John Armstrong: Harpoon waiting to prick Key's bubble

Sir Geoffrey Palmer, New Zealand's International Whaling Commissioner hoping to save the whales from unregulated slaughter. Photo / Mark Mitchell

Oh lucky man, oh very lucky man. The political gods continue to smile on John Key to an extraordinary degree.

How else to explain the incredible switch in American attitudes to New Zealand's anti-nuclear policy, as witnessed in Washington this week.

There is no earthly justification for Key being the chosen one basking in the unexpected and bountiful expressions of approval of this country's anti-nuclear stance flowing from the Obama Administration.

The Prime Minister can claim neither credit nor responsibility for the policy. His party has sought at various times over the past two decades to weaken or undermine it, if not destroy it.

National's inability to ditch it by lunchtime meant Key was this week dining out on it long past bedtime.

Some irony. Phil Goff must wonder if there is any justice in this world. Labour will be pleased the struggle to get the Americans to accept its policy should have such a happy ending. It will be cursing that Key is the beneficiary of that when National did nothing to deserve it.

To borrow Bill English's metaphor, Key may feel like he is bouncing from cloud to cloud right now. Next week, however, could see him fall back to earth with a thud.

Obama's nuclear security summit was not the only game in Washington this week. Also toiling away, but with considerably less prominence and even less agreement, was the Sir Geoffrey Palmer-chaired "support group", which has the seemingly impossible task of stopping the members of the International Whaling Commission harpooning one another.

Sir Geoffrey, New Zealand's international whaling commissioner, has been of the firm view that his working party is the last chance to not only get the commission functioning in a capacity approaching something close to normality, it is the last chance to save the international body from extinction - and therefore save the whales from unregulated slaughter.

The commission is already severely compromised by Japan's bogus exploitation of a loophole in its charter which allows members to catch whales for "scientific" research. The other whaling nations - Norway and Iceland - simply flout the moratorium on commercial whaling imposed in the 1980s.

The commission is powerless to halt what seems to be an ever-rising quota of kills that each whaling nation generously allocates itself. What began post-moratorium as an overall quota of 300 is now closer to 3000.

Worse, the commission is too paralysed by politics to give itself the power to stop the practice.

To re-establish the commission's role of managing global whaling, Sir Geoffrey, with the backing of this Government, has sought to end the infighting by securing equal compromise from all sides of the whaling argument.

Under that compromise, Japan would drop its open-ended policy of "scientific" whaling in return for the commission effectively legalising the slaughter of the mammals over a 10-year period, but in much smaller numbers than now.

The Washington meeting was supposed to reach a consensus on what those numbers should be before a deadline next Thursday imposed to give all members time to examine the figures before the commission's full meeting in Morocco in June.

It is understood no such agreement was forthcoming at the meeting. Instead, the commission's secretariat will release figures which have been in the ball-park of discussions.

While backing Sir Geoffrey, New Zealand, with other members, reserves the right to reject the proposal.

Given New Zealand's longstanding opposition to whaling, that caveat is crucial for National. There is unlikely to be much benefit for the Government in domestic political terms from whatever emerges next Thursday.

But the Government is acutely conscious that if it pulls the plug, other countries will follow and with them goes any hope of solving the commission's woes.

The numbers are the crux of the matter. Numbers floated at this week's meeting had Japan's quota of minke whale - the species of prime relevance to New Zealand - being cut from about 1000 to between 200 and 400. These figures were not volunteered by Japan. In the arcane nature of such negotiations, Japan was seen to be not rejecting them.

In this context, what matters is the number of kills. Once those are taken into account, the politics become far more difficult for Key and his Foreign Minister, Murray McCully.

Japan caught 506 minke in the "season" just completed - half its quota target. A kill of about 400 would thus be too high for National's comfort. A figure closer to 200 would be more politically palatable, more so if it includes further reductions over the next 10 years.

The anti-whaling lobby will pan any deal as defective if it does not have a timetable for phasing out whaling. It will attack any deal legitimising commercial whaling at the very time that the industry, which is slowly dying in Japan anyway, may lose the Government subsidies on which it is heavily dependent.

The lobby groups will point to Australia, which is steadfast in insisting the whale kill be cut to zero. Not only does Prime Minister Kevin Rudd have reservations over the compromise proposal, he is planning to take Japan to the International Court of Justice.

New Zealand is unlikely to be party to that. And for a very good reason. The case will almost certainly fail, because the commission's own rules specifically allow member countries to kill whales for research.

Rudd's talk of court action is poll-driven. It is designed to ensure Green voters give their second preferences to Labour candidates to help them over the line under Australia's electoral system.

Moreover, Rudd promised at the last election to go to the international court. He is promising before this year's election that it will happen - but not until the whaling season starts in November, by which time the election will be over.

Rudd has a habit of talking tough on whaling. But ideas such as sending Australian naval ships to intercept Japanese whaling ships in the southern sanctuary have never eventuated.

Meanwhile, the accusations from the likes of Peter Garrett of New Zealand selling out disguise a fundamental disagreement between his Environment Ministry and Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade on the best way to advance.

So far, neither Rudd nor Garrett has saved a single whale. Sir Geoffrey and McCully may end up saving thousands. But what is termed the "kill whales in order to save them" option is a hard sell politically.

It might be argued that National has already done its chips with the conservation lobby with its mining policy and its weakening of New Zealand's emission trading system.

But opposition to whaling is - like the anti-nuclear policy - an emotionally charged component of national identity. Endorsing a compromise which legitimises killing whales would not necessarily translate directly into National losing votes, but it loads another gripe on to the pile of accumulating complaints that erode a Government's popularity.