Is this a gimmick?

A Labour list MP is to lodge a Member’s Bill seeking the entrenchment of the Maori seats in Parliament. His name is Mita Ririnui. Some of you may have heard of him. He sometimes contributes to debate in Parliament. Like on four days in the past seven months. One of those days was today. But he could soon have a higher profile.

Labour supported entrenchment of the Maori Seats while in Government, but didn't have the balls to do anything about it. The Maori Party drafted a bill but that got scuttled in the confidence and supply agreement with National. So what Labour is trying to do now is cause havoc in the Maori Party by hoping they will support it if the bill gets pulled out of the ballot. Under the agreement with National, the Maori Party can vote for entrenchment, provided that it is not "pursuing" entrenchment.

Given that 75 percent of Parliament have to vote for this bill in the committee stags to make it law, this will require National support. National won't support it and Ririnui knows that. So this is wedge politics aimed at causing a rift between National and the Maori Party.

Hopefully Maori will see this bill for what it is: a gimmick bill.

While in Government Labour pushed through legislation that affected about 300 people a year. That was the Civil Union Act. Then they pushed through a bill they did not expect to be upheld. That was the anti smacking legislation. They then pushed through a bill that it did not want to enforce - the Electoral Finance Act. Now it wants to push through a bill that with a primary aim other than that of passage. The aim is purely to piss off both the Maori Party and National - for different reasons - and Labour is using Parliament's lowest profile Maori MP to do it. Race-based bill fronting is what I call it.

UPDATE Indeed, the Maori Party is pissed off. Labour's motto seems to be "if you want 'em, but can't get 'em, your main opponent has 'em but doesn't want 'em, try to entrench 'em".

Maori Seats to be entrenched only if Maori Party goes with National

Helen Clark said on TV today that she'd support entrenchment of the Maori seats. Not just entrenchment of the Maori Electoral Option. If so that brings her position more closer to the Maori Party, but it draws her party further away from being in power later this month.

As Tumeke says

If the Maori Party go with Labour then National already have an official policy of not entrenching the seats and will oppose it. Since Parliament must pass the 75% entrenchment provision with 75% at some point in the process National can and will veto it. So no entrenchment.

But,if the Maori Party go with National - and the only reason they would is if they agree (along with all their other demands) to entrench the seats - then Labour must back entrenchment or lose all the Maori seats - perhaps for a very long time. So they will be entrenched.

I think he's right. If I was in the Maori Party this is one of the key messages I'd be promoting at the post-election hui. Furthermore, the Maori Party wouldn't have to go into coalition if it didn't want to.

Act backs entrenchment, so do the Greens. However, United Future doesn't so Peter Dunne could be in sticky situation thanks to the Maori Party should National gain power.

It takes a 75% to entrench legislation. Over at The Standard Steve Pierson says it doesn’t take a 75% majority to entrench legislation. "The section of the Electoral Act that lists the entrenched sections can be amended by simple majority".

So? Read this (from here)

Bloggers encourage Maori Party to amend bill on the Maori seats

There has been a bit of discussion on the Maori seats, particularly with the Maori Party policy of entrenchment of the seats, contrasting with Helen Clark supporting entrenchment of the Maori electoral option. Today the Herald reported that a pledge to entrench the option would prove crucial in assisting Labour with post- election negotiations with the Maori Party.

The paper is incorrect. The Maori Party want to entrench the seats, not the option, and Clark's comments are irrelevant to the Maori Party position.

Yesterday I did a post on the Maori Party Bill to entrench the seats linking a similar post from No Right Turn, who had also seen the bill. The post was sent to and read by all Maori Party MPs yesterday - not sent by me - and as a result, I was told by the Party today that directly as a result of the suggestions and comment in this blog, the bill is to be amended to embrace our suggestions that parts of the Maori Electoral Option should be entrenched with the seats.

Although it makes for a better bill, it still needs 75% to pass. That's the big hurdle. Oh, and well done Legal Beagle for getting the ball rolling.

Entrenchment II

Following on from my post on entrenching the Maori seats and the Electoral option, I’ve got a copy of the Maori Party bill that aims to amend s45 of the Electoral Act. This will entrench the seats, but not the Electoral option, which is covered under sections 76 , 77, 78 , and 79.

So if the seats are entrenched but not the option, what happens if the option (the above four sections) is voted down by a simple Parliamentary majority. We have seats – but anyone will be able to transfer in and out whenever they want, which has implication for the electoral quota. Section 79 specifically prevents transfers in and out without exercising the option - and the option is restricted to Maori.But if we entrench the Maori seats perhaps we should offer some protection to some of the option provisions as well?

The Maori Party may have a policy to commit the government to entrenching the seats – and even if a major governing party was to commit to supporting a bill through all stages, it still won’t get the numbers. That’s because, under standing orders, the bill requires a 75% parliamentary majority to pass. One more reason for any major Party to agree to entrenchment as part of post –election negotiations – both Helen Clark and John Key know full well entrenchment of Maori seats will never happen without support of both major parties. Conceivably a referendum and a majority of votes in the House could remove them. So no dead rat to swallow at all.

But for Helen Clark to suggest that the option could be entrenched to preserve the seats is treating us all for fools. Don’t believe the hype, its not even a sequel.