11. Question No. 11—Local GovernmentSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore) to the Minister of Local GovernmentQuestion No. 11—Local Government11. SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore) to the Minister of Local Government: Does she stand by her statement on entrenching provisions of the Water Services Entities Bill There is a moral obligation of people who believe that privatisation should not occur to support that particular SOP"; if so how does she reconcile that with a Cabinet decision made on 30 May that "the Bill should not entrench the privatisation provisions in the Bill"?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Yes including my earlier statement today in the House that this Government is 100 percent committed to ensuring our water assets remain in public ownership and we call on the Opposition to make the same commitment to New Zealanders.Simon Watts: Why did she say that entrenchment at the 60 percent level was a "moral obligation" when Cabinet had already ruled months earlier that entrenchment at any level should not be included in the bill?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I said that because it was a novel approach to another threshold of entrenchment being held. And I note Dave McGee commented that the reason why Standing Order 270 exists is to enable by a qualified majority to have an entrenchment provision included in legislation—like the National Party did in 1990 for the Flags Anthems Emblems and Names Protection Amendment Bill.Simon Watts: Did she consult with Cabinet about the 60 percent entrenchment; if so did she get support from Cabinet to deviate from the agreed position "that the bill should not entrench the privatisation provisions in the bill"?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 285 belongs to the Green Party. The advice that I sought and accepted in relation to the advice that was provided and included in the Cabinet paper—which I accepted—noted that there was a high constitutional threshold regarding entrenchment. That is why the Government did not include an entrenchment provision in the legislation. Simon Watts: Did she receive authorisation from Cabinet to deviate from the agreed position "that the bill should not entrench the privatisation provisions in the bill" and if not why did she go against that position by calling entrenchment "a moral obligation"?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Given that the bill has passed its third reading there is no entrenchment provision in that particular bill. There was a mistake that was made but look there's no constitutional crisis. There is no entrenchment clause in the water services entities law but there is a water crisis and pipes need to be fixed.Simon Watts: Did she consult the Attorney-General on the 60 percent entrenchment set out in SOP 285 in light of his public comments before or after she spoke in favour of it; if not why?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The matter of a lower percentage threshold for entrenchment was raised in SOP 285 debated at the time considered at the time and has been rectified. There is no entrenchment clause in the legislation that passed in this House today.Simon Watts: Did she receive authorisation from Cabinet to deviate from the agreed position "that the bill should not entrench the privatisation provisions in the bill" and if not why did she go against that position by calling an entrenchment a moral obligation?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: That mistake has been fixed. There is no entrenchment provisions in the water services entities law."