John Armstrong: National happy about covering most bases

Critics hurling brickbats at National for coming up with an emissions trading scheme even more feeble and spineless than was expected, John Key would probably have this message: feel free to hurl plenty more.

For the Government believes the more its replacement for Labour's scheme comes under fire from the environmental lobby, the more the silent majority will be convinced that National has got it right.

National is not wasting its breath pretending the emissions trading scheme unveiled on Monday following its negotiations with the Maori Party is going to help save the planet.

Senior ministers have instead done their utmost to shift the political argument away from the impact of the scheme in terms of cutting emissions. They want the focus to be on their scheme's "softer" impact on jobs and household finances compared with the version Labour put in place.

National could not care one jot about the cries of anguish from climate change experts and commentators.

It is being unashamedly pragmatic in trying to satisfy three broad groupings of voters: those suspicious that something expensive and unnecessary was being foisted upon them by Labour; those more receptive to the evidence of climate change, but who worry about losing income or even their livelihoods; and those who definitely think something should be done but who don't want to see New Zealand leading the charge to cut emissions.

In targeting these groupings, National is doing no more than following its manifesto commitments not to be a world leader on climate change, not to let foreign competitors get an advantage over domestic producers and to have a scheme which can align with whatever Australia eventually comes up with.

If there is disappointment with National for being so unambitious, National has become immune to it.

After all, there was disappointment when National agreed to Act's demand for a special select committee review of Labour's scheme. There was disappointment with the committee's report. There was disappointment surrounding Monday's announcement beyond just the content.

Why, it is being asked, did National suddenly spurn Labour when a deal with that party seemed so close - a deal which would have made the resulting scheme more politically sustainable and less vulnerable to tampering.

Moreover, why did National not even bother with the courtesy of letting Labour know it had struck a deal with the Maori Party? It was hardly good faith bargaining. National has risked burning its bridges for another time when it might need Labour's assistance.

The answer is that following the Richard Worth affair, Key and his colleagues simply don't trust Phil Goff and his troops full stop.

Labour is now playing hard ball in its hounding of Bill English over his housing allowance.

In Parliament this week, the Finance Minister faced a constant barrage of interjections on the subject. He looked none too comfortable. One of National's major assets has been wounded, if only temporarily.

Whatever National MPs privately think of English's handling of his personal finances, Labour's onslaught hardly fosters a climate of co-operation.

So National is playing hard ball too. National may have made - and is still making - noises about reaching a deal with Labour. But National is not that fussed whether it happens or not. It has been stringing Labour along in case it could not find the votes elsewhere to get the necessary legislation for a new emissions trading scheme through Parliament.

It is now plain to see the resumption of talks between the two major parties earlier this month may have engendered far more optimism about some kind of "Grand Coalition" consensus than was warranted.

In hindsight, the delay in Key replying to Phil Goff's offer to re-open negotiations was the clue as to the real state of affairs. More notice should also have been taken of Key's warning that all parties had to consider what they risked losing if they did not negotiate with National. That was not the language of someone seeking consensus.

Another clue was the Maori Party's bid to withdraw its minority report relating to the findings and recommendations of the special select committee review.

Obviously, the door was not being shut on National despite Maori Party policy supporting an even tougher approach than Labour to cutting emissions.

It would have saved the Maori Party major embarrassment had the report been pulled.

It makes for sorry reading when placed alongside what the Maori Party has since signed up to. You would be hard-pressed to find a more glaring example of saying one thing and doing the opposite.

It seems that the party's climate change spokeswoman, Rahui Katene, was cut too much slack. While she was publicly affirming the Maori Party would stay staunch to its principles on cutting greenhouse gas emissions, the party leadership was quietly being dragged in the exact opposite direction.

It is understood Key warned the two Maori Party co-leaders of the potential loss for iwi of millions of Kyoto forestry credits if he was forced to deal with Act which is opposed to an emissions trading scheme.

Tariana Turia and Pita Sharples also got the message to start talking to National from iwi with extensive forestry and fishery holdings.

The party was also under pressure to lessen the impact of an emissions trading scheme on low-income Maori households. It will lay some claim to succeeding in halving the impact of projected power and petrol price increases.

But on forestry and fishing it has achieved little more than commitments to "consult" or "recognition" of particular headaches resulting from the implementation of an emissions trading system and compliance with the Kyoto Protocol.

However, the Maori Party has so far agreed to support the legislation only as far as select committee consideration. It should be able to leverage more out of National in return for getting the legislation through all its stages.

The Maori Party's other bargaining advantage is that National has not wanted to put itself in the position of having to rely on Labour. Again, that reflects the trust deficit.

National was accordingly suspicious of Labour's willingness to so readily put forward compromises in the emissions trading negotiations in order to get a deal. It is conceivable that Labour was doing this on the assumption it can rejig things more to its ideological taste when it returns to power, though a bipartisan agreement would presumably put strict limits on that happening.

What National thinks Labour was really seeking via a bipartisan agreement was the prized opportunity for an Opposition leader to look relevant.

National is most reluctant to give him that opportunity to be a player.

Ensuring that does not happen has seen National deliberately avoid climate change discussions between the two parties taking place at the leaders' level.

National has Goff where it wants to keep him. Way down in the polls - and no obvious replacement waiting in the wings.

It is hardly going to offer him a helping hand back into the limelight.

That is essentially why consensus between National and Labour on climate change has turned out to be nothing more than a mirage.