Foreshore & Seabed Act
November 27th, 2005 at 1:02 pm by David FarrarThe SST reveals that there may be the numbers in Parliament to repeal the Foreshore & Seabed Act. Basically there are 60 votes in favour of repeal, and 58 votes against with United Future holding the balance.
United Future voted against the Act, so one might expect them to vote to repeal it. However they also voted against the Electoral Integrity Act yet are now saying they will vote for that.
The other possibility is that a Labour Maori MP could vote to repeal it.
The issue is not quite as simple as appears though. While National favours repealing it, I suspect they would want it replaced with something to guarantee access. If they could come to an agreement with the Maori Party on access though, there might be grounds for a way forward.
Wouldn’t that be a great sign of MMP in action, if they managed it.
No tag for this post.
November 27th, 2005 at 3:52 pm
Isn’t there a majority of elected MPs represented parties that campaigned on lowering taxes? Now that would be a case for MMP if they could pull it off. I’m not holding my breath though….
Vote:November 27th, 2005 at 5:28 pm
Loftus, the Crown’s financial veto can play havoc with lower taxes opposed by the Government (I’m not entirely sure how it works (esp. for taxes rather than expenditure) but suspect it means Parliament can’t pass lower taxes than the Government wants without Dr Cullen’s permission).
Supply agreements that the Government has with UFNZ, and NZF might also be used by the Government to ensure taxes can’t be dropped (“you said you’d supply us with money – now do it”), despite Clark’s protestation that it mightn’t…
Vote:November 27th, 2005 at 6:28 pm
“Wouldn’t that be a great sign of MMP in action, if they managed it.”
it would also be a great way to take the glue out of the Maori Party. Maori are not “one people”, and in the past any such dream has rapidly come apart at the seams.
Without the S&F issue binding them together, Labour could improve their chances of making the maori seats theirs again one day.
Vote:November 27th, 2005 at 7:42 pm
A little more concerning from the SST article is this suggestion
“Introduce a private members bill entrenching the Maori seats so they could only be abolished with the consent of 75% of parliament (the same as general seats).”
I don’t mind in and of itself, but the thought that Parliament might seek to entrench something without a 75% majority is more than a little disconcerting…
Vote:November 27th, 2005 at 8:40 pm
Firstly: If this were to become an issue, then Labour would simply declare it an issue of confidence. And thus it would fail.
Secondly: Graeme, that’s impossible. The Standing Orders of the house say that for an enactment to be entrenched, it must pass by the required rate in the house.
Vote:November 27th, 2005 at 8:41 pm
The Maori Party seem intent on securing their seats in Parliament. It’s as crazy as Labour passing a bill that means non-Labour candidates need a 75% majority to win the seat, otherwise it goes to Labour. Or that each vote for Labour counts as two votes.
Vote:November 27th, 2005 at 9:43 pm
Stephen – thanks for that – it’s reassuring to know.
Vote:November 28th, 2005 at 7:37 am
If Labour tried to make it a confidence issue, I think it would piss their coalition partners off greatly. You don’t do that lightly.
Vote:November 28th, 2005 at 8:22 am
I hope the National Party votes in favour of repeal but making it clear that the public have a licence to have access to the foreshore and the seabed. Maori should have the right to test their property rights and if necessary the Government can negotiate access for the public. No-one in NZ has ever had exclusive property rights over the foreshore, but maori should have the right to pursue it and it can be dealt with in due course.
Vote: