Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you Madam Chair. That was a very interesting speech from the Attorney-General. I suppose the fundamental question I have in relation to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 285 is: is this SOP to fix a mistake or does it represent a change in policy? That is the question that I want the Minister ultimately to answer because we heard from the Attorney-General that he didn't believe in entrenchment provisions. But it's my understanding that the Labour caucus did agree to entrenching at 75 percent and then they wrote to other parties trying to achieve that and we declined. Then it's my understanding that this SOP that we're trying to overturn occurred because having failed at 75 percent—the clear rule of Parliament is that no party can entrench anything without the same percentage voting for it—of Parliament to agree to entrench at 75 the next step was to get 60 percent of Parliament which Labour and the Greens combined represent; they could do that and they did do that. So the question I have for the chair is: was there a policy on the part of the Government coming in here to entrench at 60 percent or not? Or was it a genuine mistake? Or was that the policy? That is not clear and it's very fuzzy to hear the Attorney-General saying that he is not in favour of entrenchment but it was clearly the policy of his party to entrench at 75 percent if not at 60 percent. And so that's what's not clear there. What's happened is that the Labour Party and the Government voted for the entrenchment at 60 percent. Now what's not clear is again whether that was a clerical mistake—that they didn't mean to vote for it—or not.Hon Dr David Clark: Point of order Madam Chair. The member seems to be broadening the debate somewhat to previous debates rather than focusing on the SOP that is before the committee now.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I will ask the Hon Paul Goldsmith to come back to the SOP.Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes well my understanding is that it's quite legitimate to be talking about why the vote was cast and the series of events leading up to and post the vote and that's what I'm talking about. So that's what I'm trying to understand and unravel: was this a technical mistake of standing up and saying We vote for it." or not or was it a political mistake that they voted for it and then found out that actually everybody disagreed with them and then they went back on it? Because the reality is that if it wasn't for the constitutional experts putting up their hand and us recognising the importance of it this would have been enacted. And there is a strong argument to say that the Government indeed intended this to happen and they were hoping that they were going to get away with it and they were keeping their heads down and everything was all quiet for a couple of days and they thought they might have got away with it and they were quite happy with that.The alternative that they're expecting us to believe is that this went through and nobody in the Government noticed it.Hon Dr David Clark: Point of order Madam Chair. The Chair prior to you and I think you have also reinforced that this is a narrow debate on the SOP in front of us now. The member continues to expand into a broader debate about the previous debate that was had in the committee and the merits of it. I would ask respectfully that he is brought back to the order of the House.Tim van de Molen: Speaking to the point of order—thank you Madam Chair. We've had a few instances now where members from the Government and from the party that put the original SOP in have tried to close this debate down and you will be well aware that it's your role only to decide on what is or is not within scope and points of order such as we've seen taken by those members are actually out of order and bring the House into disrepute by impacting or reflecting on your ability to rule the committee stage appropriately Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I'm well aware that it is within my ambit to actually rule and the advice that the Clerk had just given me was talking about the mistake or how we got here to this mistake that we're trying to fix today is actually within—well it's in order. So keep it limited. Don't stray too far. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Thank you Madam Chair. I'm trying to get to the bottom of the mistake. Was it a mistake? Was it a technical mistake or a political mistake or was it a change in policy? And that's what I want to hear from the Minister on. I want her to explain that because as I outlined it seemed that the Government was keen on 75 percent entrenchment and couldn't get that over the line and therefore did vote for 60 percent entrenchment. Was it the case that they were hoping to get away with it and failed and then once it blew up they realised that actually New Zealanders didn't want these sorts of constitutional experimentations and they didn't want to move away from conventions that are well understood and they have back pedalled? They're quite different things. It's not clear at all from everything that's been said from the Attorney-General from the Prime Minister and from the Minister herself as to what actually transpired and I think it's a reasonable thing for the committee to get a better understanding of. So what was the intention? Did she the Minister believe when this was voted for originally—the previous SOP—that she had the support of her party to vote for it? It's a very basic question."