Editorial: Much angst and mischief in Mt Albert

All too soon, the country is to be plunged back into dreary party politicking. The byelection in June to replace Helen Clark in Mt Albert disturbs a public still content to have the worst aspects of electioneering behind it at the general election in October.

This period of grace, sometimes misconstrued as a public or media "honeymoon" with a new leader and government, more correctly represents a distaste for the antics, allegations and paraphernalia of private political parties. Members of the public elect a government and then turn to issues of direct relevance to their lives. They tune out and turn off political pointscoring for as long as possible.

Helen Clark's rapid ascent to United Nations duties forces those in that electorate to endure another round and the posturing of party politics is already evident.

The Labour Party should win this seat with ease and will do so, barring the selection of a candidate with unspeakably bad skeletons in his or her personal life. Its angst over the possibility that Judith Tizard would return to Parliament off Labour's list had list MP Phil Twyford stood and won the seat was unseemly. National enjoys a large lead in nationwide opinion polls but only those believing their own public relations spin could seriously see Helen Clark's Mt Albert turn blue.

The Greens seek to cause mischief by considering running the very-Wellington, very non-Mt Albert Dr Russel Norman, presumably to give him something to do as the party sits out the term on the sidelines at Parliament. Expect much noise as the parties try to whip this byelection into the equivalent of boxing's Fight of the Century, the one involving David Tua and Shane Cameron in a shed near Hamilton later this year.

One of the fallacies being aired is that the byelection could be a de facto referendum on the Super City as Mt Albert residents, troubled by the intricacies of ward versus at-large voting, Maori representation and the extent of "local" in the proposed local boards will show the city's distaste for the Key Government's proposal. And do what? Vote Labour in big numbers, as in October? It is highly unlikely that the vote to replace their representative to Parliament will offer much at all at local government level. Even if it does become a focus of candidate debate in the next six weeks, what could be read into the views of a small number of residents in one part of isthmus Auckland City? Mt Albert is hardly able to express the views of the south, west and north of the proposed Super City.

In any case, it appears certain that the Government will not wait for other parties to use their moment of attention in Mt Albert to agitate over the one-city blueprint.

Legislation to establish the transitional authority - the plan to merge eight large enterprises in a particularly short time - must reach the House soon. It would be remiss of the Government not to recognise sound strands of opposition to its response to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance.

As we report today, concessions on the mode of voting to move away from at-large representation and possibly to allow a way for Maori seats to re-emerge are in the wind. Real devolution of power to the local boards on a wider range of issues may be considered to neutralise the concerns that the new city will be top-heavy.

Whatever pragmatic response eventuates, it is likely that the Mt Albert byelection will represent no more and no less than the local concerns of a safe seat anointing the heir to the three Labour MPs who, combined, have held the seat since 1946.