It is doubtful many of the political parties represented in
Parliament will be trembling as a consequence of the
reappearance of Winston Peters on television screens on
Sunday, after an absence of six months or so.
Whatever the leader of New Zealand First may have been doing
since his ignominious exit at last year's general election
and the effective, but perhaps temporary, demise of his party
as a political force, it does not seem to have involved
reconstruction.
So far as can be ascertained, NZ First does still exist as an
entity, though moribund, and Mr Peters still appears to be
its leader - but leader of what? As was once said of another
politician, he has become "political muzak, a background
hum".
Mr Peters' last materialisation in public life was as a list
member in his party whose support for the Clark government
was exchanged for a post as Foreign Minister outside Cabinet
- unless his 83rd placing (out of 100) in the 2009 Reader's
Digest "New Zealand's Most Trusted" survey is to be counted.
True, he has been writing a column for a sports magazine,
living in Auckland, sniping with journalists and refusing
interviews - "Unless I say it, then nothing's true" - and no
doubt looking forward to soon receiving his own Gold Card.
To explain the sudden appearance on a televised political
show of a political has-been requires the leap of faith that
has been implicit in comprehending every single important
political decision Mr Peters has made: in this case, the
astute side of his character fancies there might just be a
cause whose coat-tails NZ First can cling to.
He built his political support by being against something or
by raising fears about the future, about events which may or
may not occur, and proclaiming them to be certainties.
Negative politicking has always found itself a core of
support in this country; from the naysayers and from people
who resist change, as well as from those who sustain their
anger by rallying their fears - of immigration, of "Maoris",
of crime and criminals.
Over the course of a long career in politics, Mr Peters
exploited them all.
The very name of the party he founded is sourced in the
limited focus that is exclusive, rather than inclusive.
Now he has perceived another cause - the foreshore and seabed
controversy - that might provide the smelling salts to revive
his political corpse.
He seems to have correctly calculated that with just another
percentage point of support, NZ First would still be
represented in Parliament, although the man himself would
not, under John Key's National Party, likely be enjoying the
baubles of ministerial office.
One more percentage point of the party vote is in theory
within reach of NZ First by 2011, but to get it Mr Peters
needs to resuscitate both his own public profile and that of
his party.
At least with the foreshore debate he can claim some
consistency, for NZ First supported the Clark government in
passing the Act in 2004.
Opposing its repeal gives him a platform to appeal to voters
uneasy with the Treaty of Waitangi settlements process, the
cost to taxpayers and the prospect of yet more "compensation"
being paid to restore "mana".
But more particularly, he can foment fears that any
replacement legislation might threaten public access to the
beaches (which has emphatically been ruled out by Mr Key), or
give tribes the ability to gain freehold title to the
foreshore and seabed.
