An obtained email and caucus briefing note from Green MP Golriz Ghahraman reveals the party's plans to try and get support for one of their own bills in exchange for their backing of the Government's "Waka Jumping" bill.

Labour, NZ First and National have all decried a Green Party MP's suggestion that horse trading could be used as a negotiating tactic to get a national "Parihaka Day".

The Green Party is considering opposing NZ First's "Waka Jumping" bill - a deal struck in coalition talks - unless Labour gives it a national "Parihaka Day".

Green Party justice spokesperson Golriz Ghahraman, in an internal email obtained by Stuff, suggested some horse trading with Labour to acknowledge the fact the party has long opposed waka jumping legislation.

ROBERT KITCHIN/STUFF Part of the deal between Winston Peters and Jacinda Ardern was a "Waka Jumping" bill to stop MPs from changing party allegiances in Parliament.

Ghahraman's suggested her colleague Marama Davidson's bill, which recognises the anniversary of the invasion of Parihaka by making it a National Day, be put on the table for Government support.

READ MORE:

* Golriz Ghahraman 'humbled and excited'

* A day in the life of Golriz Ghahraman

* Why Winston Peters wants to stop waka jumping

Justice Minister Andrew Little, deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters and National deputy leader Paula Bennett have all rallied against the idea of horse trading, saying its use is inappropriate when it comes to getting legislation through.

Little said he supported the idea of a day to commemorate the Māori land wars, but didn't want to see a national "Parihaka Day" the subject of some "cheap horse trading exercise".

The "Waka Jumping" bill has been drafted by Justice Minister Andrew Little and the email suggests he's already agreed to some amendments.

﻿Peters said he wasn't aware of the conversations between Little and Ghahraman but NZ First didn't horse trade.

"We don't sell our principles, we don't either half-way in or half-way out. If something is sound we'll back it ... but I think horse trading on matters of principle are thoroughly bad."

Peters wouldn't say if he supported the idea of a national "Parihaka Day" other than to say "if an idea's got merit, it's got merit on its own".

Bennett said it was "disgraceful" for any political party to think they could horse trade on any matter.

"It should be seen on its merits, for what it is, for what value it adds to democracy adn for the people of New Zealand, and not just something you can trade away for something else you see as important."

Bennett said the whole caucus would need to discuss both the idea of a national day and any waka jumping legislation before making a decision on what way they'd vote.

LABOUR AND GREENS RESPOND

In the email Ghahraman said Little had "unlawfully" shown her a "ministerial advice paper" about proposed waka jumping legislation but not the full text of the bill.

In response Little said Ghahraman had likely misunderstood his "dry sense of humour" and he was making a joke that he was possibly breaking "Cabinet protocol".

"I made a flippant remark ... it was the advice paper as a precursor to the paper that goes to the Cabinet, which is ultimately the basis of the legislation. No unlawful activity was entered into."

A spokesperson for the Green Party said this was an "internal document that was sent in error".

"It's not surprising that Labour Party and Green Party MPs are having these kinds of constructive conversations and working together; in fact, that's what New Zealanders expect of government parties.



"It's commonplace for ministers and MPs to have these kind of conversations - that will continue," the spokesperson said.

WHY WAKA JUMPING?

A "Waka Jumping Bill" first arose in 2001 to stop MPs defecting to another party - as happened after the 1996 National-NZ First coalition government collapsed.

The Green Party is aware of the "political tensions" its opposition to the bill could cause.

In a caucus briefing note obtained by Stuff it was outlined that a "strong communications plan" would be needed by the Greens regardless of whether the party chose to support or oppose the bill.

"We will need a strong communications plan to either explain a changed position, or to front foot any political tension or risk of being seen as an unstable part of Government, if opposition went public.

"If we supported the bill we would also need an internal plan to communicate the decision to members and supporters," the briefing note stated.

The bill's aim is to preserve the proportionality of Parliament by making an MP who entered Parliament via a party list resign from Parliament rather than switching allegiances.

Labour has included a clause in the bill that means two-thirds of a party caucus would have to agree with a party leader's decision to get rid of an MP from caucus.

The Greens have asked Little to amend the bill in respect of the way a party leader could trigger the ousting of an MP. That is, a leader would have to show an MP had acted inconsistently on party policy or ethic on a persistent basis or substantial level - "not just a one-off vote or a minor issue".

The caucus briefing noted Little was "open to further suggestions".

"Given the timeframes and that Labour will want to know our position before a bill is introduced to the House, we will probably need to inform them of an initial position on the issue without having seen the legislation," the briefing note stated.

"The Government won't have the numbers to pass the legislation without us, and if we decided to oppose it then they would need to consider other options such as approaching the National Party, who opposed the 2005 bill."

"Opposing the bill would cause political tensions given the inclusion of the bill in the Labour-NZ First coalition agreement and the apparent importance the Government is placing on it.

"However the nature of this Government requires all parties considering issues on a case-by-case basis and this is an area we have had a different position to that of Labour and NZ First, and our Confidence and Supply Agreement gives us the independence to choose to vote against it," the briefing note stated.

"Supporting the bill would be seen as changing and weakening a long standing and public Party position. It would risk criticism from our core supporters and commentators."

* Comments on this article have been closed.