Editorial: Brownlee shows himself up

Gerry Brownlee, Deputy Leader of the Opposition, no doubt fancies himself in the leader's shoes one day. But if he wants to be taken seriously by anybody else he should abandon the kind of outburst he made against the Governor-General this week. During the negotiations to form the new government, Dame Silvia Cartwright consulted the Prime Minister, but Mr Brownlee said that in such a "tight" situation she should have spoken to all parties.

"I have to say publicly that I have lost respect for the Governor-General," he said. "I think we do have to be assured that the head of state has the interests of the people at heart." He thought it was time to sit down and look at a more formal constitution for New Zealand.

One of the prime requisites of political leadership is an understanding of constitutional procedures and a certain sensitivity to the position of Governor-General. Mr Brownlee has declared himself deficient on both counts.

Our "constitution" - the laws, procedures and conventions by which power is conferred and controlled - would be compromised if the head of state engaged in political debate or could be accused of acting in a partisan way. Responsible political leaders would never make that accusation unless they were on very strong ground. Mr Brownlee is not.

Procedures for a Governor-General to follow when the election result is inconclusive were worked out fairly clearly by Dame Silvia's predecessor, Sir Michael Hardie Boys - like her a former judge - before the first MMP election in 1996. He and his advisers decided the office should keep out of all direct discussions between parties and only in the event of a prolonged deadlock should the Governor-General try to be a "facilitator", speaking to the various leaders in turn.

Three or four weeks after the recent election Dame Silvia sent word to the Prime Minister that she would like to be briefed on the progress of Labour's talks. Mr Brownlee thinks she should have spoken to all parties at that point. But it was less than a fortnight since the final election results had been posted. There was not yet a sense of crisis in the country.

Labour had several possible alignments of support, National had just one, and it looked less likely than any of Labour's combinations. The public seemed to accept that the party first past the post, Labour, deserved to have the inside running in post-election negotiations.

Talks might have dragged on for another week before the Governor-General felt obliged to help, but it is hard to blame Dame Silvia for seeking an early briefing. And she cannot be criticised for seeking it only from Helen Clark. The Prime Minister is constitutionally her proper source of advice.

Dame Silvia had advised all party leaders after the election that she was open to an approach by any of them. Under the Hardie Boys prescription, they would have had to convince her they had a majority in Parliament on the basis of public commitments by supporting parties. If she were not convinced, the deadlock would have been resolved by a vote in Parliament.

The beauty of a rough and ready constitution is that we work it out as we go. It is doubtful that the public wants the Governor-General involved in post-election negotiations to the extent Mr Brownlee implies, or perhaps even in the facilitation role the Hardie Boys paper prescribes. We will always expect parties to come to terms eventually and they will, because few minor parties would confidently face a repeat election. Polls suggest the parties have worked it out this time to public satisfaction, if not to Mr Brownlee's. He should leave the Governor-General out of it.