KEY POINTS:
It would be easy for National leader John Key to be lulled into a false sense of security by opinion polls that suggest his party will be able to govern alone after the general election. Most obviously, he might assume there is little need to consider co-operation with minor parties. But Mr Key appears to understand that such majorities tend to shrink on polling day and that, in any event, unforeseen occurrences during a parliamentary term make it prudent to have minor-party backing. Thus, wisely, he has indicated he could negotiate post-election coalition deals with parties such as United Future or the Maori Party even if National gained enough votes not to have to deal with anyone.
Mr Key's comment came as United Future wrapped up its annual conference and Act announced that Sir Roger Douglas would take a high position on its party list. United Future's gathering was marked by its leader, Peter Dunne, making a pitch to work with a National-led government. Among his predictions were one of "great change" and another that the election was "National's for losing".
The centrist United Future is, obviously, one of the first parties to which National would turn, and Mr Dunne would doubtless relish remaining Revenue Minister. This would enable him to continue to push a tax reduction policy, including his pet income-splitting project. Seeking such a post seems a reasonable course, given the improbability of more money being spent on the likes of a Families Commission.
Act, even more so, is an obvious ally for National. They should be co-operating constantly in each other's best interests. Their recent history has, however, defied such logic. Last year, Act made a number of tart comments about National's shift to the centre under Mr Key's leadership. Now, Sir Roger's re-emergence has added another potential banana skin. National does not want its moderation called into question by Labour Party suggestions that it would be overrun by a far right agenda after the election. In March, therefore, the possibility of Sir Roger sitting on a National-Act cabinet was swiftly rebuffed by Mr Key.
Labour's rapprochement with the Alliance before the 1999 election points to the path that National and Act should be travelling. The smaller party is making that difficult, however. The more that Sir Roger is reported as fancying the job of finance minister, the more Mr Key worries about voters fleeing back to Labour, or to another party that could check National.
Sir Roger's elevation to a high position, perhaps number three, on the Act party list will have only added to the trepidation. Act would need only about 2.5 per cent of the vote, in addition to its leader, Rodney Hide, holding Epsom, for Sir Roger to return to Parliament. At the last election, Don Brash attracted Act voters to National. His departure and National's centrist bent suggest enough support may travel back to Act to achieve that.
Act, however, must campaign in a way that does not make life difficult for National. Sir Roger and his economic programme may be its chief branding weapon, but it must recognise that every vote lost by National diminishes its own chances of being in government. In the final analysis, it is in no position to make huge demands. It would do well to note the Alliance's coming together with Labour and the subsequent development with Jim Anderton's Progressives.
Mr Key has taken an early opportunity to reach out to the minor parties. It is not something that National has done too effectively in the past. Forging post-election coalitions has been more a strength of Helen Clark. Pragmatism is the key in making such arrangements. In that respect, all parties have to play their part.
