Finally, it's starting to look as if the New Zealand centre-left's prospects of ending the Key administration's tenure are picking up. But there's still one potential obstacle to this process- Winston Peters and his New Zealand First caucus. It's probably no secret that I have profound distaste for some of New Zealand First's more obnoxious policies. When it comes to immigration, refugees and asylum seekers, I am in favour of an increased intake of the latter. I do not agree with the proposed ceiling on new migrants that New Zealand First proposes, although the skills test suggestion is worth further consideration. I am also deeply suspicious of its caucus' social conservative voting bloc presence as well as its political opportunism. I'm not alone in this, nor is it restricted to the centre-right. Some National supporters have told me they'd rather go into opposition rather than have to deal with the opportunism and instability of New Zealand First's caucus, and argue that it is little more than a personality cult. The problem is, outside its anti-market economic policies, it doesn't sit well with Labour, either. To his credit, Peters didn't try to destabilise the Clark administration's third term, but the Owen Glenn saga led to questions about his political judgement. By contrast, I have no such misgivings about the Greens, nor do most LGBT voters, except for pockets of poorly informed elderly, provincial and rural LGBT voters without much higher education who share the conservative prejudices of some of their age cohort and tend to be at odds with most of the rest of our communities as a result. Both centre-right and centre-left LGBT (and other) voters find New Zealand First's opportunism deeply annoying. National Party supporters want the certainty of a fourth-term Key administration, but are denied it, while Labour and Green supporters are antagonised by the lack of commitment to an anti-incumbent parliamentary bloc. Which way will New Zealand First go? In 1996 and 2005, it went for the largest political party in each case and helped to prop up a decaying incumbent government, but its subsequent antics caused the dissolution of its first MMP coalition in 1998 and the split of its caucus over that debacle, as well as the ultimate fall of the resultant Shipley administration at the 1999 New Zealand General Election. In 2005, it was the turn of the Clark administration to be buoyed up by the intervention of New Zealand First (and United Future) over confidence and supply, but the Owen Glenn saga and the onset of the global economic crisis led to the end of the Fifth Labour-led Government in 2008. Based on past experience, these prior instances suggest that in 2017, New Zealand First may prop up a fourth-term Key administration if it commands majority support, unless it still has coalition support from the Maori Party. In other words, we'll have to wait a further three years for statutory trans-inclusive anti-discrimination laws, the erasure of historic gay 'sexual offences' from court and official records and any legislative or policy moves toward comprehensive LGBT anti-bullying reform. Winston Peters has never voted for an LGBT legislative reform from the time of homosexual law reform onward until the advent of marriage equality in 2013. His caucus follows their leader. We must see that that scenario doesn't happen. If it does, New Zealand First needs to be given the clear message that there are several bottom lines for participation in any coalition. One is that citizens initiated referenda are not directed against existing citizenship rights and vulnerable minorities. The other is that the New Zealand First caucus will not obstruct remaining LGBT legislative reforms, nor set their postponement as the premise of a future coalition as it did in 2005 with the Clark administration. It should be satisfied with fulfilment of its more constructive policies for increased social and economic assistance to older New Zealanders. The third is that it not preclude the Greens from participation in any centre-left coalition. If these terms are unacceptable, then New Zealand First might decide to sit on the crossbenches, or provide confidence and supply while reserving the right to vote against the government on any issue outside core budgetary items. How would it behave with National as a coalition partner? Peters and Key do not have the same constructive working relationship that the Bolger administration had with New Zealand First either. It would only take a major policy disagreement for Peters to bolt from such a coalition and bring down any such government. If people needed to be convinced of Winston Peters' opportunism and disconnection from mainstream New Zealand politics, one obvious recent instance was the case of the Orlando anti-LGBT terrorist attack on June 12, 2016. Prime Minister John Key, Labour leader Andrew Little and Greens Co-Leader James Shaw all expressed their horror at the event and sent messages of solidarity and support to President Obama and the Orlando LGBT community, while Peters used the opportunity to ignore the sexual orientation of the victims and launched into an ill-timed anti-immigration diatribe, although it should be noted that he appealed to 'moderate Muslims' to assist New Zealand authorities, so at least he managed not to descend into vulgar sectarianism. However, his contribution was jarring and ignored the homophobic violence aspects of this tragedy. He also argued against restrictive gun ownership legislation and for increased border control 'safeguards' against 'potential' terrorist immigrants, even if New Zealand has never been directly targeted by ISIS, al-Qaeda or other radical Islamist organisations. Of course, there is one way to forestall this. Vote for a 'clean coalition' that would have a majority of its own and not have to rely on the erratic populist personality vehicle that is New Zealand First. And to answer ignorant defeatist faux 'left' political commentators like Chris Trotter, there have been numerous successful red/green governments in Germany (Social Democrat/Green: 1998-2005, under Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder); in Finland, Prime Minister Paavo Lippinen's Social Democrat/Green League/People's Party administration lasted for seven years (1995-2002). Under Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdasdottir (2009-2013) (an out lesbian!), a red/green coalition governed Iceland. However, as for analogous populist "peoples parties" akin to New Zealand First, they have propped up centre-right governments in the Czech Republic and Denmark, although the example of Finland should be recalled above- as should Slovakia, where its people's party chose the centre-left Social Democrats (2006-2010). The examples are there for anyone to peruse. As in 1996 and 2005, the question is which way the mercurial New Zealand First leader and his entourage will jump? Recommended: "Winston Peters immigration speech, shameful, disgraceful"Newshub:15.06.2016:http://www. newshub.co.nz/politics/ winston-peters-immigration- speech-shameful-disgraceful- 2016061419#axzz4BbAYb0Yp Charles Lees:The Red/Green Coalition in Germany: Politics, Personalities and Power:Manchester: Palgrave: 2000. Werner Reutter:Germany on the Road to Normalcy: Politics and Policies of the Red/Green Federal Government: 1998-2002Manchester: Palgrave: 2004 Franko Zelko and Caroline Brinkman:Green Parties: Reflections on the First Three Decades:Washington DC: Heinrich Boll Foundation: 2006. Elizabeth Bomberg: Green Parties and Politics in the European Community: London: Routledge: 1998. Tad Shull:Redefining Red and Green: Ideology and Strategy in European Politics:Albany: State University of New York Press: 1999 Craig Young - 21st June 2016