Safety-valves to let off steam

By John Armstrong

You can safely assume that the Labour-Alliance coalition won't conduct its business over a whisky bottle.

Jim Bolger and Winston Peters liked to put their animosity behind them over a late-night drink or three in the Beehive's back rooms.

Helen Clark and Jim Anderton have also transited from friend to foe and back to cordiality.

But for all this week's hugs and smiles, no one pretends Anderton will be compliant to Labour's wishes. Better then that Clark politely keeps some distance between herself and her coalition partner from the start to show that this is going to be a different kind of coalition, one where unity has to be sacrificed to some degree to take account of the partner's differences.

Within days of her election triumph, Clark has already witnessed Anderton's boundless talent for pushing the limits, gently chiding his off-the-wall promotion of that old standby of employment initiatives, the possum fur industry.

More serious was his mention of raising tariffs amid the street battles at the World Trade Organisation summit in Seattle. Clark can afford to ignore such talk for now. It counts for little until the coalition agreement is signed on Monday and the new ministry is sworn in next Friday.

This week's fast-track coalition negotiations were largely a charade. They provided an excuse for photo-opportunities to demonstrate that Labour and the Alliance can work together smoothly and efficiently.

In fact, the coalition document was largely written before the election, with the two parties striving for a flexible arrangement that allows both room to breathe.

There is a fundamental tension in any coalition. It must be cohesive, speaking with one voice on economic management and foreign policy.

At the same time, both partners must retain their own brands to fight the next election. They need some freedom to articulate policy differences - but not at one another's expense.

The exact wording of the coalition agreement will not be known until Monday, but Anderton describes it as ground-breaking in terms of coalition management.

It is expected to contain a revolutionary "agree-to-disagree" provision acknowledging that from time to time the two parties will take differing positions on issues.

Labour is amenable to this safety-valve, partly because it does not want tensions building within the Alliance and boiling over into the coalition.

The provision also cuts both ways. Labour can invoke the clause to avoid being held to ransom by its minor partner.

This shows a wise regard to the inevitability of disagreement, and an acceptance that the Alliance will not allow itself to be suffocated by its bigger partner, as NZ First was.

It was no coincidence that former NZ First MP Neil Kirton was invited this week to inform the Alliance caucus of his brief, unhappy experience as Associate Health Minister.

Kirton is the textbook example of things going wrong in a coalition. He was a stroppy junior minister who was sacked after clashing endlessly with his equally stubborn senior, National's Bill English.

Kirton is reluctant to divulge his advice, but it is understood he had several messages:

\EE Expect your supposed allies to be obstructive.

\EE Expect public servants to be hostile and downright devious in frustrating policies they don't like.

\EE Expect the media to zero in on points of difference between coalition partners.

\EE And expect Labour to be happy for the Alliance to bear the brunt of Opposition attacks on the Government.

Peters sacked Kirton at Bolger's insistence. Anderton will enjoy the same invidious position as Peters, being Deputy Prime Minister and leader of his party.

Labour, though, concedes that Anderton will put his party's interests first in coalition tussles far more than Peters did.

But the agree-to-disagree clause clashes with a fundamental constitutional doctrine. Cabinet rules stipulate that ministers are collectively responsible for all cabinet decisions, whether they agree with them or not.

If ministers regularly distance themselves from those decisions, the effectiveness and stability of the Government quickly comes under question. And public accountability disappears if ministers duck responsibility.

One answer is to permit Labour and Alliance ministers to argue conflicting views publicly before the cabinet meets. Reaching a subsequent consensus - the cabinet rarely holds votes - both parties will then be obliged to accept full responsibility for that decision.

For example, Anderton says the cabinet could reach a compromise on paid parental leave, still allowing the Alliance to keep advocating its more radical policy.

The Alliance will also be empowered to bring in members' bills or amend legislation, whether or not Labour supports such measures. Each measure will stand or (most likely) fall on the floor of Parliament.

That sounds fine in theory, but difficulties arise when unforeseen circumstances arise that demand hard decisions running counter to a party's ideology.

There is also the danger that an agree-to-disagree clause will weaken the coalition by its mere existence. For that reason, there seems to be agreement in Labour and Alliance ranks that use of the provision be restricted to absolute emergencies or around the margins, rather than on core coalition issues.

There is recognition that fundamental disagreements are better resolved by other means, mainly by ensuring that problems are de-escalated long before they turn into cabinet table showdowns.

A series of early warning mechanisms will alert coalition managers, such as party whips and key staffers, of potential sticking-points. "Emergency litigation" procedures will involve Clark and Anderton in the event of a major crisis.

As one senior Labour MP notes, the new coalition is hoping stability is better maintained by being open about one's differences.

For all that, any coalition survives on the goodwill of its participants.

Not even the fanciest of coalition documents filled with clever problem-solving mechanisms will make up for the absence of goodwill. And it has the unfortunate habit of evaporating in the heat of Government.