Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you Madam Chair. So I think we have got some clarity from the Minister that this was not a technical mistake—they didn't accidentally vote for it—but it was a political mistake that they voted for it. They wanted to have that Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 285 passed bringing in a 60 percent entrenchment. They voted for it but when the cat got out of the bag and people saw it for what it is they realised that it was a political mistake and they have reversed it after a week and a half of growing tensions across the country. Why should people be concerned about these things? Why has it touched such a chord in the New Zealand voting public and New Zealanders as a whole? Well I think we can offer some suggestions. This Government frankly has been quite experimental in its approach to the constitution. We've heard the Attorney-General talk about electoral law being something that has elements of it that have been entrenched as part of our conventions but this is a Government that has actually moved away from some fundamental things such as equal voting rights at local government without any support and so people are rightly suspicious of the constitutional appropriateness of how this Government operates. Most people would think that something as fundamental to how our democracy operates as equal voting rights would be something that wouldn't be changed without widespread support but the Government has done that so the people's antennae are up to what the Government is doing on constitutional matters. Then in this broader three waters context there have been very widespread demonstrations against it so it's by no means a policy that's universally agreed to or admired across the country and yet it has been pushed through regardless. Again it has involved taking away properties that have been owned by councils and moving them into a central operation. Again suspicions or nervousness or doubt has been widespread about the intentions of the Government in this operation and so that I think is why New Zealanders have been concerned and why cooler heads—and there does seem to be very marked division within the Government on these matters because we've just heard the Attorney-General saying that he is opposed to such entrenchments for policy matters. But clearly the Government decided to do it. They voted for it and so he was obviously outvoted in that internal debate which led to the passing of the SOP that we are now trying to un-pass by Government actions. So there's clearly a division within the Government about how to handle these matters but the political heads such as Mr Hipkins over there decided that the Government couldn't get away with carrying on—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! Order! The member will come back to this SOP. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Thank you very much Madam Chair. The only point I was making was that I was talking about the constitutional implications of this series of events that has led us to this very unusual situation as—I'm sure we all know—it's pretty rare that you find a piece of legislation introduced to the House it goes through the first reading; it goes through the second reading; it goes through the committee stage of the House where we go through a bill line by line—and it took about 10 hours of debate. It concludes that debate and then the next and final step is the third reading and it's very unusual to have a bill brought back and pushed back to the committee stage to undo something. This is an unusual situation and one of constitutional meaning and understanding. So what we're trying to understand is how this happened why it happened and whether this is the sort of thing that we can expect to happen again and again under this Government. Do they push a little bit here and see if anybody reacts and if they do—if they're caught red-handed—then they'll pull back and say it was a mistake and will they try that again somewhere else? It's a fair question for all of us to be asking and it is part of the reason why I think there is widespread distrust about the motives of this Government when it comes to how it operates at a constitutional level. So I've raised those many questions. Was it a technical mistake or a political mistake? My assertion is that it was a political mistake and they've realised that and they've sought to undo it but I'd be very interested to understand the Minister's impressions on that.