rOb comments on David Farrar’s sudden conversion to not needing a referendum on the Auckland super-city, when DPF’s previous history is to always favour consultation and referenda. It raises questions about the rapid changes in DPF’s beliefs post-election.
DPF is the worst kind of hypocrite. In the past he has pontificated extensively on referenda and consultation – his words are below. His current role as lame apologist for National’s arrogant assault on democracy in Auckland shows just how little he believes what he writes:
I am amazed that some people advocate that the people can not be trusted to vote on what electoral system we use. It is the worse sort of elitism.
The second and more important is that any change needs to be durable and preferably bipartisan. Only a referendum could do that. The one thing the US wants even less than the status quo,is having their ship visits become a regular election issue where they are in, out, in, out etc. Now some partisan hacks will scream and rant that National will in fact go ahead and change the law anyway, without a referendum. This is of course lunatic raving as anyone of intelligence can work out.
Incidentially I also believe the supreme court change was also of enough constitutional significance that it should have been decided by referenda. As for other issues, I am content with the Citizens Initiated Referendum Act which allows 10% of voters to trigger a referendum on legislation they do not like.
This remains the real damage done by the EFA – the process used to develop it in secret with no bipartisan consultation. There was no public policy process or consultation prior to writing the EFB.
Hello, What do you call the changes Labour has made, without consultation, but naked political opportunism?
This is patronising politically correct bullshit of the worst order. And it amazes me how this can be almost slipped through without consultation.
But the way the Govt introduced compulsory employer contributions without consultation or warning I deplore.
Perhaps David would answer himself on his own public reasons to favour referenda and consultation.
You’d have to wonder what or perhaps who has influenced David’s change of position about referenda and consultation. Surely simply having his preferred government in power isn’t sufficent to change his beliefs? It was noticeable when looking at the Fire At Will bill, and getting more noticeable all of the time.