The Government is stripping anti-privatisation entrenchment clauses from its Three Waters legislation, admitting that the unexpected amendment was a "mistake".
Leader of the House Chris Hipkins announced the anticipated back down in a statement this morning. He said the Government was now in the process of "fixing" the bill.
“It was a mistake to put the entrenchment clause in, and the Government will fix the issue as soon as the House resumes on Tuesday,” he said.
Last week, Labour and the Greens voted through an entrenchment clause in the Three Waters bill that would've made it harder to privatise water assets.
The "entrenchment" meant any future law change on the issue would require the support of 60% of Parliament instead of a simple majority.
"The intention to protect assets from being sold was right, but entrenchment usually requires a supermajority or 75% of the Parliament to vote for it," Hipkins said.
"The approach in this amendment allowed an entrenchment provision to pass in a way that is not typical for Parliament. That has wider ramifications that we are not comfortable with. That’s why we will fix the issue."
Speaking to Q + A this morning, Deputy Prime Minister Grant Robertson said it wasn't "particularly relevant" that Parliament was sitting under urgency when the amendment was passed.
"I think what we've all recognised here is that when you're dealing with entrenchment, you've got to be very careful," he said.
"I don't think it's particularly relevant to urgency. We actually spent a lot of time during the Committee of the Whole House stages of this bill - more time than we would have, probably, during normal setting hours."
The Government was caught by surprise by the Greens-introduced entrenchment provision - despite voting for it. Hipkins and Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said they were unaware of the amendment until after it had already passed.
After being passed under urgency, the change to constitutional conventions went largely unnoticed by observers until a series of tweets from Victoria University law lecturer Dean Knight - which also raised the ire of opposition parties.
Later, in an open letter, law academics said the move set a "dangerous precedent" that violated established conventions which has primarily seen entrenchment used for electoral law changes.
On Sunday, Hipkins said the bill would be sent back to the Committee of the Whole stage in order to remove the entrenchment provision.
“The bill has just finished committee stages, so we can easily send it back and fix the issue before the final reading."
He added that it was "important" that Parliament strengthened rules around entrenching legislation.
“It’s also important Parliament strengthens the rules around entrenchment generally to avoid this in the future.
"As such, we will refer the wider matter to the Standing Orders Committee, where all parties are represented, in order to strengthen the protections for entrenchment provisions.
“We will ask the committee to look at where entrenchment provisions are appropriate and what majority should be required for them."
The bill has copped a lot of flack, with debates surrounding co-governance, loss of local control and privatisation dominating the discussion - scientists want to move away from that. (Source: Breakfast)
Hipkins said he was also going to send letters to the opposition in order to "ask them to commit to the public ownership" of water assets.
"In order to protect against privatisation of these assets, we will also be seeking political assurances from the National and ACT parties via letters that ask them to commit to public ownership."
SHARE ME