(07-12-2022, 03:04 AM)Oh_hunnihunni Wrote: Okay, so what exactly do you object to in the entrenchment clause?
The clause itself. Using any form of entrenchment for policy sets dangerous precedent which is why virtually every constitutional lawyer in the country dammed it. I don't object for the securing of water assets from sale but this wasn't the way to do it. BTW the act already had significant protection from sale of assets via the requirement of 2 super majorities (75%) and a majority vote by ratepayers.
The question Ardern refuses to answer (see Mondays post cabinet presser) is if she knew about it which considering she was at the meeting where it was discussed seems she must have. And if she knew why didn't she squash it then?
Less of a "mistake" more "oh fuck they caught us".