The Government has confirmed it will remove the entrenchment provision in the Three Waters bill, which would have required 60% of Parliament to vote to privatise water infrastructure.
Leader of the House, Chris Hipkins, issued a statement on Sunday morning confirming the entrenchment provision would be removed this week.
“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.
Green Party local government spokesperson Eugenie Sage proposed the entrenchment clause, which was voted into the bill at the end of November while the House sat under urgency.
READ MORE:
* Three Waters booby trap goes against ‘no surprises’ rule
* Jacinda Ardern attended Labour caucus meeting where controversial Three Waters entrenchment clause was ‘discussed’
* National unwilling to budge on ‘entrenchment’ of public water assets
Constitutional law experts slammed the use of entrenchment in this way, saying it would set a dangerous precedent.
ROBERT KITCHIN/Stuff
Leader of the House Chris Hipkins says it was a mistake to vote to entrench the anti-privitisation provision in the Three Waters bill.
There are only six other provisions in law which are entrenched, and they all require a super majority of 75% to support change. These provisions relate to elections and the term of Parliament.
Dr Dean Knight said entrenchment should be used rarely. He said this Government supporting the use of entrenchment to stop the privatisation of water could lead to other governments entrenching their own laws.
“It’s not beyond imagination that a National-ACT Government may in the future decide to entrench a three strikes law on the basis that being safe is important policy,” he said.
