Most of the time, the Labour Party bears the
coarse New Zealand First millstone around its neck with patient equanimity. It
appreciates that, however it might resent it, to do otherwise would quickly
rend asunder the governing coalition, returning it unceremoniously to the
Opposition benches for another, and potentially lengthy, fruitless spell in the
wilderness.
Meanwhile, elements in the National Party,
including the leader it seems, wistfully yearn for a possible reconciliation
that would see New Zealand First emerge as its partner in government after the
next election. But that is just not going to happen. National needs to wake up
to the reality that as New Zealand First was founded principally on its
leader’s sense of utu for having been expelled from National’s Caucus in 1991,
it is never going to be its saviour. Despite having potentially greater policy
compatibility with National, New Zealand First will always opt for Labour if it
can, especially while its current leader is around. National can never hope to appease New
Zealand First – its best way to deal with it is to seek to destroy it.
Although all this is to Labour’s short-term benefit,
it probably does not want to be locked into the New Zealand First embrace for
too long either. While it is, it cannot seriously hope to be able to deliver
the progressive, left, government with the Greens it yearns for. The best it
can hope for is a continuation of the stuttering current arrangement where it
governs, not with the support of New Zealand First, but at its behest. Yet both
Labour and New Zealand First understand that for the foreseeable future their
fates are intertwined. Electoral
mathematics alone make it clear that to retain government next year Labour will
have to have New Zealand First, as well as the Greens, alongside it.
So, while Labour will continue to chafe under
the New Zealand First yolk, it will never risk shirking it completely. That is
why, for example, Shane Jones, whose Ministerial performance has been a failure
in just about every aspect, is tolerated, and only ever so gently chastised
(being sent away on holiday to read the Cabinet Manual after his egregious
outburst to the forestry sector is the latest example) whenever he fails the
standards of Ministerial conduct. And New Zealand First have already made it
clear, through both Mr Peters and Mr Jones, that, rather than be chastened by
the experience, it will become more aggressive and less mindful of Cabinet
solidarity in the lead-up to next year’s election, as it fights for its
survival. It knows full well Labour cannot really object all that much,
because, for electoral purposes, the two are now increasingly joined at the
hip.
What Labour strategists have to weigh up in all
this is the point at which New Zealand First’s continued unchecked shenanigans
start to damage Labour’s own brand, and whether, simply, it continues to be
worth it. For their part, the Greens might also become less quiescent as the
responsible partner in government if they sense their fate is being compromised
by the association with New Zealand First.
One such issue that might bring all this to a
head is the matter of drug law reform. The Greens clearly want to push this and
move New Zealand towards a more realistic approach to the use of drugs, and Labour,
while overtly less apparently enthusiastic, is of a similar persuasion. New
Zealand First, on the other hand, is setting itself up to be the anti-drug
party, committed to still fighting the discredited war on drugs that most
countries, including New Zealand some years ago, have correctly abandoned,
hoping to draw in the hardline anti-drug vote, ironically to boost the overall
support of the current government.
This week’s flat rejection of the idea of
drug-testing facilities being available at major summer music festivals,
despite the high profile support of the Labour Minister of Police, is not just
another example of the ritual humiliation Labour Ministers have to endure at
the feet of New Zealand First in order to survive, but is also plain bad policy.
The point is simple. There are very few people
who actively advocate for the use of drugs as beneficial. It is not the case –
they are mind altering substances that are potentially dangerous to young
people, in particular. The reality is, though, as hundreds of years of history
has shown, they cannot be eliminated, so the question becomes one of regulating
their use in a way that is safe and responsible. Enabling people with
substances to test whether they are safe or not, is not an encouragement of their
use and proliferation, but a valuable protection for often vulnerable young
people. Labour, the Greens, and elements in the National Party, and the Police
all understand that, and, until the blunt New Zealand First veto, there were
cautious hopes that a solution could be arrived at for this year’s summer music
season.
To date, Labour’s response seems to have been
acquiescence, apparently judging the preservation of coalition unity to be a
higher priority than the protection of the public health. But to retain any
credibility it has as a party of compassion and tolerance, Labour cannot let
this position stand – and nor can the Greens.
For both, the millstone may yet become too
oppressive to continue to have to wear.
Comments
Post a Comment