Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I want to get back to the point around why this vote was cast and the events leading up to that point. I reflect back on that evening in terms of when the vote was actually cast on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 285 and the Hon Kieran McAnulty was actually the Minister in the chair at that point of the evening because as the Hon David Parker noted the Minister here was not in the chair. The Chair of the committee was Greg O'Connor and the whip on the Labour side was Duncan Webb. So it is no—I mean I think to rule out in terms of who was in the room at that point when this was passed through and when this was voted upon those were the individuals that were in the chair. I want to go back to Hansard from the Hon Nanaia Mahuta Minister when we were questioned about this exact Supplementary Order Paper and I quote: We accepted the advice of the Attorney-General which says that there is a high constitutional threshold and that came from the Crown Law Office. Select committee members will be well aware of that advice." So the Minister articulated on the evening when we were talking about this Supplementary Order Paper that she was fully aware of the fact that the Attorney-General had provided advice in regards to the constitutional threshold of the entrenchment provision that's on the table. It was also acknowledged that that advice had come through from Crown Law and that the select committee members were aware of that advice. The Finance and Expenditure Committee as part of their deliberations pushed back strongly around the entrenchment of 75 percent. I go on and quote: "There is a high constitutional threshold to be reached in order to put such a threshold within legislation." The Minister was fully aware on the evening when the Supplementary Order Paper was tabled that this constitutional matter that was in front of us was something that is absolutely breaching a normal constitutional threshold. And I go on and quote: "and often it's on constitutional matters of which this bill is not." The Minister knew that the Water Services Entities Bill was not a bill in which entrenchment measures would be appropriate. And I go on and quote: "and it would be a novel approach to include an entrenchment clause." The Minister was aware of the fact that while the entrenchment clauses did not meet constitutional thresholds there was a clear—and I would go as far as saying premeditated i.e. the issue had been thought about in advance it had been considered and when the Minister made the comment that it would be a novel approach to insert this entrenchment order the Minister knew exactly what was going on.The definition of a mistake—and this is the language that has been used by the Government around this issue—is "An act or a judgment that was misguided." What does misguided mean? It is a decision that is based on faulty judgment. I have just categorically quoted from the Hansard that occurred on that evening—before that Supplementary Order Paper was voted on by the Minister the Hon Kieran McAnulty who was a Minister in the chair—that the issues and regards that were noted by the Attorney-General on this evening were all known. All of these points were known.In taking a simple definition of what is a mistake and not a mistake: this was not a mistake. This decision—in the Minister's words "and it would be a novel approach to include an entrenchment clause." I go on: "We know that while this particular SOP may not pass the constitutional thresholds there is a moral obligation of people who believe that privatisation should not occur to support that particular SOP." The Minister was using the opportunity to put in play a new provision in regards to our constitution one that completely conflicted with the history of this country our constitution and our democracy. The Minister as I have quoted knew what was going on. There are other members of the caucus that were fully aware in terms of what was and when the vote was taken. This was not a mistake. And so that is in Hansard that is recorded and we are now here looking to try and reverse a decision that they knew was wrong."