The controversial Three Waters Bill, which the Government hopes to pass through Parliament in time for Christmas it throw up another interesting and unusual issue last week - the question of entrenchment.  Entrenchment is a tool that is normally reserved for constitutional matters, governing how our elections run, for example: things like the voting age or the length of a parliamentary term or the method of voting and how electorates are drawn up. 

So, issues that require more than a bare majority of MPs to change. Therefore, it was quite a surprise to see a last-minute clause in the Three Waters Bill last week, meaning any future law change allowing public water assets to be sold would require a vote of 60% of Parliament or a successful public referendum - entrenchment in other words.  It means a super majority of 72 MPs, more than the usual majority of 61 MP’s would be needed by Government to change the prospective law in the future.  One of the major concerns of Three Waters is the privatisation of water assets and the loss of control in revenue.

So surely this might sound like a step in the right direction to some of you. You may think so, and I'd like to know whether it gives you more faith in this bill, because this is a major concern. We don't want to lose control of our water assets and the revenue.

But actually, in a way, this is not about the Three Waters Bill. This is a major overreach by the Government to use entrenchment in this situation. When laws are created in New Zealand by the Government of the day, they had done so in the knowledge that the Government of tomorrow are free to come along and undo them. That is part of our constitutional setup and the concern here is, of course, that it could open the door for more laws to be similarly entrenched in the future.

The future of our water ownership is really important, but it is still a matter of policy. Should we be using this tool of entrenchment in a situation like this? No other law requires such a majority for it to be overturned. It's no light issue. It does actually require serious debate. And the Government's determination to get the Three Waters bill rushed through Parliament at this stage with urgency has a sense of desperation to it.

The controversial Three Waters Bill, which the Government hopes to pass through Parliament in time for Christmas it throw up another interesting and unusual issue last week - the question of entrenchment.  Entrenchment is a tool that is normally reserved for constitutional matters, governing how our elections run, for example: things like the voting age or the length of a parliamentary term or the method of voting and how electorates are drawn up. 
So, issues that require more than a bare majority of MPs to change. Therefore, it was quite a surprise to see a last-minute clause in the Three Waters Bill last week, meaning any future law change allowing public water assets to be sold would require a vote of 60% of Parliament or a successful public referendum - entrenchment in other words.  It means a super majority of 72 MPs, more than the usual majority of 61 MP’s would be needed by Government to change the prospective law in the future.  One of the major concerns of Three Waters is the privatisation of water assets and the loss of control in revenue.
So surely this might sound like a step in the right direction to some of you. You may think so, and I'd like to know whether it gives you more faith in this bill, because this is a major concern. We don't want to lose control of our water assets and the revenue.
But actually, in a way, this is not about the Three Waters Bill. This is a major overreach by the Government to use entrenchment in this situation. When laws are created in New Zealand by the Government of the day, they had done so in the knowledge that the Government of tomorrow are free to come along and undo them. That is part of our constitutional setup and the concern here is, of course, that it could open the door for more laws to be similarly entrenched in the future. 
The future of our water ownership is really important, but it is still a matter of policy. Should we be using this tool of entrenchment in a situation like this? No other law requires such a majority for it to be overturned. It's no light issue. It does actually require serious debate. And the Government's determination to get the Three Waters bill rushed through Parliament at this stage with urgency has a sense of desperation to it.

Join Kerre Woodham one of New Zealand’s best loved personalities as she dishes up a bold, sharp and energetic show Monday to Friday 9am-12md on Newstalk ZB. News, opinion, analysis, lifestyle and entertainment – we’ve got your morning listening covered.