Peters snatches super debate spotlight

Politics' Indiarubber man has bounced back again.

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters, almost prone in the polls and struggling to make an impact with the public, has bounded into the epicentre of the superannuation debate by backing the Government's planned fund.

At a stroke he has saved the public from more protracted and unwelcome "Will it fly? Will it crash?" speculation and stolen a march on his minor-party rivals.

Until Tuesday evening he had been giving only lukewarm support to the scheme, pointing out the pitfalls of the Coalition's pooled fund over his preference for individual accounts.

He argued that a pooled account left a higher risk of political interference and disadvantaged low-income earners, Maori and Pacific Islanders who in general do not live as long. With an individual account they could pass on their savings to their estates if they died before retirement age.

Yet on the day Michael Cullen unveiled the fund, still short of the needed majority in the House, Mr Peters grabbed the headlines with considered and surprisingly (for him) only slightly qualified support.

Yes, he said. The scheme was better than nothing, and set us on the road to a sustainable savings scheme. If Dr Cullen allowed a future Government to switch the fund to individual accounts - something the Finance Minister was at pains to concede - it would have New Zealand First's five crucial votes.

With a weather eye to his future, Mr Peters also wanted the pension floor, set at 65 per cent of the average wage, raised to 70 per cent.

So ... he will be able to wash his hands if the scheme is raided, show that he is more generous to the elderly than even the Alliance and Labour (who poached his Grey Power base last election), and at the same time keep faith with his core older voters. They are key to his party's future and his chances of holding the Tauranga seat - more so since the Maori MPs and a large slice of his Maori backing have gone.

The losers from Mr Peters' masterstroke were the Greens, who are in constant tension with New Zealand First over who wins the kudos for backing the Government on any given measure.

The Greens want to have first refusal - and hence bragging rights - over any legislative change the Government brings forward.

But in this case they overplayed their hand, leaving the way open for Mr Peters. In their defence they argue that superannuation is not "core business" for them. They will be happy if they can claim victory by restricting the fund's investment in so-called unethical areas such as armaments, tobacco firms and the bonds of unpalatable Governments.

But in the longer run, if they want to replace the Alliance as Labour's natural partner in government, they will have to come out of the closet on non-green issues like pensions and the Reserve Bank Act.

The Alliance is claiming its own political victory from the scheme, after initially being sceptical about the whole idea of prefunding.

It sees potential for economic nationalism, with the $100 billion-plus nest-egg funding domestic infrastructure - albeit not at Government direction - and providing the money for New Zealanders to "buy back their country."

National's position is the most difficult to play, and may be inextricably linked to the party leadership.

Bill English has been leading the way, walking a thin tightrope between attacking the scheme and leaving the door open to support it if public opinion swings that way. He is aware that without a full policy of its own his party is vulnerable, but he is making the most of the opportunities to snipe at the fund's uncertainties and the tight rein it will place on the spending plans of future Governments.

But at the back of the party's mind is the unstated fact: Jenny Shipley as leader cut the pension in the teeth of the Asian crisis.

National has resiled from that decision, but her credibility on maintaining the present entitlement must be undermined in the public's eye.

If pensions become central at the next election, National and Mr English will have another good reason to superannuate the present leader.