Heather du Plessis-Allan: Cabinet split reveals where power lies

National is calling for Prime Minster Jacinda Ardern to sack Nanaia Mahuta. Photo / Andrew Warner

OPINION:

The Three Waters entrenchment saga has given us — for the first time — an insight into Cabinet. And we’ve seen division.

Senior members of Cabinet clearly did not agree on entrenchment.

Nanaia Mahuta supported the move to entrench part of the law at 60 per cent. She was in the house when it passed and spoke in support of it.

Attorney-General David Parker opposed it. He was happy to tell reporters that he had been “consistent” in opposing entrenchment for “policy propositions”. Most of Cabinet seems to have agreed with him. On May 30, Cabinet decided against entrenching at 75 per cent.

Divisions in Cabinet are not unusual. What is unusual is Cabinet ministers being blindsided by a colleague doing the opposite of what they’d decided.

Neither Parker nor the Leader of the House Chris Hipkins knew the entrenchment was being voted on until it had passed. The Prime Minister didn’t appear to either.

They didn’t know, because Mahuta didn’t tell them. When reporters repeatedly asked whether she’d told caucus about the Green Party’s plan to entrench at the lower level of 60 per cent (as opposed to the 75 per cent Cabinet had decided against), she wouldn’t say.

She kept referring to the fact that the information was publicly available. As in, her caucus colleagues shouldn’t have needed to be told. They could have read the select committee report.

Labour refuses to explain whether Mahuta accidentally or deliberately failed to tell her caucus colleagues.

It suggests they’re embarrassed by whatever the explanation is.

But either way, it’s what happened afterwards that laid bare the divisions.

The PM spent unreal amounts of political capital covering for Mahuta, telling reporters Labour’s “team” made a mistake and would fix it as a team.

Mahuta on the other hand kept on suggesting to reporters her caucus colleagues should’ve read the report.

Parker was too eager to tell reporters he disagreed. Just like he was too eager last month to let it be known that he’d rejected 50-50 co-governance in his replacement Resource Management Act laws. It was reported that he’d resisted pressure from Mahuta and the Labour Party’s Māori caucus.

There is a Cabinet member who is also a member of the Māori caucus who is too eager to badmouth the PM after a few beers.

There has been at least one other insight into tensions. A strategic leak before last year’s Budget let it be known there were massive tensions between the Māori caucus and Housing Minister Megan Woods over her refusal to free up money for Māori housing. She freed it up two weeks later.

This hints at tensions between Labour’s outsized Māori caucus and senior Cabinet members. Friction would be understandable. At 15 members, the Māori caucus is big enough to throw its weight around and demand policy wins.

But those policy wins have come at a political price. Three Waters is Labour’s biggest own goal since Kiwibuild.

The Māori wards on councils, the two permanent mana whenua seats on Ecan and the now-ditched changes to Rotorua’s local democracy caused flares of public upset.

National has cleverly honed in on Mahuta, calling for the PM to sack her for breaching the Cabinet manual. National’s argument is that Mahuta’s defiance in supporting entrenchment when the Cabinet had agreed against it is a sackable offence.

National likely knows full well the PM won’t sack Mahuta. Mainly because the PM can’t. It’s unlikely the Māori caucus would tolerate a public demotion of one of its leaders.

Which means National has loads more hammering ahead of it, making the PM look weak for being unable or unwilling to discipline Mahuta.

And that lack of discipline from the PM only further hints the division is real. The Māori caucus may be too powerful for even the PM to control.