David is against us having a referendum on the big isue of the supercity, but is for having one on Maori representation.

I know it is hard having Mr 1% runing National’s policy in the biggest electorate in NZ David, but that is the most pathetic bit of spin you have come up with for a while.

1/10, must try harder.

Has anyone asked her yet?

He has advised the Prime Minister in private some time ago that he cannot serve the Government as Minister of Local Government should he be required by Cabinet to take responsibility for legislation proposing special Maori representation.

It’s exactly as Mr Diack writes. Hide simply said he could not introduce legislation to the parliament as Minister that he could not support. He could not vote against legislation he introduced: constitutionally that’s perverse and Hide did precisely the right thing. Key has known about this for months. It’s his play.

Fat lot of use that will be – referendums are not binding under the LEA.

Maori who bother to stand for local government on mainstream tickets generally do very well. It’s just that not many of them bother, so it seems odd they are so bothered now.

One thing I think that needs pointing out is the irony of Rodney Hide’s position. He is not accountable to Maori precisely because of parliament’s Maori seats. He knows he doesn’t need their vote to retain Epsom. So he doesn’t have to take their views on board, unless he feels like being nice.

Surely then the best approach for ACT would be to ask for a referendum on whether the Maori seats should be in the SuperCity, that way they can disagree & not have Hide resign as Minister.

I still get the feeling Hide is making a point of this in a way that didn’t need to happen, if the arguements against Maori seats are so good, a referendum would be won, democracy would prevail & no need for grandstanding.

Do you want Auckland’s local political make-up to reflect the apartheid system currently present in national politics?

“Should Apartheid as part of racist minority empowerment be a part of local body elections in New Zealand?”

Our society is so Pakeha its not funny!

But the above comment is…

The current parliamentary seats are an unfortunate fact. ACT may oppose their continuance in our constitutional arrangements or believe that if they exist the protection and abolition should require a similar mechanism as for general seats. As I understand it that is ACT’s position. I note they probably would not be created now if they did not exist – witness the controversy in local government.

Introducing them by legislation into Local Government is not a fact but a proposal. It would be a case of spreading a bad approach in one area of representational arrangements in one level of government into another level of government.

The fact is the law already allows for their creation in local government in the Local Electoral Act 2001. If Maori really want them they can organise and persuade their fellow Aucklanders in a referendum – this is the system already put in place by Labour.

The initial annoucement by the Government included a referendum with the voting next time.

We are not children to be spoken down to or given special favours because we need your charity.

I certainly don’t support this for anyone else. You minorites of one included.

In summary you are saying Hide is happy to be Minister in a govt which includes special Maori representation, but allowing voters to choose whether they want it for an Auckland Super City is beyond his mandate from the ACT party & therefore he must resign. That mandate of course was discussed in Private & was not one of the 20 point plan they went to the electorate with.

Maybe he’s just doing a Palin, bailing ship because the Super City is seriously flawed & he does not want any more association with it, or maybe he’d rather run for Mayor ???.

You are inventing constitutional convention. Its not about unilateral control or any such matter.

In fact what Hide is doing is the classically the right thing. If he cannot be bound by collective responsibility in his portfolio on this issue should Cabinet propose amending the legislation currently before the select committee to provide for Maori seats he has little option. By the Coalition agreement between National and ACT Hide is bound by collective responsibility in his portfolio responsibilities. This is a distinct obligation from those regarding confidence and supply.

He has advised the Prime Minister in private some time ago that he cannot serve the Government as Minister of Local Government should he be required by Cabinet to take responsibility for legislation proposing special Maori representation.

Both his behaviour and tone is beyond constitutional reproach. As I said this matter is one for the Prime Minister and the National Cabinet.

I would hope the question would be in the line of;

Do you want Auckland’s local political make-up to reflect the apartheid system currently present in national politics?