Could water be privatised here?

[C_T_Russell]

It was this entrenchment clause here.
Looks like labour changed it at the end of 2022 due to the backlash.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/480...egislation

so your biggest issue wasn't actually an issue?   removed during the readings before legislation was passed...

Well labour left it too little too late.
A bit of a PR disaster if you ask me.
Looks like the greens were at least partially responsible for the clause from what I can take from it.

"ACT leader David Seymour said the removal of the entrenchment was "a win for democracy" but "the Government's intentions remain concerning."  "This entire process has been deliberately murky and questions remain about how it even got to this point," he said in a statement.  Seymour said "the Greens and Labour have been grossly irresponsible, not realising what they are doing to New Zealand's constitutional framework while trying to fight the imaginary bogeyman of privatisation".


"Meanwhile the Greens have defended their stance.

"Requiring a 60 percent majority of Parliament, or a straight majority in a referendum, would require any future government to build political support and consensus for any winding back of public ownership. This would uphold the very strong public support for public ownership by preventing a simple majority changing the law to privatise precious water assets," Green Party local government spokesperson Eugenie Sage said in a statement.

"Parliament's Standing Orders (270) clearly provide for entrenchment and that Parliament must carry any entrenchment proposal by the same majority as in the entrenchment clause. That's what happened with the Greens amendment," she said.

The Green Party would continue to fight for strong protection of the ongoing public ownership of the three waters assets, services and infrastructure, Sage said."