Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to speak to the enablement date of this bill. In this contribution, I’d like to raise several points. I’d like to suggest that, at a minimum, the first enablement date be the end of 2020, and I’ll make the arguments for that, and, in the second instance, the end of 2022 may be even more suitable.

In the first instance, to talk to the haste that this bill is progressing and that these clauses talk to when they’ll bring it into law. This is reckless haste, frankly—reckless haste. If we look at most of the submissions from the polytechnic sector, somewhere in their submissions, everyone said, “This is hurried”. The industry training organisations said the same. This is far too hurried, and I’m making the case that this is reckless haste. In fact, if we look at that independent body, the Office of the Auditor-General, they also had concerns. They had concerns for the timing of the schedule, and, indeed, expressed some doubt whether the espoused objectives could be achieved in the time frame that had been mentioned.

We heard the Minister Chris Hipkins talk about the risks that are outlined in the programme business case, and look to allay fears that “Yes, but then the mitigations reduce those risks.” Well, one of the risks was that the schedule was not achievable. This clause does not mitigate that risk; it perpetuates it. Surely, if the hurried nature is being pointed out in the programme business case and the risks around it, then the mitigation is to slow it down. So I’d point to the Minister’s own words and his own actions—from his own team, so this is from Treasury; if we go across the programme business case, the regulatory impact assessment, this is a combination of panels from Treasury, from the Ministry of Education, and from the Tertiary Education Commission all saying that there is a risk that the schedule will unbuckle the objectives that the Minister is trying to achieve.

So the first proposal that I have, to change the timing from what is stated in these clauses, is to have the bill enabled at the end of 2020. Now, I say that for two things. A key factor here is that currently as it reads—and I’ve mentioned it before—there’s a break in the financial year. So the first three months, we have one set of financial statements, and then the next nine months, we have a second set of financial statements, and we hope to heck that under the Public Finance Act we’re going to be able to bring these together in some comparable way, because that’s what we need with financial statements. We need to be able to compare year to year to year, not year to three months plus nine months—that doesn’t actually help us.

So I’d ask the Minister to consider, at least, ridding ourselves of that anomaly and the risks going with that or, furthermore, tell us what the cost is going to be of that single action. What are the costs going to be to revalue every single institute of technology and polytechnic? What is the cost to having a three months plus a nine months financial or aggregated set of financial statements? I don’t imagine that is going to be cheap.

So, firstly, if we were to have an enablement of the bill in these clauses changed to the end of 2020, we wouldn’t break a financial year. We could still have comparable data year on year.

Secondly, if this is good, if this is the answer and the solution to our vocational education sector, take it to the campaign trail. Get a mandate from New Zealanders in September, and then at the end of the year 2020, you’re good to go. If this is so good, take it to the campaign trail. That would be another advantage of having this bill enabled at the end of 2020. I would still make the case that these clauses bring in a lot of haste; more haste than there needs to be. That would still be very hurried, in my view.

Those in the sector that I speak to think that there are several years in this. They’ve looked back at when the teachers colleges were amalgamated into their current form, how that was over several years—in fact, a number of them have said, “Look what happened there”. Contestably, it either went right or it went wrong but that took many, many years to get to the position we are today, where they may or may not—again, contestably—be suitable. That was over several years. Look at the costs that it took.

So I think we should draw on that. Let’s not reinvent the wheel. If this is going to work, if we think it’s going to work, let’s change these clauses, and let’s say 2022 as a start date. I think the sector would take a big breath. But, again, I’d come back to the two options that I’m suggesting the Minister speak to: the first, take it to the end of 2020, get rid of this whole broken financial year, take it to the campaign trail; secondly, a more thorough deployment, more likely to succeed—if it’s going to succeed—would be 2022. I’d ask the Minister to speak to those matters.

I am very happy to speak to the issue of the pace at which the Government is moving. There is no question that we are moving at pace with regard to these reforms. There is, of course, a risk of moving more slowly, of stagnation, and also of prolonged decline, effectively, because some of the institutes of technology and polytechnics (ITPs) and some of the industry training organisations (ITOs) have actually been clear that if we are going to go ahead and do this—and the Government has indicated we are intending to go ahead and do this—actually, they risk losing staff, they risk losing the employers who are currently engaged in training, if there is too much uncertainty over too long a period of time.

In fact, we constructed this in a way that there is some flex in the way that the reforms are implemented. So if you look at the ITP sector—the polytech sector—most immediately they become subsidiaries, and most immediately that’s about the only thing that changes for them. So they’ll continue to function much as they do now on 1 April as they were at the end of March. So there is then a transition period that spans over several years where the Opposition, if they wish to campaign on a different approach, will have that opportunity to put that to the electorate. Of course, we will be putting to the electorate these proposals; the Opposition will have an opportunity to propose a different approach, and the transition timetables, of course, will give them some ability to do that.

With regard to workforce development councils and the establishment of workforce development councils, the ITO sector has been very, very clear that the longer this takes, the higher the risk of losing employers and the higher the risk of having fewer apprentices being taken on. In fact, some of the ITOs are going so far as to say that the transition that we’re engaged in at the moment is already taking too long, and, in fact, they want to move at much greater pace.

With regard to the technical issue around part-year reporting, officials have been working very closely with the Office of the Auditor-General to make that process as unbureaucratic and as seamless as possible so that it doesn’t create undue compliance burden on the ITPs as they move from being independent entities to being subsidiary entities. I can give the member the reassurance that that work has been progressing very well.

Thank you, Madam Chair. There are issues here of the integrity of our parliamentary and democratic process, and there are also issues of the public interest that means this Parliament should support the very good amendments that have been put forward by Shane Reti.

The first of those that my colleague Mr Reti has made is that the Government has no political mandate for this change. You’re looking at an institution in my own area, 115 years old, that has over 400 staff, that has 4,000 students, and not a single Labour member had the courage to tell those people that if Labour was the Government, we would lose our independent polytechnic. I contrast that with the approach that was taken by John Key and the previous National Government. We had the challenge—and it was a big controversy—over the mixed-ownership model. What we said was that we would put it to the people, that we would not proceed with the mixed ownership—big change with Air New Zealand and the power companies—until the people had the right to have a say.

So I’m saying: why is it that members on the Labour benches are not prepared to support the amendments that will let New Zealanders have a say on such a fundamental reform to some of our most important public institutions? And then I want to put this question: the coalition agreement has this to say: the coalition Government is committed to relocating Government functions to the regions. Is that what we’re doing with this bill, I say to my friends across the Chamber in New Zealand First? Are we relocating functions to the regions? No, we’re not. We’re taking off every one of the regions and centralising the control of our polytechs. This is exactly the opposite of what New Zealand First said—and not just what New Zealand First said but what Labour said in the coalition agreement. I say this is morally repugnant for the Government to be legislating exactly against what it said it would do in relocating functions to the regions. And then I say this: if we want to make sure we’re making decisions in the public interest, imagine the disruption for the sector that we go through this huge reform and then there’s a change of Government in September—and that will be for the public to decide—and then we have to undo it all. How does that serve the public interest?

National is absolutely committed that if we are the Government, the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology (NMIT) will be an independent institution controlled by the people of Nelson, rather than what Mr Little wants—and it’s not surprising Mr Little has never won a provincial seat and has been rejected time and time again by voters, because he does not understand the interests and the locality importance of local interests.

The last point I would make is to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Hipkins. I was disappointed that with flights being delayed I was not able to participate in the earlier debate. It was fascinating for me that I sat on the plane next to a guy who’s in the scaffolding industry and, from the moment we sat on the runway in Nelson, he spent over half an hour telling me how awful these reforms were, how bad they were for the scaffolding industry, that we have seen a decline in the number of people in that very practical industry of apprentices as a consequence of this reform, and that is repeated over and over again by industries all over New Zealand. And that’s why I say to this Parliament, support Shane Reti’s amendment; let the public decide. There’s a very clear choice. Members on this side of the House say that regions should be able to have their own locally controlled polytechnic, and they shouldn’t be taken over by some massive Government department.

The last point I have to make is this: my local polytechnic met with me earlier this year. You know what their big worry was? This reform is resulting in the loss already of a significant number of NMIT’s best staff. And my chief executive expressed very real concern about that.

💬 Hon Andrew Little: Oh, your chief executive?

Quite the opposite—the chief executive of the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology and many others are saying if you’re worried about the loss of staff, let’s put it to the country. A very clear choice on a policy of which Mr Little and his colleagues never had the courage to tell the electorate: that they would be robbing regional New Zealand of control of their local polytechnics, and that’s why this reform should not come into effect until the public have had a say through the ballot box.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Earlier this afternoon, I hadn’t anticipated that I would be—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Just a reminder—sorry to interrupt—but just to remind everyone, I did indicate to Dr Smith that we’re on the “Title”, “Commencement”, and “Principal Act”. It’s not a general debate; it’s title, commencement, and principal Act. I call the Hon Tim Macindoe.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I was simply going to indicate that I hadn’t anticipated taking a call in the title and commencement debate, but I wanted to explain the reason why I am doing so. And that is primarily because this is a very significant measure, which has huge implications for the tertiary education and the industry training sector and huge implications by extension to the New Zealand economy.

This afternoon, on regular occasions, I sought a second call. I had spoken once. I sought a second call including, as I had foreshadowed in my first call, the opportunity, I hoped, to speak in favour of my own Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). I never got that opportunity, and while listening to the Green member Chlöe Swarbrick take the sole call for the Green Party, I heard her make the comment that we had had plenty of debate and therefore there was no need for any further debate, we could move on—or words to that effect. At that point, I interjected to Ms Swarbrick that her party had only taken the one call, as she’d just indicated, and, in fact, apart from the Minister, there had been no other Government parties’ speakers at all. That, in my view, did not indicate anything like sufficient debate.

So when I interjected, I heard from Ms Swarbrick that I was apparently filibustering. I took great offence at that, because not to be able to speak to my own SOP was hardly a case of filibustering but, just as Dr Smith has so eloquently argued, it was, in my view, a denial of my right and my responsibility as the member of Parliament for Hamilton West, in whose electorate the two campuses of Wintec are located, to be able to push their case to be exempted.

So I am speaking now in this title and commencement phase strongly in support of Dr Reti’s proposed amendment. I don’t actually agree with his suggestion that we should go for the earlier date of the end of this year, 2020, because, of course, it’s a very busy year that will be interrupted by the election campaign and people’s focus will be not only on the general election but also the referenda that we are considering. I don’t therefore believe that that is sufficient time whatsoever.

I am, however, strongly supporting his alternative suggestion that the date of implementation or of enactment should be deferred until the end of 2022. As has already been noted, that will give all of us as parliamentarians the opportunity to campaign on that, and other candidates from outside Parliament at the moment the opportunities to front up to the institutes and the industry training organisations in their electorates, find out what is felt there, get a grasp of the issues, then go out to the wider public and argue for or against.

Now, if this bill, which has had such inadequate debate in this Chamber today, is then rushed through and enacted at the end of this year, I believe we will be doing a great disservice to the public of New Zealand and in particular to the polytechnics, who are the subject of this very important measure. Now, I acknowledge that the Minister took a few calls latterly. He is a very articulate and measured speaker, but I was very disappointed that he glossed over many of the important questions that he was asked, including three that I put to him—none of which he answered. So again, I would suggest that there has not been sufficient debate.

This is our only opportunity in this House to give really detailed consideration to the specific aspects of this legislation. I don’t believe that we have had it. Therefore, I am arguing strongly that the very least we can do is defer the date of enactment to ensure that, if necessary, the 52nd Parliament and its members have a chance to consider this measure in greater detail with greater engagement from members across the House, rather than the very one-sided debate that we have had today, and I don’t believe that that is unreasonable.

As Dr Smith noted before, we have a precedent in the way that the previous Government, led by Sir John Key, dealt with the mixed-ownership model for State electricity companies and the part share in Air New Zealand. That was a matter of considerable public importance and concern; so is this. And I hope very much that even at this late stage, the members opposite will see the reasonableness of that particular case, and instead of just moving closure motions, which is all most of them have chosen to do all afternoon, they would engage in the substantive nature of this debate, in particular as to the implications of rushing this through by the end of this year, which I consider to be deeply undesirable and unfair.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the title and commencement of the Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill.

I’d like to propose an alternative name for this bill rather than the one that it currently has, because I don’t believe it reflects the true nature of what this bill will do. The name that I would like to propose is the “Education (Mega Polytechnic) Bill”, because I believe that more accurately defines actually what this bill does. This bill will make one mega polytechnic for all of New Zealand. It will gut our regions of their regional polytechs. It will gut their assets. It will centralise them. And, as has been said very clearly by prior speakers, this is going against the nature of the coalition agreement, which said that we would protect regional jobs. Well, I guess the question that I have is: what’s in the secret coalition agreement? Because there must be something in there.

This bill grabs money from the regional polytechnics. We’ve heard the Eastern Institute of Technology has $30 million in cash reserves—money which they have built up over many years by prudent financial management, which will be taken by this mega polytechnic and which will then be decided how it’s spent by the mega polytechnic.

We’ve heard of the resources which have been given by the community, the land which has been gifted to help create these institutions for the training of people in those regions. That will be taken and given to the mega polytechnic for them to decide how it is to be spent, and what’s to be done with those assets, and whether those assets should be rationalised.

We also know that this change will take the power from the regions and centralise the power into a central organisation, rather than allowing regions to be able to prioritise what they want to do in their local area.

So I think the title which I’m proposing, the mega polytechnic, is a much better reflection of what this bill actually does, because you look at all of the things which this bill does: what courses, where, and how they are made. At the moment, it’s the local polytechnic. They’re the ones who are able to make those decisions. Now it’s going to be part of the mega polytechnic.

Academic freedom—the local polytech currently has academic freedom. That now gets brought and it’s part of the mega polytechnics’ responsibility, without the full academic freedom rights being delegated down to any subsidiaries.

Community involvement—currently, decisions are made by local councils. All decisions are now going to be made centrally by the mega polytechnic, at the head office.

Cash reserves which are currently spent on local needs—the decision will be made by the mega polytechnic as to what those cash reserves will be spent on. Any capital projects—currently, it’s the local polytechnic which decides what capital projects are to be done. Any of the subsidiaries, they will have to go cap in hand to ask whether they’re allowed to do any of those decisions, any of those capital works that they want. They’ll have to ask whether it’s within their delegated decision-making, or if not, they’ll have to go cap in hand to the mega polytech to be able to make those decisions.

In terms of who sits on those regional boards, well, we’re going to have a mega polytechnic with the Minister having full control over who is going to be sitting on the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology board. This bill is incorrectly named. The Minister might think that he’s reforming the vocational education and training area, but what he’s actually doing, if you look at the Tertiary Education Commission report, is he’s going to make things worse. We’re going to see a high likelihood of workforce disruption, with an extreme impact. We’re going to see a reduction in participation in vocational education, with a major impact on our economy. We aren’t going to see the needs of industry and employers met by this mega polytechnic, and that’s going to have an extreme impact on our economy. I ask all members to vote for what this bill should be titled, “The Education (Mega Polytechnic) Bill”.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s nice to actually get a chance to speak on this bill. I haven’t had an opportunity, even though I tried to take the call, because I had an amendment, but unfortunately, that wasn’t allowed for during the general debate. So thank you, and I’m very grateful that you’ve kept the telephone lines open between you and the floor.

The issue I want to talk about is this issue about the implementation date, because I think it is an issue around the practicality of what’s been proposed. This, by any standards, is a massive organisational transformation and change. What we’re talking about is not only the creation of the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology, which in itself is this very significant organisation tasked with providing and arranging and supporting a range of vocational education and training, but also it is involved in the consolidation of existing networks of polytechnics.

Then we’ve got the creation of the workforce development councils, and we’ve got a number of those. Of course, their role is to provide skills leadership, set skills standards, develop qualifications, endorse programmes, moderate assessment, and provide advisory and representative roles.

The thing that really worries me, and the one that’s most pertinent to me, is the construction sector, where we currently have about 25,000 being trained in the sector. The two lead organisations in it—the Building and Construction Industry Training Organisation, particularly—made a submission which was very much against this. One of their issues was the lack of certainty around it. The other one was the New Zealand Skills Organisation. The central part about this is about how this change is managed and the time frame for managing that change.

I have actually been involved in doing a lot of these types of changes, and I know how complex they are. So just take, for instance, the two main new organisations that are going to be created: the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology, and the workforce councils.

First of all, there is going to be a need to develop a statement of corporate intent or something similar for that entity or those entities. Of course, we’re talking about seven of those workforce development councils. There’s going to be a need to work out the governance arrangements—how many do you have, what the skill sets should be, how are they appointed, who appoints them, who is going to recruit the human resources firm to recruit them? That all takes time.

The issue around management—what is the nature of the skills? How is it going to be managed? Is it a devolved management style? Is it much more directorial? Does it complement certain skills? Particularly, we talk about advisory as opposed to overseeing different types of qualifications. We’ve got the operational aspects, accounting—how’s that all going to be done? That’s all got to be created. Have you got existing platforms for these organisations to be able to adopt, to be able to put those in place?

We’ve got branding issues. What’s going to be on the top of the logo when the organisation is set up, apparently on, effectively, 1 April 2020? The contracting arrangements between these entities will be a significant thing, and I could tell you that this is where the tension point will be between any new entities. Who has got the power? Who has got the influence? Ultimately, it reflects in the personal remuneration of the people who get the powerful jobs. That’s why it will be an incredible scrap.

Then you get into the issue of the entities that are going to be transferred, and this raises valuation issues. Now, as you’re probably aware, there’s three different valuation methodologies: capitalisation of future maintainable profits, net tangible assets, and the discounted cash flow method. The reason I’m talking about these is these are all complicated processes to follow. To go and do the net assets will require official independent valuations. That takes a long time. The modelling—all that takes engagement with the people concerned. Let’s hope that they’re there. What I’m actually getting at, and I hope you get my point by now, is that the operational aspects to put this in place are immense. The idea of having this all come together and do it so quickly is just inane, and it shows people who have actually got no experience and want to see consolidation but without understanding what the key ingredient is for a successful organisation. That is building a good culture, and this is not even reflected in the conversations.

I move, That the question be now put.

I’d like to just make a riposte here to the statements that the Minister has made talking about the speed of this bill, which I spoke to in my first contribution, agreeing that there is haste, and saying that because of the uncertainty of the reforms, people are changing jobs, that it’s damaging the industry. So the solution is instead of having uncertainty of reforms, to have certainty. That’s why the commencement date is what it is.

Well, let’s reframe that. Instead of having an uncertain badness, his solution is to have a certain badness. That just simply does not make sense. The commencement date of 1 April still needs some reflection.

Furthermore, with that commencement date, the Minister is almost alluding to the fact that it will be somewhat business as usual. I think these were the words you were saying: a long transition to change it, if we wanted, was what he was saying. Well, can I just point out that, with a commencement date of 1 April, several key things happen.

First of all, there’s disestablishment of the local polytechnic councils and the local government arrangements. So that’s quite significant with the 1 April commencement date. But secondly, something more structural happens on 1 April. That is, the polytechnics become subsidiaries, and under the Companies Act certain obligations befall them. More specifically, under the Companies Act, when you’re a subsidiary, you must act in favour or accordance with the wishes of the parent. More specifically, what this will mean is that polytechnics, as a subsidiary, will be unable to talk against, to criticise, or to critique the NZIST and therefore, by obligation, the workforce development councils and the Government. We will lose that ability for rational debate around how to make it better, how to critique the parent, how to critique the system through the structural formation of subsidiaries of polytechnics on the commencement date of 1 April.

I don’t think that’s helpful. None of us like criticism, but how do we improve unless we critique ourselves or we’re externally critiqued? It doesn’t really matter where the critique comes from. But what this bill will do, with the haste that this is moving through, is it will put an end to the ability for those in the sector, at the polytechnic level, to reasonably critique and offer comment against the direction that the NZIST, and therefore this whole policy direction, will be, and I just simply don’t think that’s helpful. I don’t think that’s useful. I don’t think that’s a tenet of a good system.

Again, with a longer commencement date, this could maybe be looked at and thought on again. There could be more time to anticipate what we actually do want: comments from the sector even though they may not be comments we want to hear. We understand that, in a subsidiary arrangement, they may not be able to do that. How do we change things? How do we figure it out? How do we maybe put removal of doubt clauses into the bill that says, “No, no, it will still actually be OK for a subsidiary to critique their parent body”?

But again, on this sort of haste—the Minister has agreed that the bill is moving at haste, and made arguments—I mean, you’ve really got to say people are leaving the sector because of uncertainty. The bill’s causing the uncertainty; this whole policy is causing the uncertainty. It’s a somewhat circuitous argument. So I would come back to the position that this is moving too fast, everyone in the sector is—well, certainly most people I speak to—saying that 1 April is not a date that can deploy or even attempt to successfully deploy the policies that the Minister is looking to bring into play. And again, I’d ask him to reconsider the commencement date.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to put to the committee that a far more sensible title for this bill would be to refer to it as the “Ratting on Regional New Zealand Bill”. I think that would fairly describe it. I want to put to Government members, any single member of the Government—I don’t mind whether it’s a Labour member or a New Zealand First member—to answer the question as to how the title of this bill is consistent with the coalition commitment. The coalition commitment—and I read it word for word—the coalition Government is committed to relocating Government functions to the regions.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I’m reluctant to interrupt any speaker’s contribution, but in my view this contribution is clearly in breach of Speakers’ ruling 114/6: “An amendment to the title of a bill must be a serious or objective description of the bill rather than an attempt to criticise its contents.” I put to you that the alternative proposed by the member is in breach of that very Speakers’ ruling.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I thank you very much for your consideration. However, I think the argument that he’s making around the title—I wouldn’t call it sensible, but I think the argument that he’s making is quite rational. I’m going to allow it.

I would love that member, or any member of the Government, to understand how the title and this bill are consistent with that commitment that they gave in black and white to New Zealanders that they would be relocating Government functions to the regions, when this bill does the exact opposite.

We shouldn’t pretend this is some minor bill. For most of regional New Zealand, the polytech is one of the biggest Government agencies, and what this bill does is take away the local regional control and give it to a central bureaucracy. It does the opposite of what the coalition agreement does, and that is why I seriously say this Parliament should consider the title of this bill to be the “Ratting on Regional New Zealand Bill”—because there was no mandate at the last election. Neither the Greens, Labour, or New Zealand First said to regional New Zealand, “If you vote for us, we’re going to get rid of your local polytechnic.” Nobody said that.

In fact, like I say, in the very coalition agreement of which the Labour and the New Zealand First parties form this Government, they promise that they would actually return services to the regions. I would love my colleague opposite from Wairarapa, rather than taking some pedantic point of order, to answer the fundamental question: how is this bill consistent with the coalition agreement of committing to relocate services to the regions, when this bill does the opposite? Is there any member on the Government benches—

💬 Hon Andrew Little: No, because we’re not clowns, like that member.

Well, Mr Little might want to indulge in personal abuse—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Order! Order!

Why doesn’t he answer the question? How is this bill consistent—

💬 Hon Andrew Little: The member is a clown. I’m not talking to clowns.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Order! Minister, all members in this House are honourable and will be treated as such.

I would love Mr Little to honourably explain how a bill that takes away 16 regional polytechs and puts them into a national organisation is consistent with the coalition agreement, and the title of the bill—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I would love you to debate the title.

Indeed. I’m saying that the title of this bill should reflect what it does, and that is it rats on the coalition agreement that commits to relocating services to the regions, and that if the Government wants to rat on the black and white words that’s in the founding coalition agreement of this Government, they need to explain why. I have not yet heard a single contribution from any Government member to explain why this bill does the opposite of what they said they would do.

We might choose a different title. We might call it the “New Zealand First Memorial Bill” because that party is doing so much damage to regional New Zealand that most political commentators think they’re toast, and this bill is contributing to it, and so the “New Zealand First Commemoration”—or “Valedictory”—“Bill” might be a more appropriate title. My view would be that any title that makes plain the scale of the reform and the impact on regional New Zealand would actually be an honest description, and the fact that there is not a single Government member who is prepared to explain the consistency of this bill with their commitment to relocate services to the regions when it does exactly the opposite speaks volumes about how morally bankrupt this coalition Government is.

I move, That the question be now put.