So far, Simon Power is doing the right thing by the people and their constitution. Rodney Hide? Not so much

I've said it before, but the upcoming referendum on MMP is something we really don't need to have. If we're going to go around kicking every tyre on every car on the block, can we vote on having to drive on the left-hand side of the road, too? I mean, how do we know people want to do this?

However, given that we are going to have to have this vote, the announcement of a two-step process held alongside the 2011 and 2014 elections is excellent news. As the advice given to Cabinet by the Ministry of Justice made clear, this was not only the cheapest but also the most legitimate way to deal with the issue. So kudos to Simon Power for shepherding this decision through Cabinet, and (in the words of the Herald's John Armstrong) not "playing games" with the timetable.

Now a number of new tests stand in his (and his cabinet colleagues') way. What will the wording of the first referendum question be, and who is going to get to decide it? At present, it appears Cabinet is going to choose what voters will be asked in 2011. This is a mistake – the decision should be given over to the Electoral Commission, to avoid any accusations that the process is being politically skewed. Second, what replacement voting systems will voters be asked to choose between at the first referendum, and who will decide what these will be? It seems to me the only legitimate option is to include those voting systems reviewed by the Royal Commission in its 1986 report, just with First Past the Post replacing MMP in the mix of alternatives.

And finally, will the Government pick up this suggestion buried away in paragraph 88 of the Ministry of Justice's background paper?

In the lead-up to the first referendum, the public discussion concerning whether to retain or change the current voting system is likely to bring to light a number of issues that people have with MMP (eg, the party vote threshold). It may be useful during this public discussion for the Government to indicate whether it would be willing to undertake a review of MMP to clarify and address these issues, if the public votes to retain MMP. This would assist voters to make an informed choice. It would also reduce the likelihood of change from MMP to an alternative voting system if most voters generally agree with MMP, subject to some amendments.

Simply put, if people are confident that some of MMP's flaws will get ironed out post 2011, they'll be more likely to want to keep it in place. So – will the Government act to give people that confidence?

But these are future challenges that shouldn't overshadow the fact that Simon Power and his National colleagues have got it right so far. Furthermore, despite my criticisms of some aspects of the process, his public consultation approach to electoral finance reform deserves praise for its intent. After all, given that I've had reason to call Simon Power out for being wrong in the past, it's only fair that I level praise for getting it right.

By contrast, Rodney Hide's continuing attempt to defend the dodgy blurring of his ministerial and party leadership role is pretty lame. As he seems to be having trouble with the issue, perhaps I can suggest a couple of simple rules to clarify things:

(1) If you are advertised as speaking as the Minister of Local Government about local government issues, your political party should not seek to financially benefit from the occasion; and,

(2) If you traveled to the destination using ministerial funding, you should not be speaking at a party fundraiser at all. (Any "real" journalists out there interested in prodding this matter further might care to file an OIA request as to just who is paying for Rodney Hide's appearance in Christchurch...)

Alternatively, perhaps Rodney Hide has just taken a lesson from former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. Information about local government reform is, after all, " a fucking valuable thing, you just don't want to give it away for nothing."