Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill

New clause 10 that is in my name is an important addition to this Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill, because by extending the debate around clause 10 we are trying, essentially, to make sure that students have all the information they need to be members within students associations. It is important, in saying we are putting forward a new clause 10, that the bill gives us the opportunity to ensure that students associations can survive. That has been the concern raised on this side of the Chamber, and it has been accepted by National on the other side of the Chamber, that the bill is not about destroying students associations. So if the bill is not about destroying students associations, then we need to provide a way in which students associations can continue to exist. The new clause 10 I am proposing will insert in the principal Act a new section 229D “Institution to provide association funding”, which states: “Every institution where a student association exists—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): A point here to the member: he is speaking on the wrong new clause 10. The one he needs to be talking about, which is in scope and which I have agreed to have debated, is “Review of Sections 229A to 229CA”—review of sections.

I was not aware, because when you announced the new clause 10, Mr Chairperson, I was not sure which of the excellent new clause 10s we were allowed to debate. This one allows for a review of the changes that have been made, because one of the things we have noted in the past, when changes have been made to membership of students associations, is the use of referenda, and the use of review of provisions after a certain amount of time. This, again, is something that National has previously said was an acceptable thing to have happen with students associations, and this particular clause 10 would allow for reviews of the passing of particular clauses that have previously been in the Act. This allows students to continue to have a voice in how they are organised, because we have to remember that, fundamentally, what the previous clauses we have agreed to in this bill do, is actually take away choice from students. The current clauses that are within this new part have in the past given students the ability to have some control over their affairs, but by removing those clauses and bringing in the new clauses that have been passed, that choice is actually taken away. We have to have the capacity to review those clauses, and to be able to say to students that they have an opportunity in front of them, within 5 years, to see whether the provisions are working, to see what their impact has been on the provision of services, and also to make sure that students have a say.

The new clause 10 that we are debating, as opposed to a future clause 10 that we may debate shortly, requires a review of sections 229A to 229CA, which have been included. Proposed new clause 10(1) states that the Ministry of Education will run this review and that it will be 5 years after the date on which the legislation receives Royal assent. Clause 10(2) states: “The review shall assess the impact of the provisions on students and the tertiary sector in accordance with the terms of reference established in subsection (3).” Proposed new clause 10(3) states: “The terms of reference for the review shall be set out by the Minister of Education.”, and proposed new clause 10(4) states that the Ministry of Education will then report back to the Minister of Education and the Minister for Tertiary Education. This clause is about a 5-year review of this change.

It is important because the evidence we have internationally is that student services disappeared when voluntary student membership arrived—in particular, in Australia. Seventy-five percent of the services provided by students associations disappeared under voluntary membership. That had a huge impact on the experience that students had in their institutions. So the new clause 10 I am proposing would allow for a review, to see the impact of the legislation on students. There has been a lot of debate. We believe that the evidence internationally shows us what the impact will be. But here is the opportunity for the National Government to say: “Alright, we accept that we need to look and see what will happen when this legislation passes. We accept that there could be detrimental effects on students.” National members might try to argue that, in fact, it will be a positive thing for student services. Let us have a review and look at that. That is what new clause 10 does. I suggest that after 5 years is a good length of time to be able to do that.

Now that I am on the right clause there are a few more points to make. It may well be that some of the impacts of this bill will not appear immediately. Students associations may well be able to survive for a period of time, based on their reserves, in an attempt to try to attract some members. It is, perhaps, difficult to do that at the start of a calendar year. The impact will emerge over a period of several years, and what this clause does is allow for a review after 5 years from when the legislation receives its Royal assent. It is important we do this, because what is being done tonight will effectively change the nature of student experiences right across the tertiary sector. It is no small thing. It is not, as some would say, just a technical change that allows students the freedom to do whatever they want; it fundamentally will undermine the experience of students in tertiary institutions.

We have already heard tonight from Te Ururoa Flavell about the action that is being taken by Te Mana Ākonga. Te Mana Ākonga is addressing a very specific matter, which is the role that the Māori students associations on campuses and at a national level play in the experience of Māori students. Not every student arriving at a tertiary institution is in the same place. Not every student arriving at a tertiary institution knows what will happen to them when they are there. I know from my time in students associations, and in more recent times from working in the tertiary education area, that the strength of Māori students associations and, indeed, of some other student groups that help support groups within tertiary institutions is the key to the success of those students. Having a body of students that is able to support other students of the same ethnicity or in the same experience group has made a real difference to the lives of those students. So the change that is being made tonight merits a review clause of this type, because it is a significant change. It is a change that will affect the very well-being of students who attend tertiary institutions. I think the issues that Te Mana Ākonga is raising within its claim about what kind of experience students from different backgrounds have when they come into a tertiary environment are very, very legitimate. Students associations over the years have worked very hard to be able to provide support to those students.

It is also the same with international students. There is a different experience again for international students coming into a foreign environment and not only not always understanding exactly how the institution works but also not understanding the customs and the interactions that they are not familiar with that go on between students. Students associations have provided a vehicle for that, and it is a significant vehicle. It is also the other services that students associations have created over the years. Student Job Search was essentially created by students associations and on the initiative of students associations. The very existence of things like Student Job Search has made the difference to some students being able to stay and finish their studies.

The changes that are being proposed tonight in this bill fundamentally alter the experience of many students, and the legislation deserves a review that will take into account what has happened if this bill passes. As I say, all the evidence we know about from overseas is that the legislation will be detrimental, but in New Zealand we need to see it for what it really is and for the impact it will really have on students.

The other part of the clause is about exactly who will be doing this review. It should be the Ministry of Education. The ministry will be impartial and will not take into the review any baggage around the past activities of students associations. That is not politicising the review; it is saying that the Ministry of Education will look at the legislation. There is an important point in that. The Ministry of Education should do the review, because what students associations do is support the educational outcomes of students. This is a very important signal to be given that actually what students associations do is about educational outcomes. There has been a lot of talk in this debate about unions and about why if we do not have compulsory unionism outside of the tertiary sector we should have it inside. It is because that is a fundamental misunderstanding of what students associations are. They are democratic bodies of students who make the choice to be students and at that point become part of a greater whole, which is the student body. By law, since, as Mr Shearer said earlier, the late 1950s and early 1960s we have made the decision—

If National and ACT members actually believe the rhetoric they have been espousing during the debate on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill—if they actually believe what they have been saying—they will be voting in favour of Grant Robertson’s proposed new clause 10, “Review of Sections 229A to 229CA”. They have argued that if the bill is passed, all of the services, all of the representation, and all of the things that we on this side of the Committee have argued will be at risk are, in fact, not at risk and will still continue to be provided.

They will, therefore, be quite happy to have a review in 5 years’ time and demonstrate all of those things. They will be quite happy for the Ministry of Education to take the politics out of it and to review it and say “Yes, this service is still being provided, this service is gone, and this is the way institutions are choosing to manage student representation.”, or that student representation has disappeared altogether. An independent review—and I think the Ministry of Education would be sufficiently independent—would establish whether the rhetoric being put forward by National and ACT members is true or whether it has simply been a move by them to remove from the political process and the democratic process organisations that have in the past been very vocally opposed to many of the changes they have tried to make. I would certainly argue the latter, whereas they have argued the former.

The reason I would argue that is if we look at the limited experience we have had in New Zealand of voluntary students association membership—and it has been limited because overwhelmingly when students have been given the choice as to whether they have a voluntary or a universal system of students association membership, they have opted for the universal system—we see that many of the services previously offered have disappeared. At Waikato University, the students lost just about everything, so much so that they opted to go back to a compulsory system because the students at that institution valued those services and wanted to see them restored.

I think there is a really good cause to say that if we pass this bill today, in 5 years’ time we should reflect on it. As a matter of fact, I think that as a broader principle for the House in general, it would be very useful for us to review much of the legislation that we pass 5 years after enactment, to consider whether the laws are working in the way they were intended to or whether the House needs to reconsider them. I think it is probably quite good practice for Parliament to make sure that laws are reviewed regularly to determine whether they have had the desired effect. I do not think anybody should be afraid of this amendment. I think that if National and ACT members believe the things they have been arguing through the debate of this bill, then they will be very happy to support this new clause.

What the new clause would do is allow the Ministry of Education to report to the Minister of Education and the Minister for Tertiary Education, with the terms of reference for the review set out by the Minister of Education. The review would assess the impact of the provisions on students and the tertiary sector, in accordance with the terms of reference that would be established. I guess it is important to note that this review would be 5 years after the date on which the bill receives the Royal assent. We are not talking about something that would come into effect straight away. It would allow a period of time for the claims that have been made by the people proposing this bill to be tested. A review would allow students, the institutions, and other interested parties to have a say on whether the claims made by National and ACT were, in fact, true, or whether they were misguided, as I think they must be.

It would also allow the consideration of evidence from international jurisdictions. There is probably more evidence from Australia on the impact of voluntary student membership than there is in New Zealand. Like I say, the New Zealand experience in universities has been relatively limited to simply the association at Waikato University, which has gone back to a universal system of membership, and the association at Auckland University, which built up a very large asset base under a compulsory membership system. That is one of the things that has helped that association get through, despite having voluntary membership. It would be interesting in this review to consider, for example, the respective positions that students associations go into the voluntary system in. Some of the university students associations have very large asset bases.

The associations at Canterbury University and Auckland University have large bodies of assets and large cash flows from trading operations with which they will go into this voluntary regime; others, such as the association at Victoria University, go into it with very few assets and, therefore, the impact of a voluntary system on them may be significantly greater. They will lose their revenue very quickly. They do not have trading activities to support them that they can continue to cross-subsidise from. A review in 5 years’ time would allow those impacts to be assessed. Although I am very strongly in favour of this amendment by Grant Robertson, he probably should have given us a few options. Rather than a 5-year review, it would have been useful to have some options as to whether it should be after a year, 2 years, or 5 years. I strongly contend that for the associations that I have mentioned that have a very low asset base and no trading activities, the impact will be quite immediate. For the associations that have a large asset base and have built up large reserves, the impact will potentially be felt in the longer term.

One of the things that a review after 1 year would do is assess how associations that have built up those large asset bases and large reserves have behaved, and what they have put those assets towards. One of the things I am a little concerned about—it has not actually been touched on much at all in the debate—is the potential under a voluntary system for asset stripping of the students associations once they become voluntary. It is quite possible that when we move from a system where membership of these associations is totally universal to one where a very small number of students could effectively take over a students association, they could asset-strip them, spend the money however they choose to, change the constitutions of those organisations, and spend up the money at large and not necessarily for the purposes for which it was originally collected. This bill does not make any provision for that. That is one of the reasons why I think it is very important that there be some systematic form of review. In fact, I argue that 5 years is too long to wait to do that.

We are not talking about inconsiderable sums of money; it is in the millions for some of the larger university students associations. They have assets and reserves in the millions, and there is no protection of those once this bill passes. There are no transitional measures that mandate, for example, any democratic process or any protection in terms of what happens to those assets once these organisations become voluntary. That has not been canvassed in the debate by any Government member or by the member proposing the bill. I am genuinely concerned about that. These assets have been built up over a number of years.

In the case of my old students association, the Victoria University of Wellington Students Association, it has been in existence for about 110 years—maybe 111 years, I think—and a lot of assets have been built up over that period of time. A lot of interests have been built up over that period of time that are not immediately tangible assets, and we potentially need to think about how they would be transitioned to a voluntary membership environment. For example, the student union building at Victoria University does not belong to the students association, because the students association, in its benevolence, gifted it to the institution, but the association continues to have a significant interest in that building. That is based, of course, on the current settings where all students are members of that association. What happens to the beneficial interest in that building that the students association currently has when it no longer represents all of the students at the institution? How will the institution manage that? There is no mention of that in this bill, and no systematic process is set up in this bill for addressing those issues.

I think that is a good justification for there being a fairly thorough and comprehensive review of it. Again, I argue that 5 years is too late, but at least after 5 years we would be able to establish where some of the money has gone if, in fact, it has disappeared. At the moment it is quite possible that the money will disappear and we will never hear anything more of it, because there will be no review to determine where the money has gone. I am very concerned about the significant asset base that these associations have built up, about how they could potentially be abused, and about the fact that this bill does not make any provision whatsoever for dealing with that issue.

So a review after 5 years—as set out in new clause 10, proposed by my colleague Grant Robertson—is a very prudent and sensible move, and I think that National and ACT would be very well advised to vote in favour of this provision. It is a sensible provision and it will not delay the progress of the bill.

I also support the amendment put forward by Grant Robertson, for similar reasons to those that Chris Hipkins was just talking about. I think we need to look at two things here. First of all, the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill is a contentious one. Over the last decade and a half we have swung backwards and forwards between voluntary and compulsory membership. A review of that, a review of the way that the bill is progressing and the way that the students associations are actually faring under this new regime, would be a good thing to institutionalise within the context of the bill with the addition of new clause 10. Of course, if and when we have the next Labour Government, we will probably bring forward the review much sooner than 5 years. We will probably look at putting in place robust and enduring legislation that would perhaps depoliticise this particular issue and enable the students associations to carry on and do what they are supposed to do, which is to continue to provide the services and advocacy they have been providing up to today.

But if we were to have a review, and if it were to happen every 5 years, we would want that review to look at a number of different aspects. First of all, what services were being provided at that time versus the services that were being provided 5 years before? If we look at the experience of both the Australian situation and what has happened at universities in New Zealand, we sort of know what will happen. We will see a degradation of services, we will see services taken over by the universities, and we will see the universities charging students for the continuation of those services. We will see the universities not only charging students but then contracting back many of those services to the students associations, which have been running those services for many, many years, and we will see students paying a levy but not having the opportunity to have representation in relation to what money is going to them and how that levy is being set. That is one aspect of a review of this area that I would certainly welcome.

We could also look at some of the services that the students associations are taking an active role in right now. We, as New Zealanders, have an active interest in making sure those services continue. One, for example, is Student Job Search, and the job search and careers advice that is being provided to ensure that our students go on to be productive members of, and enormous contributors to, the workforce of New Zealand.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Before we broke for dinner I was looking at the amendment that Grant Robertson has put to the Committee to insert a new clause 10 into the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. His thinking around this, as he explained it, was that after a period of 5 years—and I think the period is arguable, but, anyway, that is what it says—we would look to review sections 229A to 229CA. That would mean that we go back to the whole concept of whether to have a voluntary students association or to make it compulsory. Actually, I do not like the word “compulsory”, because it is compulsory to join up, but if students want to opt out, there is the option to opt out, as many other speakers have talked about before. But this review would look at the applicability of the bill we are looking at tonight 5 years down the track. My personal preference would have been a series of options—rather than 5 years, perhaps 1 year, 2 years, 3 years. I think 5 years is a long time, and in the course of that time an extraordinary amount of damage could be done to students associations.

The important thing here is what exactly the review would cover. If we look at the legislation 5 years down the track, we will probably want to compare the services available from the university that students accept and enjoy right now with the services being provided in 5 years’ time; to look at the advocacy that happens now versus what is happening in 5 years’ time. I guess the question in terms of services is whether the services are being provided by the students associations or actually by the universities. What has happened in pretty much every case where a bill of this nature has been brought in—in Australia in particular—is that the students associations effectively have collapsed, and the actual universities themselves have picked up the costs of some of the services, but not necessarily the complete menu of services that were being provided beforehand. So the universities, in effect, were having to charge levies, were having to charge students for those costs. In my mind that would be the No. 1 issue if we were to review this legislation. I think it is a good thing to do; all legislation should be reviewed. Perhaps putting in a clause with a compulsory review in 5 years’ time is quite a good idea.

The second part is looking at the students associations and seeing what services they provide to the students; not those services that are found around the outside of the universities—the counselling, health, and various other cultural and sporting services, all those sorts of services, which I think will end up suffering under this bill—but the type of thing students associations are doing to improve teaching and improve the various aspects of university life within the classroom. I know after going to Unitec, the polytech in my electorate, and talking to the students association, that it has an extraordinarily good programme that actually rates the quality of the teaching. That is not terribly comfortable for a lot of the lecturers and teachers, I have to say. It is not a terribly popular thing. But the chief executive officer of Unitec agreed that it go ahead, and pretty much everybody accepts that it has lifted the quality of the teaching and lifted the quality of the tuition within Unitec’s various lecture theatres, classrooms, labs, and other places. So students associations are not there to offer just the health, counselling, sporting, cultural, radio—or whatever—services that people have talked about; they are making a substantive difference to the quality of the tuition and teaching that is happening within the classroom, as well.

It would be good to look at the management of student services. This is something that I know Heather Roy has talked about before. I agree with her that some of the student services that have been offered and some of the student management that has happened in some of the universities and many of the polytechs have simply not been up to scratch. Fairly young students with perhaps very little management experience are asked to manage large amounts of money on behalf of the student body, and I agree that the management of that money and the way that it is accounted for is something we should look into and something we can improve. I think the university students associations—certainly, the national body—are in agreement with that.

Lastly, I would say that the review might want to look at the way that the different institutions vary amongst each other. The students association in a large body such as Otago University might be somewhat different from that in a small polytech or even a private training establishment in the way that it functions.

I move, That the question be now put.

Taloha ni, Mr Chair, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on clause 10 of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. I, like my colleague David Shearer, want to focus on the amendment—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Name-dropper!

Tau Henare—how is that for name-dropping! I would like to focus on the amendment put forward by Grant Robertson—yet another name we have dropped—that will see a new clause 10 put into this bill, to ensure a review of the voluntary student membership legislation after 5 years.

I would like to support some earlier contributions that were made by Te Ururoa Flavell from the Māori Party around his concerns for Māori students with the passing of this bill. I also say that I have some serious concerns around the effects of this bill on Pacific Island students. I know that both Māori and Pacific Island students have heavily relied on the students association at the polytech in my electorate, Whitireia Community Polytechnic. I know that it has had a chequered past in the last couple of years with its finances. I know that Don Campbell, the chief executive, may be watching, and I know that he holds a different ideological position from me and that he is a supporter of the voluntary student membership bill. I think that this move by the Government, in particular by ACT, which is seen to be the tail wagging the dog in this instance, will have serious adverse effects on both Pacific and Māori students at Whitireia Community Polytechnic.

The 5-year review will look at how this bill, which may become law very soon, will have an effect on student services, and I am very concerned about the effect it will have on what the students associations provide for their students, such as the cultural aspects, pastoral care, academic support, and sporting support. After 5 years the big question that will be asked is what has happened. We do not have to look too far to find out what the experience will be. As David Shearer pointed out in his contribution, since voluntary student membership was passed in Australia in 2005, in subsequent years we have seen some serious degradation in the services for students at their tertiary institutions. Essentially, the associations have collapsed, and the services available to students have drastically reduced. In many cases a user-pays system has been introduced at the tertiary institutions across the Tasman. At the moment, that can have only a negative effect for Māori and Pacific Island students, who are struggling, as it is, just to get into tertiary education. If they are forced to pay even more for the services that are being provided under the current regime, that will have a seriously negative effect on the tertiary experience of many Māori and Pacific Island students. As we have seen across the Tasman, this has disadvantaged a lot of those students who come from lower socio-economic backgrounds.

Unfortunately, a lot of tertiary institutions have had to take on some of the functions, the services, and the assets that previously have been provided by students associations and operated by students associations. In effect, although the ACT Party said that this bill will make things much easier for students, that it would give them choice, that it would give them freedom, and that it is about democracy, it will actually put the burden of the services and any assets that have fallen on those students associations fairly and squarely on the institutions. That means that taxpayers will be burdened with more costs in the long run. As we have said, tertiary institutions across the Tasman have taken on more of this burden, and this has resulted in many unpopular decisions being made, such as elite sports teams being funded at the expense of social sports teams. There has been a noticeably large price increase in campus services, and, again, that will be a disadvantage for many lower socio-economic groups of students.

There has been an increase in the price of campus services and an increase in the number of campus services activities being outsourced to private sector firms. In the past, we have had the student spirit behind making sure a lot of these services are provided to students at a pretty reasonable rate, a pretty cheap rate, but we will now find the private sector coming in and saying that it can provide that service at a profit. Of course, that comes at a price.

We have also noticed that across the Tasman a thousand jobs were lost in the student services area. There is one instance that I am concerned about—

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. I thank my colleague from Mana, Kris Faafoi, for speaking just prior to myself. Kia kaha, bro. I was not going to come to the Chamber to speak to the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill, but I heard the kōrero from the Māori Party while I was up in my office and I just had to come down. The reason why is that when I heard the Māori Party talking about Māori politicians getting in behind this Treaty claim, I shook my head.

I shook my head because I have been talking to Māori students. I met with them at their annual wānanga just last week, and they told me that the only reason they had to put in a Treaty claim was that they came to the Minister of Māori Affairs, who is also an Associate Minister with responsibility for Māori education, to get assistance with this issue, the review of the provisions. They came to ask for his support for this kaupapa, to ensure that Māori rights would be recognised under the terms of the provisions of the clause that we are considering now—the review of the provisions.

💬 Louise Upston: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. My point of order relates to relevance to this amendment to the clause.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Ms Upston. I have urged the member to refer to the review.

I did actually refer to the review of the provisions that apply at a 5-yearly term. I heard the Māori Party talk about the fact that this needs to go before the Waitangi Tribunal and whether Māori politicians should be lining up against this bill and in support of the claim to the tribunal, because that claim is also about the review of the provisions and when that review should take place. In the students’ view, the review should be taking place immediately. Also, the students said to me that the reason why the claim has gone in is that there was no support from the Minister and no support from the Māori Party. When I look at this report from the Education and Science Committee, I see a minority report from Labour and I see a minority report from the Greens. I have heard a lot of talk from the Māori Party, but it never bothered to put it in the committee’s report at all. Clearly, there is no sense that the Māori Party opposes this bill. It certainly is not in this committee report.

When we asked the students themselves about this review of the provisions, they were particularly concerned that they would have to wait for 5 years, instead of those provisions being reviewed immediately. Hence the reason why this claim has gone in. They see no support from the Māori Party or from the Minister for students to take action. They see no stand taken by the Minister or the Māori Party in defence of Māori rights and the review of these provisions.

💬 Te Ururoa Flavell: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I find it interesting that Mr Harawira is making accusations with regard to the Māori Party on this particular clause, when he was not here at the beginning of the vote.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No, that is a debatable issue. Not only that, but the member has been here long enough to know that he cannot refer to the absence of a member. Every member, at one stage or another, has to be absent from the House because they have other duties. It is against Speakers’ rulings to refer to the absence of a member. I call Hone Harawira and ask him please to refer to the review.

In the review of the provisions of this particular bill there has been no support from the Māori Party or from the Minister—

💬 Te Ururoa Flavell: Rubbish.

There has been no call for a special Treaty case for Māori students at all. I think the member on that side of the Chamber knows that. There is nothing mana-enhancing in this particular clause. There is nothing in this committee report. In fact, in terms of the review of these provisions, there is nothing in this bill but a roll-over by the Māori Party and their Minister to allow ACT and National to crush Māori development and Māori—

💬 Chris Tremain: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I bring your attention to Standing Order 107 covering relevancy. You have brought Mr Harawira to attention on two occasions up until now. You have asked him to speak specifically to the clause at hand. He has failed to do that on two occasions. Under Standing Order 107(2) you have the ability to terminate his speech, and I ask you to do that now.

Speaking to the point of order, on every occasion, every minute or so, I have always referred to the review of the provisions, which is what we are discussing tonight. At no stage have I allowed 60 seconds to go past without specifically referring to the review of the provisions in this bill.

💬 Hon Rick Barker: Mr Chair, I make two points to you. First, you will note that there has been quite an amount of interjecting on the honourable member Hone Harawira, and on a number of occasions he has responded to the interjections and the disorderly behaviour on that side of the Chamber. Second, saying that you are allowing this member to speak outside the scope of the bill is in actual fact implying that you are allowing this debate to be held outside the provisions of the Standing Orders—that you are allowing the Standing Orders to be broken. I do not think that is right. I think you have a very good handle on this issue, and if you were in any way concerned I am sure you would have brought the member back to order. I say that I am very happy with the way you have been chairing the debate tonight.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member. I say to all members that the member has only a few seconds left to speak, and the member will refer to just the review. It is clause 10 as amended and put in place by the honourable member Grant Robertson.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. Party vote, Mana.

I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question that the question be now put.

I remind members that there are to be no comments at all during the taking of a vote. It can be seen as intimidation, which means that it can appear as a breach of privilege.