Member log in

POLL: NBR subscribers split on National/Maori Party coalition

An NBR ONLINE poll result showing almost half of readers think National should ditch its coalition with the Maori party is "surprising", according to a political scientist.

NBR subscribers were last week asked: Should National abandon its confidence and supply agreement with the Maori Party?

Forty-six percent of respondents said yes, while 54% said no.

Prime Minister John Key offended the Maori Party last week when he suggested the government could ignore the Maori Council's Treaty claim on water rights.

Otago University political studies lecturer Dr Bryce Edwards says the poll result is more a slight on the Maori Council than the National Party.

"It speaks to how strongly people feel towards the Maori Council's attempts to slow down the asset sales process.

"There will be a connection for many people between the Maori Council and the Maori Party. Quite separate bodies, but big overlaps in terms of political agendas.

"For a lot of people, it is anti-democratic that a party has gone to the people, got a mandate and then we've had opportunistic attempts to slow that democratic mandate down.

"People could be quite upset about that."

Dr Edwards says it is surprising that nearly half of respondents think National should ditch its confidence and supply agreement with the Maori Party, when National has gained the most as a result of the coalition.

"It has been a stamp of legitimacy within Maoridom that National has received.

"Although it might be seen as only having resonance for Maori voters, I think it has wider resonance for people who are sympathetic to Maori aspirations."

However, he says the poll indicated the strong feelings people have about the water rights issue.  

More by Caleb Allison

Comments and questions
2

I take issue with Bryce Edwards comments above - Being democratically elected does not give a Party carte blanche while in power. If there is reasonable doubt that the assets (or rights) the Govt is seeking to sell do not in fact belong to them, then it is only right and proper that this is raised and the whole process properly legitimised.
As a separate issue - its worth taking a look at how Norway and UK have individually faired in dealing with the GFC - then consider their contrasting asset sales policies in the previous decades. Norway were much smarter. Why would NZ seek to emulate UK's disastrous short-termism in this respect? Its hard to understand NZ's myopia in this respect.

I have yet to hear any anti-asset sale argument that suggests the proponent has the faintest clue.

Will you be buying shares in those companies? If not, why not?