Anticipating Peters is always a fool’s errand

For much of his close to 40 years in public life, Winston Peters has been delivering a message not so much about putting New Zealand first, but taking New Zealand back, to a somehow better time.

There is a little bit of this in almost everyone, in different ways. Remember that time when we didn’t have to lock our doors? When the roads were less busy? When everything was perfectly managed? When the boots worn by the All Blacks were all the same colour? Before all the immigrants? Take your pick.

Although Peters’ message is one of nostalgia, his time is not yesteryear.

Long dubbed the kingmaker for his ability to stay at the centre of New Zealand coalition politics for a generation, Peters has longed to be the king.

The next six weeks or so will probably be the closest New Zealand’s most enigmatic politician will ever get to fulfilling this dream. It seems unlikely to be time he will waste.

As Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern relocated to Auckland on Monday, in preparation for giving birth, circumstances combined to mark the occasion with two extraordinary Peters power plays.

First, he humiliated Andrew Little by refusing to support penal reform, after the justice minister had foolishly announced in advance that a paper was going before the Cabinet.

Little has pointed to cryptic remarks by Peters, seemingly justifying Little’s confidence that NZ First would support repealing the so-called ‘‘three strikes’’ legislation.

Given that Peters is famously hard to pin down on anything, if that really is all Little was basing his confidence in NZ First’s support on, it was a humiliation the former Labour leader deserved.

As an old hand once remarked, the history of Parliament’s press gallery is one littered with journalists who believed they were close enough to Peters to get the inside running on what he would do. Anticipating Peters is a fool’s errand.

But NZ First’s refusal to support Little’s penal reform pales in comparison to what would emerge on Monday evening. Peters, still smarting over the alleged leaking of his superannuation overpayment in 2017, was taking legal action against State Services Commissioner Peter Hughes and another top public servant.

Forget that Peters is also suing two former National ministers (although that too is an unnecessary distraction for the Government). Hughes is effectively the head of the public sector. The soon-to-be-acting prime minister taking this action is effectively the Government suing itself.

In taking on the head of the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), Brendan Boyle, Peters is suing the chief executive of an organisation which prosecutes people for welfare fraud.

The good news is that, according to descriptions from those who have worked alongside him, Hughes is the absolute last person in the public sector you would want to mess with. Peters may live to regret including him.

But how is the rest of the public sector meant to properly function with the threat of legal action seemingly hanging over its head?

While Peters has refused to comment, the only role of the bureaucrats in the episode appears to be to do their duty under the ‘‘no surprises’’ policy.

In a case which affects his privacy, it is easy to see why Peters feels aggrieved and perhaps the policy needs to be changed in order to prevent a similar episode from happening again.

But given the role of MSD over incorrect declarations in welfare applications, one has to question what the nature of Peters’ action could affect beyond questioning whether his privacy was breached.

Ardern, who learned of the legal action just hours before the rest of us, has attempted to describe the action as a ‘‘private matter’’, an absurd attempt by the prime minister to avoid the obvious: she is not in control of her deputy. A deputy she is leaving in charge.

These are extraordinary times. Suddenly, with a Government already battling to keep business confidence up, it seems as if everything is up for grabs. We are now being handed lessons that have been coming since Peters walked into the Beehive theatrette on October 20 and announced he was forming a Government with the Left. A Government so broad that the issues on which there is division become so amplified they could almost appear to outnumber ones where there is consensus.

Where previous coalitions since the creation of MMP managed to keep together because the centre of power was so obvious, the timing of Peters’ action will be further unsettling.

Peters, who now has the chance to fulfil his lifelong ambition, should think of the name he gave his party and ask himself – no matter how he ended up in this position – whether this is what the public wants.

The press gallery is one littered with journalists who believed they were close enough to Peters to get the inside running on what he would do.