12. Question No. 12—Local GovernmentSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore) to the Minister of Local GovernmentQuestion No. 12—Local Government12. SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore) to the Minister of Local Government: Does she stand by her statement on entrenching a provision of the Water Services Entities Bill We know that while this particular SOP may not pass the constitutional threshold there is a moral obligation of people who believe that privatisation should not occur to support that particular SOP" and does she stand by all her statements on entrenchment provisions?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Yes. Ensuring continued public ownership of New Zealand's water services infrastructure has been a bottom line for this Government in the development of the new water services delivery system. Let me be clear: it was a mistake to use entrenchment for that purpose and we'll fix it.Simon Watts: Did she inform the Prime Minister about Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 285 in the name of the Hon Eugenie Sage before it was voted on; if so when?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The member knows that the SOP was tabled in the House during the committee of the whole House debate so we were made aware of the details of the SOP at the same time he was.Chris Bishop: Point of order. That was not the question and the answer went no way to addressing the question. The question was: did she inform the Prime Minister in words to that effect and if so when?SPEAKER: I'll ask the member to—in my mind it was very very close to being addressed but I'll get the member to ask it again and I'll listen to the answer again.Simon Watts: Did she inform the Prime Minister about Supplementary Order Paper 285 in the name of the Hon Eugenie Sage before it was voted on; if so when?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The member knows that the SOP was tabled in the House during the committee of the whole House debate. We were made aware of the details of the SOP at the same time as he was.Chris Bishop: Point of order. It's the same point. It's a really really clear specific and I would say actually important question and the Minister is not addressing it—she's not answering it and not addressing it.SPEAKER: Well you can't expect to have an explicit answer to any question. Still in my mind it is addressed. The member has other supplementaries that he can further ask. I mean the answer is that it was available to all members at the same time. That is addressing the question.Simon Watts: Does she stand by the statement given in her name by a spokesperson that the entrenchment Supplementary Order Paper was discussed at Labour's caucus and if so how does she reconcile that statement with the Prime Minister who said it was "Not something I'd necessarily be aware of".SPEAKER: The Minister doesn't have ministerial responsibilities for discussions at their caucus. I'm going to give the member an opportunity to reword the question to get it in order.Chris Bishop: Point of order Mr Speaker. The question is not about what was discussed in the caucus meeting; the question is about the statement of the Minister in her ministerial capacity about the Water Services Entities Bill and the reconciliation of that statement by the Minister in that capacity with statements by the Prime Minister in that capacity. Surely it is in order that ministerial comments from the Prime Minister and the Minister of Local Government are in order.SPEAKER: Again the Minister doesn't have any ministerial responsibility. I'm going to ask the member to reword the question to get it in order.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. SPEAKER: A new point of order or are you just relitigating this one?Hon Michael Woodhouse: Yes it is. The question has to be asked in respect of this: would Ms Mahuta have been asked that question had she not been the Minister of Local Government and the answer is emphatically not. That would have been a question—SPEAKER: That is not a new point of order. You are just relitigating what I ruled. Now the member has an opportunity whether to use it or not to use it but he can have the question again to reword it to get it in order.Simon Watts: Is she aware of statements given in her name by a spokesperson that the entrenchment Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) was discussed at Labour's caucus and if so how does she reconcile that statement with the Prime Minister who said "It was not something I'd necessarily be aware of."SPEAKER: In so far as the Minister has responsibility.Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: While I won't disclose the specific discussions at caucus there has been confirmed comments by the Prime Minister and myself that the matter of entrenchment was discussed more broadly. But let me be specific. I first raised the matter of entrenchment with my Cabinet colleagues in April 2022. Cabinet noted that I had written to all political parties seeking their support for entrenchment of provisions that protect against privatisation of water services infrastructure but that Standing Order 270 will require entrenchment to be carried by a 75 percent majority when the bill reaches the committee of the whole House. This was the result of the recommendation of the Working Group on Representation Governance and Accountability. I raised it again on 30 May 2022 prior to the introduction of the Water Services Entities Bill when I noted that cross-party support for entrenchment of these provisions had not emerged and that the Government would not entrench privatisation provisions of that nature in the bill.Simon Watts: Did Cabinet authorise her to make a decision on any entrenchment amendment tabled on the Water Services Entity Bill; if so when?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: If that member is speaking in relation to the SOP that the Green Party—Chris Bishop: No no any entrenchment. Hon Member: The question is: any entrenchment.Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Can I be clear on the question that's being asked of me? There's two members yelling out across the House.SPEAKER: We'll have the question again.Simon Watts: Did Cabinet authorise her to make a decision on any entrenchment amendments tabled on the Water Services Entities Bill; if so when?Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order Mr Speaker. A Minister is not responsible for Supplementary Order Papers tabled by other parties. Parties vote on Supplementary Order Papers.Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order. The question is really specifically worded which is whether Cabinet authorised her as the responsible Minister to make a decision about support or otherwise for Supplementary Order Papers. That's well within Cabinet's remit. It may or may not have happened in this case. That's what the question is; we want to know the answer to it.SPEAKER: It can be answered.Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The SOP that was tabled by the Greens on the day was made aware to us on the day that it was tabled.Chris Bishop: Point of order. With respect that again is miles away from addressing the very specific question which relates to Cabinet authorisation for her as Minister of Local Government to support a particular amendment or SOP.Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order. Speaking to that point of order the Cabinet cannot authorise a Minister in terms of how a party votes in Parliament.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh come on. That's ridiculous.SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! The question is in order. The member is simply asking whether or not Cabinet gave blanket authorisation to the Minister to agree or disagree to such an amendment. But there are a number of ways a Minister could answer it.Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The Cabinet papers that I referred to in the previous question in relation to reports in April 2022 and 30 May 2022 and the context of the entrenchment conversations that we had have been publicly released."