TOO MANY HAKAS, ONE LESS CABINET MINISTER

Last week, New Zealand First MP, Barbara Stewart, saw her bill to reduce the number of MPs to 100 pass its first reading in the House. Well, if productivity per member is such a big deal, Network Politics suggests we might also legislate the maximum size of our Commonwealth Games team. Indeed, with David Parker's 'honourable' resignation momentarily dousing the thirst for political blood, and the media now turning on our under-performing Games team, it could be that athletes are the new politicians. Who'd be Soulan Pownceby at question time?

David Parker's resignation has consumed the political media this week. Fair enough. It is a big deal. Parker was in the political fast lane and destined for higher honours. He also had his hands around some key portfolios - notably energy.

Despite Parker's decline, Parliament was one venue we didn't see a haka. Both National and Act judiciously resisted the temptation to celebrate. They sensed the shift in public and media sentiment. Parker is gone from Cabinet taking his obvious capabilities and, possibly, his political future with him. That will hurt Labour in the long run. That is the opposition's gain. But as the pursuit of Tamihere and Benson-Pope have already illustrated, while it can be disruptive and make for good television, it does little, if anything, to lift party ratings or dislodge governments. And that is, or should be, the opposition's core business.

"Despite Parker's decline, Parliament was one venue we didn't see a haka. Both National and Act judiciously resisted the temptation to celebrate."

To what extent Parker jumped or was pushed by Clark is not entirely clear, but it seems he/she or both just felt his injuries were too serious to compete for the meantime. Unlike Sarah Ulmer, it may be a while before he gets another crack. Although, by most accounts, it seems prosecutions for this kind of misdemeanour are rare. And this may be at the heart of Parker and Clark's strategy and gamble.

To not resign from all his posts would have had an all too familiar and predictable consequence. Parker would have been relentlessly pursued just like every other beseiged Cabinet Minister from Labour's past two terms (Dalziel, Samuels, Tamihere, Dyson etc). He would have presented himself as fair game and a legitimate target. His political career would have been forever undermined.

However, by taking the sudden and surprise step of full Cabinet resignation as he did, Parker has changed the rules of the game. In the eyes of the public, he is now at least as much victim as criminal. This makes it a risk for the media or opposition to target him. As long as the Companies Office findings are not damning, he will have the platform of public sympathy necessary for Clark to reinstate him.

"By taking the sudden and surprise step of full Cabinet resignation as he did, Parker has changed the rules of the game. In the eyes of the public, he is now at least as much victim as criminal."

If successful, it would be a brilliant piece of media and political management based around one very simple and compelling principle - fight your battles only when you can win them.

PPPs PLEASE

The idea of utilising private finance to build public infrastructure is fairly well entrenched in countries including Australia and the UK. Indeed, the Blair Government's Private Finance Initiative (PFI) has been funding everything from roads to schools for close to a decade.

Yet, despite ever-mounting pressure for investment in roads and prisons, and despite budget blow-outs on several prison and hospital projects, successive Labour-led regimes in this country have firmly resisted any temptation to ease or share the Crown's pain.

Both the leftish elements of Labour and the Greens tend to see Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) as a Trojan horse for 'privatisation' - whether in the form of private control of public infrastructure or, even worse, private management of public services. Public service unions are typically concerned with the involvement of private capital and the pursuit of a return on investment inevitably flows through to a squeeze on wages and employment conditions.

"Both the leftish elements of Labour and the Greens tend to see Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) as a Trojan horse for 'privatisation'"

The reality is that PPPs can and do take many, many forms. You can take them as far or as short as you like. Yes, they could potentially provide a platform for more private sector involvement in the delivery of public services (whether you deem that good or bad). But they certainly don't have to. They can quite easily be nothing more than a basic funding tool to help the Government smooth out its infrastructure spending requirements. In the simplest terms, the private sector funds the upfront capital costs in return for payments or an income stream paid over time.

National has indicated that PPPs would form part of its public funding equipment if elected. However, it still may be PPPs arrive a little earlier than that - albeit limited to one sector (transport). United Future's Gordon Copeland has a private members bill lying somewhere in the ballot that, if plucked, might just secure majority support. United Future's attempts to get PPPs up and running last term were thwarted by a Labour pledge to the Greens. Some limited scope for private funding of road projects was built into the Land Transport Management Act, but the restrictive conditions required by the Greens have kept private finance at bay.

National and Act would almost certainly support Copeland's bill, as could New Zealand First and the Maori Party. Even many Labour MPs also privately support PPPs. In fact, the reality is that PPPs are probably only opposed by as few as thirty MPs. Interestingly, Network Politics understands Dr Cullen has threatened to sink the PPP bill with a power that enables him to veto legislation with significant budgetary implications. Given one of the fundamental objectives of PPPs is to ease pressure on the Crown's budget, that might be optimistic on Dr Cullen's part.

"In fact, the reality is that PPPs are probably only opposed by as few as thirty MPs."

Talk of private finance always gets officials within the economic policy agencies excited. The Treasury has long been a particularly keen advocate. As far back as the Shipley regime it pressed for private finance of major infrastructure developments such as Wellington Hospital. But that was all just a bit too risque with the 1999 election looming. And since the arrival of Helen Clark's regime, those same officials have been impatiently biding their time.

Copeland's bill is still a relative long shot - but it does conjure some interesting possibilities. First of all, it might just provide New Zealand with a favourable taste of what PPPs can offer. Second, it might leave us in the curious, amusing, and possibly dysfunctional situation of a Minister of Transport (whoever that may be)being required to administer a PPP regime at odds with his own transport policy.