In Parliament a day or two ago, a question was asked of a National Party minister about whether his Government still intended to adhere to its earlier policy of abolishing the Maori seats. The reply, in essence, was "when it suits us". In other words, voters who thought the party's policy might be attended by some urgency were now assured what was meant was as soon as politically convenient.
Don Brash, when leader of the National Party, considered abolishing the seats was an essential step towards his idea of a truly united New Zealand, where all could compete equally for political office and where preference on the basis of self-selected ethnicity would not exist.
The National Party policy's designers then also argued (although not too loudly in public) there would likely be considerable cross-party political benefit to National from voters disquieted by the number and expense of Treaty of Waitangi settlements and from general prejudice on any number of causes where Maori "rights" were raised.
How times change. John Key's National Party is contentedly in bed with the Maori Party - which assuredly does not want the Maori seats abolished - and Dr Brash now leads the Act New Zealand party, which does. Dr Brash has carried his thoughts on Maori matters into Act, and Mr Key has learned the art of the possible.
As his deputy Bill English once defined it, MMP is working with people you do not like to implement policies you disagree with. And after all, National did not expect to need the Maori Party to help form a government in 2005, so could safely advance the abolition proposal.
National's 2008 election, as it happens, was a bob each way: settle all historical treaty claims within six years and only when that is achieved abolish the Maori seats. Winning Lotto has better odds. Now Dr Brash thinks he can win a useful percentage of the party vote by reviving his hard line on matters Maori.
The division of approach is of interest because it is unique in Western democracies. One conservative party leader, Mr Key, has embraced indigenous aspirations, argued the importance of the indigenous language and culture, and has expressed a commitment to funding exclusively indigenous activity such as broadcasting.
The other, Dr Brash, idealises the "one country, one people" concept, where equality of opportunity is not determined by ethnicity, where the indigenous people or those claiming alignment are to be treated no differently from the majority.
It is an exclusively majoritarian viewpoint. It also has some overt support within the community, and possibly considerably more that is unexpressed. If the "Maori issue" is a determining factor for some voters, that will be demonstrated in the November 26 poll.
The relationship between the Maori Party and Act has by Dr Brash's actions and his party's recent publicity efforts thrown into sharp and potentially problematic relief the comfortable and successful accommodation arranged between National and the Maori Party, a relationship upon which Hone Harawira built his recent successful by-election campaign.
It will be problematic for National because Act may cannibalise votes to the right of it, but it may also be problematic for Labour because it will throw into sharper focus Mr Key's centrist efforts, leaving less room for Labour. And Labour has clearly been shedding supporters to the Green Party.
And what of Dr Brash's "Maori-bashing", as his opponents describe it? He is at least consistent, having expressed similar views since he was leader of the National Party.
His solid, but ultimately insufficient, support in 2005 may only be an indication of the mood of voters at that time, for the likelihood (to judge by opinion polling) is those opinions carry far less weight this year. No doubt this is the reason why Act has embarked on its "fed up with pandering to Maori radicals" advertising campaign.
It may stir single-issue voters from their apathy but New Zealand has moved on since 2005, none more so than Maori, simply because of the Maori Party's presence in Government.
Furthermore, there appears to be little support for Dr Brash on this issue from voters aged between 20 and 45. They are far more tolerant, far more representative of the mixed race New Zealanders of the future, and far less interested in ideological arguments advanced by a personality with whom most cannot identify.
