis is in stark contrast to Peters' belligerence which was an embarrassment for Labour, more so because he held a major and very sensitive portfolio.

About the only people Hide can offend as Local Government Minister are mayors, councillors and local authority staff. National's tolerance for the Act sideshow does have its limits.

As a distraction, Act's ructions are crowding out National's messages. The Government has already had to postpone a planned tax cut publicity blitz ahead of the October 1 implementation date.

But Key has so far judged that the best thing National can do is maintain a healthy distance between itself and its ailing partner. And so far it is working.