6. Question No. 6—Prime MinisterCHRISTOPHER LUXON (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime MinisterQuestion No. 6—Prime Minister6. CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement about entrenching a provision of the Water Services Entities Bill that we accept a mistake here has been made"; if so when did she realise it was a mistake?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes I stand by my statement. In answer to the second part of the member's question Cabinet determined it would resolve the issue at the first Cabinet meeting that was held after the committee of the whole House.Christopher Luxon: When was she first made aware that her Government was supporting a provision to entrench parts of the three waters legislation?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I believe I've already referred to in the public domain I was obviously made aware after the vote was taken. What I would also state is that I also stand by however our Government's position that the privatisation of water assets is something that we are strongly opposed to. Regardless of the debate that's currently being had about our mechanism of entrenchment provisions I would encourage the member to give due consideration to the letter that we have issued him today seeking for the National Party's commitment to not privatise these incredibly important assets.Christopher Luxon: Why as the Prime Minister and chair of Cabinet was the embedding of an entrenchment clause in a deeply unpopular piece of legislation "Not something I would necessarily be aware of."?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member needs to put the context around that quote—I was asked whether or not I had seen the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). I would ask the member whether or not every single amendment to every single bill that is put up by the Opposition or the Greens or by ACT is something that is routinely examined. I did not see the SOP but nor would I expect to.Christopher Luxon: Is it acceptable that neither Minister Mahuta nor any other Minister failed to tell her about the entrenchment provision before her Government passed it?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I refer to every public statement that I've made on this matter regarding the consideration of entrenchment and then I come back to ultimately the House coming back today to consider the issue. We agree it is a mistake and it will be removed.Christopher Luxon: Does she think it's appropriate to force through both a major confiscation of local water assets and significant changes to our constitutional conventions under urgency?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I totally disagree with the characterisation of that question. It is utterly factually wrong.Christopher Luxon: Was her Government's attempt to entrench part of her unpopular three waters reforms a sign of incompetence or arrogance or both?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again I also disagree with the characterisation; the entrenchment provision related only to the privatisation of assets. On the principle of the privatisation of assets we are totally opposed. My question is: is the National Party?David Seymour: How can the Prime Minister demand the Opposition rule out privatisation when her own Government is taking the assets off democratically elected councils who had ratepayers pay for them and putting them into new entities that will not be fully democratically run?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The new entities are public shareholdings of council representatives. It is being held by local communities. We have an illustration of the issue with this entire debate: the member's mischaracterisation of what is ultimately a bill to ensure public ownership and management of water entities. The member needs to be honest. The way that he is portraying this bill is wrong dishonest and factually incorrect.David Seymour: Point of order. Mr Speaker as you well know and the Prime Minister well knows to call another member dishonest is unparliamentary. She knew the rules she did it and she should be asked to withdraw and apologise. And it includes calling another member's actions in the House dishonest.Hon Grant Robertson: Speaking to the point of order. Firstly the Prime Minister said that making a statement like that would be dishonest. It wasn't a direct comment on a member to take on Mr Seymour's point of order. My second point is that almost all—I think I'll be correct—of the Opposition's supplementary questions today have contained assertions some of which arguably are outside of the Standing Orders in terms of the words that we use let alone being outside of the Standing Orders around oral questions in terms of the content of them—Standing Orders 395 396 397. So unfortunately we are in a position where there's been in my opinion a response when the Prime Minister has got up today several times to say that she disagrees with the contents of a question because those questions have contained assertions. That seems to be how it goes which way it will go both ways.SPEAKER: Thank you to the Deputy Prime Minister. That is correct. I counted three assertions in that supplementary. I listened—I've been listening very carefully to all the answers as I thought to myself sooner or later someone's going to complain. And today is that day. The fact of the matter is I'm quite happy—as I have stated in this debating chamber at question time before—to rule questions that are significantly out of order to be out of order. That one was; I could have easily ruled it out. I allowed it to be asked on the basis that the member knew and understood the likely response. Are there any further supplementaries on this?"