Much of the commentary about the recent ructions within the coalition government has settled on MMP as either the explanation or the blame for what has been going on. In reality, it is neither. MMP is but an electoral system. The blame or explanation lies with the politicians themselves.

Every government formed following the eight elections since we opted for MMP in 1996 has been a combination of at least two, and often three or even four, different parties, in either formal coalition or on a confidence and supply basis. The current government is no more or less a true MMP government than any of those which have preceded it. To suggest otherwise is nothing but a clever deflection of the real problems at hand.

And it matters not whether the government is a coalition, or one based on confidence and supply. What matters most, and ultimately determines its success or failure, is the dynamic of how it works. The claims of dysfunction against this government arise not from the method of its election, nor even its composition, but from its performance.

At the core of that is a perception that the Labour Party and its leader have become hostage to the demands of New Zealand First and its leader and that the Greens are being marginalised. While Labour and the Greens are natural partners, it is the support of New Zealand First that the government relies on to survive. Labour and New Zealand First both argue that there is nothing untoward here, and that all people are seeing is the normal dynamic of a coalition government getting on with its job. It is about give and take, they say.

There is some validity to that viewpoint. But the problem is that there seems to be more give than take as far as Labour is concerned, causing the claim that it is New Zealand First - with just 7% of the votes (less than a fifth of Labour’s share at election time) - calling all the shots, a perception not helped at the outset when it was New Zealand First, not Labour, that announced the shape and form of the new government. Labour seems to be doing a fair amount of giving, for precious little take in return.

When this government was formed, voters expected that the coalition agreement would be the basis of its approach, with other matters decided on a case by case, as had been the practice under earlier National and Labour-led governments. Yet what appears to be happening now is that all the parties are having real difficulty making the compromises necessary on those matters not covered by the coalition agreement. The perception that is creating is one of indecision and internal division, which in turn is leaving the government looking at sixes and sevens, and any progress being made on implementing the coalition agreement being either overlooked or ignored by the media. So the government's story becomes one of internal discord, rather than positive progress.

This is where leadership assumes real importance. Ensuring coalition relationships remain congenial is obviously vitally important, and critical to the government’s survival, but it cannot become just an end itself. The government still has to be seen to be doing things. In that regard, the Prime Minister‘s recent commitment to publish frequent updates of progress is welcome, even if a little late. It may limit some of the cynicism, but of itself is unlikely to be enough. The Prime Minister has to be seen to have dealt to the factors given rise to the negative public perceptions.

Asserting her leadership, and more importantly, being seen to be doing so is a critical part of that. To that end, a public rebuke, albeit well orchestrated, of her coalition partner on a particular issue might also be in order. Her decisiveness to date seems to have been limited to dealing with her own party. She needs to demonstrate unequivocally that she is the head of government, not just head of the largest party in the government. Her apparent unwillingness to ruffle coalition feathers is starting to work against her, especially since New Zealand First seems to have no such compunction about ruffling Labour's feathers.

Her stoicism to date is admirable, but cannot continue. She needs to be seen to be in charge, rather than just turning the other cheek. Her predecessor Helen Clark’s great strength was that people always knew where she stood on an issue. That clarity of purpose enabled her to manage three very different governing arrangements over her three terms in power. As the Prime Minister wrestles to restore her government’s fortunes after an appalling few weeks, she could reflect upon and pick up one or two hints from the Clark playbook.

The row over Clare Curran’s emails is becoming more and more ridiculous. 

No sooner had the former Minister resigned her remaining portfolios than she was admitting there might be more emails on her private email address with chief technology officer prospect Derek Handley than she first acknowledged, but that she was working with the Prime Minister’s Office to correctly identify those to ensure they were properly recorded for the purposes of any request for their release under the Official Information Act. Not only did this admission raise further questions about the reliability of Ms Curran’s memory, but also the intriguing possibility that there might well even be other unrelated items of Ministerial business on her private email account that have yet to be revealed.

Then there is the bizarre radio interview the Prime Minister gave last week, when she knew Ms Curran’s resignation was imminent, but where she gave assurances that her job was safe and that she had no plans to remove her. All technically correct of course, but the very precision of the Prime Minister’s explanation was grossly misleading. Beyond the Curran case, that cynical glibness will raise serious questions about the extent to which any future explanations from the Prime Minister on controversial topics can be taken seriously. The Prime Minister is an intelligent woman, and it is therefore quite baffling that she was willing to put her credibility on the line in this way, especially as the consequences of the folly of her coyness will long outlast the Curran saga.

Next was the extraordinary suggestion from the National Party, in one of the most flagrant disregards for personal privacy, that all Ms Curran’s private emails, personal and otherwise, should be handed over to an independent investigator to determine which were private and which were Ministerial. This sort of approach is more reminiscent of the STASI, and it must be of concern that the National Party, with a previous strong tradition of upholding liberal values like the right to privacy, should even be thinking this way over an issue which, when everything else is considered, is not that important. It raises far more serious questions about National’s commitment to protecting personal privacy in an era where cybersecurity is raising fresh tensions over the boundary between upholding the rights of the individual, and subjugating personal interests to those of the state.

But no-one seems to be interested in addressing what should be the fundamental point of concern arising from the Curran affair. Put simply, there is no excuse for any Minister seeking to negotiate privately a public service appointment with any individual. Clare Curran’s discussions with Derek Handley over the role of chief technology officer were wrong at all levels and should be nullified. After all, it is the State Services Commission which has the specific responsibility for making such appointments in a way that is open and transparent. That is to prevent any suggestion of cronyism or corruption in public sector appointments, which was the spectre raised by Ms Curran’s novel approach. It is of extreme concern that neither the Government nor the Opposition is focusing on this aspect, all the more so when there is already an Inquiry underway into the recent appointment of the Deputy Commissioner of Police.

The role of chief technology officer is an important one. It is at a senior level and the appointee will be the technical interface between the various branches of government and the information technology sector, supplementing and supporting the work of the government chief information officer as the transformation to a digital economy proceeds. To ensure the credibility of this critical appointment the government needs to immediately turn the whole process over to the State Services Commission to start afresh, without either further Ministerial interference or the involvement of Mr Handley.

When a few months ago New Zealand First abruptly vetoed Labour’s plans to repeal the three strikes criminal justice law it was glibly explained away by Labour as just a breakdown in communication that would be resolved by the time a policy paper came anywhere near the Cabinet for consideration. With the Criminal Justice Summit then  looming, and clearly more water yet to flow under the bridge, the explanation had a brief air of credibility about it, so was largely believed, and everyone moved on.

However, it will be a little more difficult to treat this week’s equally blunt dismissal by the Deputy Prime Minister of Labour’s long held plans to double the refugee quota in quite the same vein. All the more so, given the Deputy Prime Minister’s accompanying chilling observation that “Labour is not the government.” This would have been news to many people who thought we had a Labour-led coalition government with New Zealand First, and supported by the Greens.

Certainly the comments were intended to play to New Zealand First’s racist constituency that does not like either migrants or refugees and definitely does not want to see any more of them. But they were also sending a none too veiled reminder to Labour that this government survives neither because of the gushing charm of its leader, nor the self-imagined talent of its Ministers, nor the will of the public, but simply and solely at the pleasure of New Zealand First and its leader. Labour has been placed on clear public notice that it needs to toe the New Zealand First line to remain in office. The Prime Minister’s muted response shows she understands her predicament all too well, and will bow to it, because she has no other option.

While this was always seen as a potential risk for this coalition government, given its make-up, Labour had earlier believed that during the period of the Prime Minister’s maternity leave, their Ministers would be able to straightjacket the Deputy Prime Minister, to preserve the fiction this government was Labour-led, but he was too wily for that to ever have been a possibility. This was his opportunity to put his stamp clearly on the government, and he was not going to be denied. He easily outwitted his Labour colleagues and used his considerably greater experience to perform better than most had expected he would as Acting Prime Minister, and bring an air of stability to a government that has looked somewhat chaotic before and since. In so doing, he enhanced considerably his stature within the government, as well as increasing New Zealand First's dominance of it, leaving Labour between a rock and a hard place.

By the time the Prime Minister returned to duty, the die was firmly caste, and the government had to all intents and purposes become a New Zealand First/Labour coalition. Nothing has happened to reverse that over the last few weeks, and the Prime Minister’s travails with her own Ministers in the last couple of weeks have reinforced the new dynamic.

Against that backdrop, the refugee put down this week is a ruthless assertion to the public of where the power really lies in this government and who will be calling the shots for the remainder of its term. The Prime Minister's awkward balancing act from here on is to continue to appear enthusiastic and aspirational, while at the end of her Deputy's string, and only allowed to implement the policies he mandates. How long the now marginalised public tolerates that becomes an open question.

There has been much scoffing and guffawing on this side of the Tasman in the last week about the brutal public coup within the ruling Liberal Party that saw the replacement of Malcolm Turnbull as Prime Minister by Scott Morrison.

All the traditionally wise voices here opined about how poorly timed and executed the coup was; how brutal Australian politics have become; and how all this was the death knell for the current Australian government due to face an election in a few months. The unspoken undertone was that such crudity and barbarity would never happen in New Zealand - that we are so much more subtle. Which is a load of uninformed nonsense, of course - faced with similar situations over the years our politicians have been just as venal and brutal.

Since 1990, there has been the coup initiated by Mike Moore which toppled Prime Minister Geoffrey Palmer, just a few weeks before Labour's 1990 election rout. Then, three years later, was Helen Clark's ouster of Mike Moore, weeks after the 1993 election where National's record majority of 48 had been reduced to just one. That was followed by the unsuccessful attempt by senior Labour MPs to stare down Helen Clark shortly before the 1996 election when Labour was polling at just 18%.

During its years in  Opposition from 2008 to 2017, Labour stepped up this pace considerably. David Shearer, probably the best Prime Minister New Zealand never had, was undermined constantly from within from when he took the leadership in 2011, until he stood down in 2013. His successor, David Cunliffe, was similarly forced aside, although more unwillingly, after Labour's third straight defeat in 2014. Andrew Little was next, surviving for nearly three years, despite poor polls and ongoing Caucus mutterings, until it all got too much for him in August last year and he yielded to Jacinda Ardern.

National has not been immune from such events either. In 1997, Prime Minister Jim Bolger was met at the airport on his return from a successful overseas visit by senior Minister Doug Graham to be told that a coup led by Jenny Shipley was underway and that he did not have the numbers to survive. In 2003, it was Don Brash's turn, following a series of poor poll showings by then leader, Bill English, and in 2006, after Dr Brash's various peccadillos had been revealed, he was forced to stand aside to make way for John Key.

So while the jokes abound about how frequently the Australians change their Prime Ministers, it is worth recalling that leadership changes also occur frequently in this country as well. Excluding long-term leaders like Helen Clark, Jim Bolger and John Key, the average tenure for our major party leaders in the last 30 years has been just under three years. A similar comparison with Australian major party leaders in the same period, excluding the long term of John Howard, shows an average tenure of just over three years - slightly higher than the New Zealand figure. All of which, perhaps, does not bode too well for either Jacinda Ardern or Simon Bridges.

The one difference between the two countries is that leadership coups are generally more likely in New Zealand when a Party is in Opposition. In Australia, of late, the opposite has been the case. In New Zealand, pre-election leadership coups have produced mixed results, but in Australia they are slightly more likely to have a positive result, as Julia Gillard's 2010 and Malcolm Turnbull's 2016 election wins show. In that sense, Scott Morrison still has something to play for.

What is clear though is that the public on both sides of the Tasman is much more sanguine. While the politicians become extremely exercised by the drama and pressure of coups, the public generally appears better able to take them in its stride.

While it is fashionable at present to tease our Australian neighbours about their current political antics, the record suggests it is not something we can rely upon for too long. We are pretty good at it too - and our time will definitely come again. On the basis of the record, almost certainly by early 2021.

      

For most of the ten months since the change of government, the National Party has had the best of times. Thrust unexpectedly into the role of Opposition, it has settled to its task, with few outward stumbles. It has managed a leadership transition without too much fuss, and has consistently remained top of the opinion polls. It has enjoyed harrying a constantly fumbling government and has dented the reputations of more than a few Ministers along the way. So far, so good, but the good times are coming to an end, and National is beginning to look exposed.

Typically, the first few months of a new government's term are months where the equally new Opposition can have some fun. Freed from responsibility, their former Ministers will still be more in touch with their old portfolios than their successors, still coming to grips with the demands of their new roles, and the overall challenge of being in government. But there comes a time when the momentum inevitably shifts in favour of the new government and its agenda, ushering in with it the perception of the Opposition as yesterday's people. For National, that time is now.

The fallout from the Leader of the Opposition's regional tour and one or two misjudgments by senior members are showing that National is starting to make heavy weather of its role, despite the government's chronic bumbling. That is relatively normal for this time of the electoral cycle (although governments are usually demonstrating more competence by now) and the challenge for National is not to get trapped into a political backwater. To the greatest extent it can, the party needs to be seeking to lead public debate, not just reacting to everything the government does.

So, for a start, it needs to stop barking at every parked car it sees, and focus instead on the issues that matter. A visionary and well-marketed speech from the leader, setting out a handful of key principles and the type of party and government he aspires to lead, followed by the development of some major policy themes to flow from those would be in order right now. Then, the party needs to reference all its actions against those, seeking where it can to shift the debate to its agenda and terms, so promoting the notion that National stands clearly for certain things, rather than just resolutely opposes everything.

This government seems to have realised far quicker that, like it or not, we are in a new political environment where the vitality of new ideas is what counts, even if the practical details still need time to catch up. There is a general mood against some of the more technocratic approaches to government of previous years, with voters looking for more signs of empathy and tolerance from governments, of whatever stripe, than has been the case until now. To prosper, National has to pick up on these themes, and become better at their exposition than Labour.

Dismissing this week's Justice Summit as just a "talkfest" before the discussions were even concluded shows National still has some way to go on this journey. While they may well be right on this particular issue, they are failing to recognise that the current prevailing public mood is more open to such consultative approaches than was the case previously.

And then there is the question of personnel. As the current government shows only too well, we now live in an era where political experience counts for little. Old hands are no longer seen as wise heads, steady guides on the tiller, or whatever, but impediments to progress to be moved on. Again, this phenomenon is not limited to New Zealand, but is an international trend, as, for example, Australia's constantly revolving Prime Ministerships show. Basically, politicians now get one chance and, once that is over, there is seldom any coming back. As he looks at his team, National's leader needs to reflect on that, both in terms of his former Ministers and longer term inhabitants of the back bench. Some early signs of fresh blood coming to the fore to replace the placeholders needs to become more obvious.

Finally, there is the question of future alliances. This is much more difficult because National does not control this space, and, in any case, the options are limited. However, any moves to its right in this regard will cause National more harm than good. For the time being, the days of the hard right - social and economic - are over, and National needs to realise that. The path to the future is not to try returning to the past.

The next few months will tell the strength of National's story. As they become more removed from the day to day reality of government, they will have more opportunity to address, define and promote their agenda and brand. The extent to which they are prepared and able to do this will determine the extent to which they can be taken as serious contenders for the next election.       

This week around 30,000 primary and intermediate school teachers have been on strike, closing nearly 2,000 schools for a day. To date, there appears to have been general public support for the industrial action, but the jury is still out as to whether this will continue if the action is prolonged, especially if it is joined by secondary teachers a little way down the track, as has been mooted.

There are early signs, however, that it is in danger of becoming a lost opportunity, just one more round of action across the public sector that has escalated since the current government took office, and let public servants across the board believe nirvana was at hand, an impression Ministers have been keen to foster but not so rapidly deliver.

The case for increased investment in education is strong. The pace of change in contemporary society, the changing international cultural, social, economic and political environments, as well as new emerging industries to replace old technologies are all placing performance pressure on the education sector. Parents increasingly look to our having a world class education system to equip their children with the skills and capacities these changes are requiring. So the question quickly becomes how the teaching profession contributes to this rapidly changing environment.

While better salaries for teachers is undoubtedly an important component of this jigsaw, it is by no means the only one, and claims from the teachers' unions that their salary claims are about a better "investment' in education are questionable. At the same time, issues about teachers' conditions of service need to go under the microscope and be assessed alongside other priority areas in education, such as buildings and facilities, access to technology, professional development and training, and performance accountability. Wider issues relating to recruitment and retention of teachers and the structure of the teaching profession also need to be addressed. Even the teachers' unions acknowledge the unacceptably high rates of teachers leaving the profession after the first few years when they strike the bottleneck of insufficient promotion opportunities above them, but they seem less enthusiastic about focusing on them.

A simple corollary of this is that paying teachers more, without addressing these broader issues will solve nothing. So while overall salary rates are being considered, the issue of how younger teachers can have a more attractive career pathway must also be resolved. Now this is a much more difficult matter because it inevitably raises the question of how older and poorer performing teachers (by no means the same thing) can be moved on, to make way for their younger, or more capable, colleagues.

To date, teachers seem to have shown less interest in these issues, preferring instead the argument that if all teachers were just paid more, many of their retention and career development concerns would be dealt with. Given that the deeper questions also lead quickly to other issues - like performance payments to attract and retain better teachers, or flexibility for Boards of Trustees to reward their better teachers in other ways to ensure their retention - the unions' position is understandable. After all, more flexibility within the workforce, and differing arrangements for certain groups of teachers, inevitably weakens the strength of the collective approach that lies at the core of the way the unions work.

But here is where the current industrial action risks becoming a lost opportunity. Parents are driven by wanting the best for their children - the best teachers in the classroom, with the best of equipment and resources available to them. For many of them, the idea of paying good teachers more, and moving poorer teachers aside is a no-brainer. After all, their children deserve no less than the best. They are far less concerned about issues like collegiality and teaching being a collaborative not a competitive profession, for example, if they see those things getting in the way of their children getting the best.

At the moment, parents broadly support their teachers. But if the current industrial action becomes prolonged and narrowly focused on just bigger salary increases, that support will likely quickly evaporate. For the sake of our children, who are ultimately a far bigger part of this equation than teachers or politicians, it is vital that the wider issue of the best structure for the modern teaching profession now assumes centre stage, and that salary issues are considered in relation to that. Failure to take the chance to do so, would be a lost opportunity from which ultimately no-one will benefit.

     

  

The debate around free speech and what constitutes it has become toxic and almost irrational. Increasingly, it seems virtually impossible to be able to offer an opinion on it without being labelled as some sort of extremist by one side or the other. It has become ridiculous, and in the interests of maintaining a free and open society everyone needs to pull back quickly from the fast approaching abyss.

Yet, now it seems one of our universities is moving down the same path.  Since Medieval times, universities have been seen as bastions of academic freedom, places where great issues and theories of science, medicine, the arts and philosophy, and religion, can be expostulated, tested and embraced or dismissed as appropriate. To reinforce this principle, the Magna Charta Universitatum was established in 1988. Since then over 800 of the world's leading universities in more than 80 countries have signed it, although, interestingly, neither Massey University, nor any other New Zealand university appears to have done so. All should take immediate action to remedy this. 

Generally, people have looked to the great institutions of state - the government, the courts and the places of higher learning - to uphold freedom of thought, and expression. However, it has been the contrary actions of public institutions and officials (the Mayor of Auckland in the first place and now the Vice Chancellor of Massey University) that have fuelled the current debate in New Zealand. Both may argue their actions were motivated by a concern for the greater good, but the difficulty with that defence is its very subjectivity - their concern is not about upholding the greater good, per se, but rather their perception of the greater good.

That is where this argument becomes so difficult. Everyone will argue that their actions or words are promoted by a desire to achieve the greater good as they see it. It is impossible to draw an absolute line which is why even political parties as organised vehicles for the propagation and implementation of certain ideas come and go in a democratic society, as the public will changes. And that is why it is vital that public officials should adopt an air of Nelsonian blindness on issues of free speech, rather than attempt to impose their own judgment on its expression. It may well be a public meeting today, but it is a short step from there to the work of art in a public gallery, or a play in a public theatre they take offence to.

Free speech, by its definition, cannot be constrained. It is an expression of our free will as human beings, the right to be right and the right to be wrong, a capacity that distinguishes humanity from every other form of life. Where free speech poses a risk to public order, the rule of law should apply, as in every other situation. It never should be left to the arbitrary judgment and prejudice of any particular official to determine.

Tolerance and respect for diversity are the hallmarks of a mature society. Allowing the free expression of a wide range of diverging views is a healthy way of enabling citizens to reach their own conclusions on the credibility or otherwise of the views being expressed. Preventing such expression on the grounds it might offend or incite is nothing but the action of the cowardly and the intolerant.

In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre in France in 2015, many French citizens sought solace in the words of the great free speech philosopher,  François-Marie Arouet, better known by his pen-name Voltaire. His 18th century Treatise on Tolerance argued strongly for toleration of religious belief, while reserving the right to argue strenuously against it, and denouncing religious fanaticism of all stripes. “Tolerance has never provoked a civil war; intolerance has covered the Earth in carnage,” he wrote.

The Mayor of Auckland and the Vice Chancellor of Massey University and any  others wishing to follow their path should reflect long and hard upon those words.