Deal shifts boundaries

By Andrew Laxon

In the past few years New Zealanders have got used to seeing cabinet ministers get the sack for defying the Government in public.

Now we may have to adjust to an even stranger sight, as cabinet members keep their jobs and carry on their attacks with official approval.

Under yesterday's Coalition agreement between Labour and the Alliance, ministers will be allowed to disagree publicly on important policies.

For instance, Deputy Prime Minister-designate Jim Anderton could argue against a Government decision to introduce six weeks' paid parental leave, on the grounds that it does not go far enough.

Critics say the change undercuts the doctrine of collective responsibility, which forces all ministers to accept cabinet decisions even if they do not personally agree with them.

Supporters say it is a sensible and necessary modification for MMP, which recognises that these days a cabinet consists of more than one party.

The agreement signed by Prime Minister-designate Helen Clark and Mr Anderton says the convention of collective responsibility still applies.

However, if one party (read "the Alliance") is concerned about a policy, its leader can take the issue to a Coalition management committee, made up of both leaders, their deputies and the two senior whips.

If the committee cannot resolve the dispute, the dissenting party can call for "party distinction" and speak out publicly against the policy.

"Such issues are expected to be infrequent and the parties recognise that dealing with them openly and responsibly is critical to the credibility of the Coalition," the agreement says.

"Differentiation on such issues will not detract from the overall acceptance that the two parties are taking joint responsibility for the actions of the Government."

The two leaders confirmed yesterday that the Alliance would be free to pursue a private member's bill advancing its alternative policy through Parliament.

Labour believes it is safe from defeat here because the Alliance is politically isolated on the left.

As Helen Clark joked, it is hard to imagine National supporting the Alliance's call for a 5 per cent tariff on imports from all countries except Australia.

The open-ended, 11/2-page agreement is designed to avoid repeating the mistakes of the legalistic 65-page National-New Zealand First Coalition deal, which tied both parties to detailed policy positions they did not like and allowed no public disagreement.

Helen Clark told the Herald that the failure of that Coalition proved that Governments could no longer stick to the traditional idea of collective cabinet responsibility.

"I think the NZ First-National experience shows why this cannot be. You just have to be more relaxed, more tolerant of difference.

"I don't think it's going to be a problem. I just think people will adjust to a different way of how they see Government."

She said that the "party distinction" clause in the agreement would not apply to the Coalition's core programme.

The Prime Minister-designate argued that tariffs did not come into this category. They would become a key issue only if Labour was trying to make radical changes which the Alliance did not agree with.

"Then you would have a major problem but that is not part of our agenda."

Both leaders were optimistic about the agreement yesterday but there were signs of possible tension ahead in their differing interpretations.

Helen Clark portrayed the change as a small one and stressed that both parties would ultimately have to take responsibility for cabinet decisions.

However, Mr Anderton played up the significance of the "agree to disagree" clause and suggested the parties could continue to express different views afterwards.

A likely flashpoint for any disagreement is the Budget. The Alliance will want more spending and progress towards free health and education, while Labour - especially the new Minister of Finance, Michael Cullen - will be much more cautious.

National cabinet minister Simon Upton said the agree-to-disagree clause was designed to allow the Alliance to "grandstand" from time to time.

The party risked sinking out of voters' sight as "a few red dots in a sea of compromised pink," so it needed this outlet.

"The question has to be asked, why should long-standing and important constitutional conventions be disbanded merely to allow parties to conduct periodic branding exercises?"

Mr Upton predicted that the significance of the clause would grow as the Alliance's ratings sagged.

But political scientist Jonathan Boston said the agreement was a "modest modification" to the concept of collective responsibility, which was based on unanimity among the cabinet, the confidence of Parliament and confidentiality.

The new clause changed only the unanimity principle, which had often been breached in the past anyway.

Professor Boston, a specialist in public policy at Victoria University, said it was risky, but probably less risky than the NZ First-National method of trying to tie down agreement on every issue.

That approach had led to damaging ad hoc agreements to differ in public, such as the referendum on compulsory superannuation.

The Prime Minister at the time, Jim Bolger, had supported the proposal for the sake of Government unity but allowed his ministers - led by his successor, Jenny Shipley - to campaign against it.

Professor Boston said the "party distinction" clause also contained an in-built political stabiliser, as the Alliance would not want to lose vote after vote on lost causes in Parliament.

Some academics have previously argued that collective responsibility is based more on political pragmatism - especially the need for a Government to appear united in the eyes of the public - than genuine constitutional convention.

Former Labour Prime Minister and lawyer Sir Geoffrey Palmer once called it "an elaborate fiction," which reflected New Zealanders' taste for strong Government.

Professor Boston disagreed, saying it was vital that a Government should remain accountable to the public.

The principle of collective cabinet responsibility must remain, so that people knew who was responsible - and who was to blame.