Education Amendment Bill

I know this is a relatively narrow debate. Clauses 1 and 2 relate to the title and commencement date of the Education Amendment Bill. As we consider these clauses, it is important that we consider the title of the legislation, which is the Education Amendment Act 2009. I wonder about the habit of this Committee in relation to truth in legislation. I know that the ACT Party is very much for truth in legislation, but unfortunately we have a bill whose title clause says it will be the Education Amendment Act 2009. I am not sure whether there is a proposal on the part of the Minister of Education—I have looked on the Table and I have found no amendment from the Minister—to amend the title of the bill to the “Education Amendment Act 2010”.

It is worth focusing a little on what has happened here. I think the process at the Education and Science Committee was very good. I say to Allan Peachey that I thought he chaired the select committee well in its consideration of this bill. He got it through that committee in good time. If his work was appreciated even a little bit—well, if his work was appreciated, then he would be the Minister of Education—then I think the bill would have come back to the House and been passed through its remaining stages, and we would have been able to have an Education Amendment Act 2009, but unfortunately it is now 2010.

The other point I make to the senior Government whip is that this bill could have gone through its Committee stage in about 10 minutes. We moved a number of amendments in order to filibuster it. We hoped that the Minister would consider a particular issue and change her mind on it. We have debated Part 2 across some hours in the hope that the Māori Party would focus on it. But a large amount of parliamentary time has been used on a bill that, I think it is fair to say, everyone who understands it and who has considered it carefully, other than the Green Party, is voting for. The bill would have gone through quite quickly and would still have been entitled the Education Amendment Act 2009, as the title clause indicates.

I do not think there is much argument around the commencement date. The legislation comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent. I would be interested, though, in the Minister’s view of the title. Does she propose to put forward a Supplementary Order Paper to correct the title of the bill?

💬 Chris Tremain: Probably not.

She does not? She does not intend to correct it. I have got into a little trouble before for using the word “fib” in the Chamber and associating it with a Minister, but I think—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Do not go there.

No, I am not. But I should say that the House as a whole should not—

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: Committee.

Well, the bill will go back to the House; the Committee will report to the House. We should not be passing a bill that contains an untruth right in the very first or second line. I think that a few things in the bill could have been improved—

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: Has she signed it?

Probably 37 times.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: She signed every line.

Well, we have certainly seen one paper that was like that. I say to my colleague that we wondered why there had been a slight accumulation of paper in the Minister’s office. But now we have seen the results of the Official Information Act request. We see that time after time, even on the same page, this Minister feels an obligation to—in very careful, childish script—sign her name. I presume that it is not a stamp. It might be a stamp; Mike Moore had a stamp. Mike Moore had a stamp that might have been appropriate. I am not absolutely certain whether I can share with members the total detail of that stamp, but I think, Mr Chairman, that as an agricultural gentleman you would appreciate that Mr Moore used a word that was associated with the bovine species. When he received paper from either officials or his caucus colleagues that he disagreed with—

💬 Chris Tremain: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This member is a longstanding member of the House. He began his speech by saying that the debate on the title was a narrow debate, but now he is going on about bovine species, which has nothing to with the title of the bill. I ask you to bring him to order so that we can get on with this particular debate, please.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I just clarify for members that it is in order to say that the bill contains an inaccuracy. To go into matters of bovine species, or to indicate fibs or anything else of that nature, is quite out of order. I ask the member to continue.

On that point, I think the Mayor of Invercargill wrote a book—

💬 Chris Hipkins: That’s right, he did.

He did. He wrote a book. Jellybeans was the second part of its title—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I asked the member to direct his comments towards what is a very tight debate on clauses 1 and 2. I do not think that we need to include the Mayor of Invercargill, fine gentleman though he is.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: What about the next mayor—will the next mayor write a book?

No, she sang a song. I am beginning to wonder, as my colleagues get ready to assist me in this—Mr Hipkins—whether the senior Government whip would have preferred to seek leave to raise the House a little earlier.

I am making a point, and it is a relatively easy point. I would like an assurance that the Minister will take a call on this matter, sort it out, and indicate whether she intends to get the bill cleaned up so that it reflects the truth and is accurate, and so that her lack of diligence in getting this bill through can be corrected in at least a minor way, in order to indicate to the Committee that this legislation is current. If she does not do it, then I am sure that eventually the Clerk’s Office will come along behind her. I am sure that it will sweep up after her, clean up after her, clean the streets, and tidy things up in the way that it normally does for a Minister who makes a mess of things in a bill. It will probably be regarded as a minor technical amendment of the sort that the Clerk’s Office is allowed to correct, maybe with another printing of the bill before the third reading. I think, even if it went through its third reading in its current form, it would be one of those areas where it would be allowable for the Clerk’s Office to change the year, but I am not sure.

Therefore, it is important that we have some assurance from the Minister that the date in the title clause, “This Act is the Education Amendment Act 2009.”, will be corrected in some way. At the moment, it is inaccurate. It cannot possibly be the Education Amendment Act 2009; it can be the Education Amendment Act 2010. It is a relatively easy matter; one would have thought that the Minister could answer it. She could have put a Supplementary Order Paper on the Table. She has indicated that she does not want to take a call on the matter. I would much prefer her to take a call and clarify it. Then we could move on to clause 2, the commencement clause.

I ask the Chairman whether we are debating the two clauses together. We are; that is good. In the next set of calls, I am sure I will be able to get on to that clause. But as she is not taking a call, there continues to be a question. If it is to be the Education Amendment Act 2010, will it be the Education Amendment Act 2010 (No 1)? I understand there is to be another Education Amendment Act 2010. Or is it her intention, when that legislation comes in, to give the subsequent legislation a different name? Will it be called the “Undoing of Zoning Act” or the “Operational Funding for Taking the Top 5 Percent and the Bottom 25 Percent of Kids from School to School Act? Will it be the “Education (Introduction of Vouchers) Amendment Act”? There could be a number of areas.

💬 Hon Anne Tolley: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You have made the point to that member a number of times. He is a very experienced member of the House. This bill has nothing in it about vouchers or zoning. We are debating the first two clauses: the title and the commencement.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The point is upheld. The member should refer to clauses 1 and 2 of this bill.

I am. As I do so, I wonder whether my colleagues are drafting amendments to the bill that make that clear. For example, it could be called the “Education (This Has Nothing to Do with the Introduction of Vouchers) Amendment Bill 2010”.

I move, That the question be now put.

I am very happy to take a call on the Education Amendment Bill 2009, but I am disappointed that the Minister has not risen to her feet to respond to the very legitimate concerns that my colleague Trevor Mallard has raised with regard to the title of the bill. In fact, I look across the Chamber to Mr Allan Peachey, and I am sure that had he been sitting in the chair as the Minister, he would have taken a call and clarified this issue. He would not have let this sloppy process continue: the process of passing an amendment bill dated 2009, despite the fact that we are now nearly through the fourth month of the year, nearly one-third of the way through 2010. I do not think that Allan Peachey would have let the Government get away with that. I think he would have had much higher standards than that. Certainly, that is the feedback I have had from my colleagues who sit on the Education and Science Committee.

I refer in particular to Standing Order 307, “Verbal or formal amendments”, which states: “In preparing the bill for the Royal assent”—which comes under clause 2, the clause stating that this bill will come into force once it has received the Royal assent—“amendments of a verbal or formal nature may be made and clerical or typographical errors may be corrected in any part of the bill by the Clerk.” Would this particular problem that we have raised be a clerical or typographical error, given that it has been brought to the attention of the Committee prior to a vote being taken on clauses 1 and 2? Could the error be regarded as clerical, or simply as a minor or typographical error, if the Committee already knew about it when it voted on it? The issue that my colleague has raised is quite significant.

Is the title appropriate? What would the consequences be if this bill’s title were to be changed to the Education Amendment Bill 2010 only after the Committee had voted on it, knowing that it was voting on something that was not, strictly speaking, correct? Would there be consequences for somebody who then changed that, arguing that the error was clerical or typographical, if in fact, the Committee had known about that problem when it voted on it? There could be some reasonably significant issues with that, so I think it is a shame that the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Education, has not taken the opportunities there. It would be a relatively small amendment. In fact, I could probably talk for the length of time it would take her to handwrite an amendment that we could then vote on; I am happy to keep going in order to give her the time to write an amendment. It will not take her very long—well, it might take her a while, actually. Trevor Mallard has done it, so in fact we can vote on an amendment to change this legislation to the Education Amendment Bill 2010, which would be a very sensible thing to do. We are from the Opposition and we are here to help.

It would be very unwise for this House to go ahead and pass legislation with factual inaccuracies in it right from the very beginning. We are talking about the very first line of the bill. I have to speak for a few more minutes, because Trevor Mallard apparently has to produce six copies of the amendment before we are allowed to vote on it. I will do my best.

I will give it a go by going back to the issue of the Royal assent. The commencement clause states: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” Commencement dates are discussed by select committees quite a lot. I have been involved in all sorts of discussions about when it is appropriate for law to come into effect. The Regulations Review Committee has produced an entire report on that very issue, on the dates when legislation should come into effect. The Regulations Review Committee has made recommendations about making sure that the date when the bill can come into effect is clear within the bill. Of course there is a particular clause relating to a king—I cannot remember which one it was—

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: King James?

No, I do not think it is the King James clause. I cannot remember which king it was, but, basically, the provision says that we should not, where possible, write into the commencement clause of a bill that the bill can come into force on ministerial prerogative, or that there should be some discretion in there. Parliament, ultimately—

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: Is it the Annette King clause?

My colleague is asking whether it is the Annette King clause. I am not sure. I do not want to speculate on that too much; that could be career-limiting for me.

💬 Chris Tremain: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I bring to your attention Standing Order 107(2), which brings into light “the conduct of a member who persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition either of the member’s own arguments or of the arguments used by other members in debate,”. I think we have been through this issue over and over again. It is out of order, I believe. I ask you to stop this member and ask him to desist from doing that.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I was out of the Chamber for about a minute and a half doing some photocopying, but I think we are on only the third call of what is an important issue. I am sorry; I see that Mr Chairman is motioning that we are on the fourth call of an important issue. There really needed to be only one call. If there was an indication that the amendment had been accepted, I am sure we would have had only four or five more calls in order to get through into the next day. I know there is a lot of debate here. I wonder, as we have had no reply from the Minister, what we will do after this—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): No, no. That is not part of the point of order that I was hearing the member speak on.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Well, I—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I ask the member to sit down, please. I am going to overrule the point of order that was raised on this occasion.

I believe that I am the first member in this part of the debate to talk about the commencement, the importance of the commencement date, some of the considerations around it, and alternative commencement dates.

I move that the Speaker be recalled in order to rule on the question of whether the change of date is a clerical error that can be corrected by the Clerk’s Office, or whether an amendment is necessary.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Well, the member has moved that motion, and I am bound to do that. But the member has not asked the Chair for a ruling on that.

I apologise for being premature.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): So what are you intending to do?

The question on which I would like you to rule is whether the changing of the date is a matter of clerical, or administrative, or—I forget the wording under Standing Order 307.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Clerical or typographical.

Yes; whether it is clerical or typographical and can be corrected. I am working on the assumption that it is not. But I would like your opinion and then we can see.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I am happy to say this is not a matter upon which the Chair would normally rule. A bill normally reflects the date of introduction. It is not unusual for a bill to go through its passage and on to the Committee stage while still retaining a date that may be from a previous year—that is not unusual. Standing Order 307 does have that provision, as Mr Hipkins said, and that is when those anomalies are clarified—when the bill is printed. Does the member still want to recall the Speaker?

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. None of us is suggesting that the bill should have been reprinted at this point. I think the question is whether it is automatic as we move to the third reading that we will get a reprint of the bill with the 2010 date in it at that stage, or whether there is the power in the Clerk’s Office to amend the bill on the way to the Royal assent. The Minister has nodded her head at both, and if we had a ruling from someone that that was going to occur, we would have finished here about 25 minutes ago, I think. My question is: is it an automatic process—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Let me respond. It is a normal practice, a standard feature of a bill, that normally it is adjusted when the bill is sent for Royal assent. That is the normal process.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The Hon Trevor Mallard signalled to you about a motion of recall. Could you could advise the Committee at what point in this debate on the title and commencement clauses—which could have been finished a long time ago; I have come down to the House and I am surprised we are still on this, as it should be completed by now—the Minister is able to clear up the whole thing by putting forward an amendment that would guillotine the need for Mr Mallard’s motion? It seems to me that she could stand up and take a 10-second call and say that that is her intention, so at what point do we trigger a situation where the Minister is not able to do that and where Mr Mallard’s motion would stand?

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I have been at pains to point out that this is a normal procedure. The process we are involved in happens not infrequently. Bills are corrected typographically and in every respect before they receive the Royal assent. That is the normal procedure.

I move, That the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I know that I will be testing you a little bit here—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Yes, it looks like it!

—but I have a very quick question I would like you to answer. Were there any other amendments to the bill? I am asking whether the passing of my amendment would require an extra printing of the bill. I would be slightly anxious about incurring any cost to the Crown in that way.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): If there are no amendments to the bill, it will not be reprinted. If any amendments are passed, the bill will be reprinted.

Further to that, can we have an indication about whether the—what is it called—the pre - Royal assent amendment will be done before or after the third reading?

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): My understanding is that if this amendment in your name is passed, the bill will be reprinted before the third reading.

Sorry; that was not the question. It was the other way round—whether the typographical error, if it is an error, can be corrected before the third reading.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I am advised that it is after the third reading.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am not sure now whether I need to seek the leave of the Committee—I certainly do not want to put the Crown to the expense of reprinting this—to withdraw my amendment.

The point that I think has been missed is that the bill has been going through the Committee stage for some weeks, and it is a question of whether there were any amendments to Part 1 or Part 2 of this particular bill. I am not sure whether there were any Minister’s amendments or amendments from the Opposition that affected Part 1 or Part 2.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): There were none.

So the bill is as it stands. So Mr Mallard can withdraw the amendment?

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The question I have is this: do I have the right to withdraw it or do I need to seek leave?

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): You need to seek leave.

I seek leave to withdraw my amendment in order to not put the Crown to cost.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is not. The amendment in that member’s name is withdrawn, and the time has come for me to report progress.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You are in the middle of a closure motion. I think you have to put a vote.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): We have completed the vote on the closure motion, but we have not commenced the next vote. I have to put the question on clause 1, then on clause 2.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. With the time now being after 5 to 6, are you not required to report progress to the House?

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): No, once the voting has been commenced it has to be concluded.