Fran O'Sullivan: Principles out the window in pursuit of Maori vote

Labour and National are falling over themselves to compromise their principles as they prepare to fight a 2008 election where Maori will hold the ultimate electoral leverage.

Anyone who believes otherwise should take a strong look at recent schizoid behaviour by the two main parties as they position themselves for the best sport in town - capturing the all-important Maori vote.

It has clearly dawned on party strategists that Maori will hold the balance of power at the next election if the current campaign by the Electoral Commission results in a big jump in the Maori roll with the number of race-based seats predicted to jump from seven to 10.

This presents problems for National as well as Labour.

National MPs - like deputy leader Gerry Brownlee - publicly maintain the party still wants to clobber the race-based Maori seats in line with the hardline policies leader Don Brash promoted last year.

Brownlee has many attributes but he's no dogmatist. He can count. And he believes the Maori Party will win all the race-based seats.

He had to backtrack a bit - and apologise to his caucus colleagues - after his recent speech to National Party faithful arguing a fundamental rethink of the constitutional issues was interpreted as a signal the party's election policy last year to abolish the Maori seats might have to be reconsidered.

But this was just a Clayton's apology - a political response designed to save leader Don Brash's face once journalists started pointing out that Brash's key policy plank was in jeopardy.

A policy reversal would inevitably have been interpreted as a major defeat for a political leader whose popularity was based on an unambiguous statement that National wanted a "democracy where everybody is on the same roll".

Brash claims Labour is simply endorsing state-sanctioned separatism by giving a green light to the commission's campaign that "ultimately encourages a racially divided electoral model".

But no one with half a brain in the National caucus believes the party will be anything other than pragmatic as 2008 draws nearer.

That is why the National Party hierarchy did not publicly take issue with former Prime Minister Jim Bolger's warning, at its 70th anniversary celebrations, that the party should basically honour the accord with Maori which was struck when his 1990s Cabinet began the Treaty settlement process.

Brownlee is rapidly cosying up to the Maori Party, which does share many similar values with National, including a strong desire to see Maori stand on their own feet rather than be condemned to welfarism.

Remarkably, his colleague Georgina te Heu Heu - who was sacked by Brash as National's Maori Affairs spokesman when she took issue with his 2004 Orewa speech - is causing consternation in Labour's ranks as she attacks Maori Affairs Minister Parekura Horomia for failing to ensure his department got more cash in the recent Budget to fund race-based scholarships and programmes.

That the elegant te Heu Heu is fronting this attack speaks for itself.

She clearly feels her place in the National caucus is secure enough for her to take a stance which so obviously runs counter to Brash's position that race-based funding should be abolished.

But Brash is not on to the National Party to deselect her.

The Maori Party would pick her up in a flash.

Labour is also in a difficult position. Helen Clark wants to speed up the Treaty settlement process so the party can argue at the next election that it has delivered for Maori but at the same time respond to the big Pakeha segment that believes Brash is right to try to get rid of Maori separatism.

The trouble for Helen Clark is that the two stances are not mutually exclusive.

Clark must have calculated that National would not attack her Government for capping Te Puni Kokiri's funding when it wants to scrap the Maori ministry.

She must also have calculated that National would not have let te Heu Heu loose to attack Horomia and rile the hapless minister to the point where he lost control twice this week.

But it is te Heu Heu calling for Horomia to take a Panadol while the minister explodes.

Where Clark will face difficulties is explaining to Pakeha at the next election why Labour cut a deal with Tainui which will give the tribe an element of control over the management of the Waikato River.

Clark and her senior ministers tried to get the deal in place so that she could announce it at the Maori Queen's 40th anniversary last weekend.

She does not want to give the Crown's position away as both sides are locked in a commercial negotiation.

But the Waikato is far too valuable to Auckland - which depends on it for water supply - and for the security of this country's power supplies for the guardianship of the river's "health and well-being" to be handed over to Tainui without full public scrutiny.

New Zealanders have a right to know whether Clark will also give Tainui a big upside stake in other downstream assets, such as the Waikato iron sands.

I might be spoiling the party here but Tainui's record in delivering on its previous $400 million-plus Treaty settlement was disastrous.

The tribe made ill-advised investments and burned through a large wodge of cash. Its governance was based on a hierarchical model. The tribe has since worked hard to redeem its situation.

But the management of a major national asset is too important to the New Zealand economy to be handed over in Labour's haste to be seen to deliver to Maori before the next election.