Parliament began its final sitting block of the year this week by cancelling a reservation it made two weeks ago. No, it wasn't for a Christmas function. It was confusing, but we can help with that.
Parliament began its final sitting block of the year this week by cancelling a reservation it made two weeks ago. Or was it that they refilled a trench they had dug? They did climb out first though.
Anyway, it seemed to confuse many. Thankfully, we are here to muddy the waters further by explaining.
Nanaia Mahuta is the minister responsible for the Bill in which a clause was reserved. It's fair to say she hasn't had an easy week or two.
Christmas is so close, you can almost taste the nutmeg. But in Parliament MP's are not yet chugging back eggnog because the Government has a few things it wants finished before the Turkey gets it.
This week is the final full week that the House will sit and (after the usual first business - and the third reading of a treaty settlement bill), it pushed forward by undoing something they did last time they met.
The House did something small but highly significant on Tuesday two weeks ago. Something that few noticed at the time, not the journalists (yes, that includes us), or opposition MPs, or indeed the Government (who seemed genuinely surprised).
When public attention was drawn to it, it was by Dr Dean Knight, a senior law academic from Victoria University of Wellington. He had finished year-end marking and was catching up on his reading ...of recent legislation.
He gets the award for paying more attention than the combined media.
Dr Dean Knight, Associate Professor of VUW's Law Faculty.
What he noticed was this:
Two weeks ago, during the committee stage of the Water Services Bill (when MPs focus on details and make final tinkering adjustments), an amendment suggested by the Green Party was accepted - an amendment that added a clause to ban the privatisation of water assets.
And that's fine - but the amendment also reserved that provision - for the purpose of making it harder to overturn... something often referred to as entrenchment.
62% of MPs had agreed to the change and the new clause said that 60% would need to vote to change it back.
Yes, that is also legal. But using such a technique to reserve a policy is considered constitutionally unwise, poor form and dangerous.
Why is it bad? I asked the Leader of the House Chris Hipkins to explain.
"We have very few reserved provisions in New Zealand legislation. A reserved provision is where you require more than a majority in Parliament in order to change it. So in the case of electoral law, for example, there are some reserved provisions."…