Editorial: Maori seat decision a bad call

Opinion

It was predictable that Prime Minister John Key would rule out the possibility of having Maori seats on the new Auckland Supercity council.

However, both the timing of his announcement and the reasons he has advanced for the decision give cause for concern.

The decision flies in the face of the recommendation by the Royal Commission which had urged three seats - two elected by voters on the Maori roll and one appointed by a forum of iwi representatives.

A compromise proposal that would have created two seats also fell by the wayside.

The fact that the Prime Minister made the announcement while the legislation is still before a select committee is perhaps only technically objectionable - National members control the committee, and it would be idle to pretend that their deliberations will not be strongly influenced by thoughts from the Beehive's ninth floor - but it is objectionable nevertheless when Cabinet leapfrogs the democratic process.

To some extent, that haste would have been driven by Key's desire to shut down the matter, which had been commanding more column centimetres and airtime than he would have wished.

Local Government Minister Rodney Hide had upped the ante by saying that he would resign rather than have a bill go forward in his name that was contrary to Act Party policy - a stance that might have been seen as one of iron principle were it not for the fact that he rejected a compromise whereby the seats could be established by a National amendment.

Hide's threat was always empty.

He was never going to risk his ministerial seat and the influence that came with it, and he would not have made the ultimatum if he had sensed any chance that Key would call his bluff.

As it was, it looked like a small tail wagging a large dog, though it was not without incidental benefit: it prompted National's Tau Henare to call Hide names ranging from the colourful to the unprintable, which was a welcome piece of the slightly mad-dog light relief that member has provided over the years.

Key insists that Hide's stance was not a deciding factor, but to the extent that it had any bearing at all, it is a slap in the face to his other coalition partner, which brings as many seats to the majority and has comported itself with great dignity.

The inescapable conclusion is that the reasons for the decision are to be found in National's own ranks - though they are reportedly deeply divided.

It was important that the stance be consistent with the party's policy which - although nobody says it out loud these days - is to abolish the Maori seats in Parliament.

Ideologically, it was too much for the Nats to swallow, and Key should have said so. Instead, he said that if Maori seats are to be created in local government, it should happen nationally and not just in Auckland, which entirely evades the point at issue.

Re-organisation of local government is not taking place the length of the country. It is occurring in the largest region, where more than a quarter of the population lives. The new council could and should be a template of 21st century local government, a chance to show that the spirit of inclusiveness that seemed to underpin Key's coalition arrangements was driven by the Nats' new-found sense of principle and not simply by calculated political expediency.

Regrettably, Key has missed the chance to display true leadership on the matter.

The idea that Maori might sit on some consultative committee is patronising and insulting: as David Shand, one of the Royal Commissioners, remarked this week, Maori have been "consulted to death". The demand for true representation is unambiguous and the case was irresistible. An important opportunity has been missed.