Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill

Members, there are 13 proposed amendments to clause 27(3) of new Part 9 of Schedule 1 to exempt certain polytechnics from the transitional arrangements that convert existing polytechnics into New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology subsidiaries. These amendments are so similar in substance that I propose to test the will of the committee, putting the question on a random selection of these very similar amendments.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 434 in the name of Simeon Brown to Schedule 1 be agreed to.

As a result of the these votes, the following amendments are out of order: the Hon Gerry Brownlee’s amendment relating to the Ara Institute of Canterbury, set out on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 432; Lawrence Yule’s amendment relating to the Eastern Institute of Technology, set out on SOP 433; the Hon Dr Nick Smith’s amendment relating to the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology, set out on SOP 435; Dr Shane Reti’s amendment relating to the Northland Polytechnic, set out on SOP 436; Sarah Dowie’s amendment relating to the Southern Institute of Technology, set out on SOP 438; Maureen Pugh’s amendment relating to Tai Poutini Polytechnic, set out on SOP 439; Dr Parmjeet Parmar’s amendment relating to Unitec New Zealand, set out on SOP 441; the Hon Tim Macindoe’s amendment relating to the Waikato Institute of Technology, set out on SOP 443; and Brett Hudson’s amendment relating to the Whitireia Community Polytechnic, set out on SOP 444.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Thank you, Madam Chair. Can we just clarify that those amendments, as a result of the representative sample you took which were voted down—those amendments are actually voted down rather than ruled out of order, but they were in-order amendments?

I was on the point of questioning that myself, actually, but my advice has been that they’re ruled out of order. May I double-check that and get back to you? That was what I—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I’ll just finish my sentence, if you don’t mind. That’s what I set out before I put the first group of votes—that because they were very similar in substance, I would take that representative sample and then the rest would be ruled out of order.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. One of the amendments is in my name. It relates to the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology. It’s an institution that has assets worth way over $50 million. It seems an extraordinary ruling that just because an amendment may be lost in another part of the country, the Parliament is not to have a specific vote as to whether my Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology—and I point out it’s the second-largest public institution in Nelson, second only to our hospital, and it’s a change after 115 years, and the effect of your ruling is to not allow myself as the elected representative for the people of Nelson to specifically put to this Parliament whether the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology will be gone.

Now, I have noted many debates, both from Opposition and Government to various reforms. This is a very novel ruling that just because an amendment that affects some other part of the country might be declined, you’re ruling that I can’t even put to the Parliament the amendment that has such a profound impact on my constituency.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Thank you, Dr Smith, I did explain—

So I seek your clarification as to whether my amendment in respect of the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology is out of order or whether you as Chair are not allowing the Parliament to vote on that because of some ruling that there’s been some vote on some amendment for some other part of New Zealand.

It’s neither novel nor new, Dr Smith. I outlined the procedure before I started taking the vote. There was no question then—had there been, and as I will now, I will confirm that Speaker’s ruling 117/2 from 2010 by Dr the Rt Hon Lockwood Smith says that “A chairperson has to consider the admissibility of amendments that are substantially the same as an amendment that has already been negatived by the committee.”

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Speaking to the point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Have you read the Speaker’s ruling yet?

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Yes, I have. And I also know that—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry, Dr Smith. Have you read the Speaker’s ruling that I just referred to?

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Yes, I have. I have it right in front of me. And I am also familiar with—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Point of order, Dr Smith.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The ruling that was made by Speaker Lockwood Smith related to a series of amendments that were moved by the then Labour Opposition that chose to choose every single possible date. So when the legislation came into effect, could it be 1 January, 2 January, 3 January, 4 January? And what he says in that ruling 117/2 is that you could, effectively, stymie the reasonable processes of Parliament by effectively moving 367 amendments per year on different days of which a law would have effect. And it was a perfectly reasonable ruling with those many dates.

The judgment that you need to exercise is as to whether it is reasonable, saying that you couldn’t just amend every single date, that you will not allow amendments for the 20 different polytechs around New Zealand. And, as I remind you, you’re talking about my own polytech, an asset of over $50 million and an institution that’s been around for 115 years, which I think is a very different proposition, and that is why I’d ask you to reconsider and to allow those members of Parliament, constituency members who are talking about the second-biggest institution in Nelson, an organisation that employs hundreds of people, thousands of students, that has been around for 115 years—that I, as the constituency member of Parliament for Nelson, should not be debarred from moving an amendment to protect that institution.

Speaking to the point of order, as one of the members responsible for that ruling being made in the first place during the debate on the Auckland super-city, and having sat on that side of the House for most of the eight years since that ruling was made—or for all of the eight years since that ruling was made—I can confirm that other Chairs of the committee have used that ruling in the same context that you are using it now. In fact, it’s been used to rule out amendments exempting local authorities, for example, one at a time from various provisions of legislation. This is not a novel or uncommon use of that. In fact, it’s been discussed on many occasions through the Standing Orders Committee, where the decision was made to confirm that ruling on the basis that Parliament should spend its time in debate, not in voting on repetitive amendments.

Speaking to the point of order, look, I would just like to take a moment to back up the Hon Nick Smith’s point, and I’d ask, Madam Chair, a very well-respected person that you are in the Parliament, with your long-serving career, just to reflect on actually the serious point that the Hon Nick Smith has made. These are institutions in which our communities have invested over long periods of time, and they are being, effectively, in our view, wiped out by this legislation. And I accept there’s a debate that’s going on around then where those functions transfer, but I think it is reasonable and it is fair for you to consider whether it is appropriate to then remove the ability of this Parliament to record those members that voted for each of those institutions to not exist.

Speaking to the point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): The Hon Tim Macindoe.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve listened carefully to your explanation as to why you would wish to invoke Speaker’s ruling 117/2, but I would respectfully suggest to you that it shouldn’t be applied in this case, because while as we who were there at the time remember the Auckland governance debate and the endless sort of succession of dates there, this is not a comparable situation. And in fact, the explanatory note that is in the Speaker’s ruling there notes in brackets, “A series of amendments to change a date ruled out of order after an amendment to change the date had been defeated.” They were all substantially the same apart from the fact they were moving one day backwards in time, as I recall.

Here is something that is very different. Yes, there are a large number of polytechnics from around the country that are indicated, but I would strongly associate Waikato and Wintec with the comments that Dr Smith made a moment ago in relation to the Nelson polytechnic for which he was being the champion because I feel the same way. But—and this is the difference—we all acknowledge that there are some polytechnics that are listed in those series of amendments that are not doing so well and that are therefore not comparable.

If we weren’t looking at a bill—or, rather, a measure from the Minister—that is effectively using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, then it might be that some approach of the type that you are suggesting would be appropriate. But here we have a number of polytechnics that are very different in their circumstances, very different in their financial position, very different in their viability, and very different in the problems that need to be addressed. That’s why, Madam Chair, I would ask that this particular Speaker’s ruling not be invoked, because the amendments that our side of the House have been putting forward are not the same.

Thank you. I think you’ve made valid and interesting points. This was a subject of discussion at the presiding officers’ meeting earlier today. There was unanimous agreement that this was the correct process to follow. I believe that there would be a different perspective on it had members not made such clear contributions during the debate and if they wished to have their opposition to the proposal recorded, but that wasn’t the case, so my ruling stands.

The question is that Schedule 1—

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I seek the recall of the Speaker.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Certainly.

This is a very significant ruling. It changes substantially the role of the Opposition, and it is the appropriate way for this substantive extension of the Speaker’s ruling to be dealt with.

I think you have to move that the Speaker be recalled.

I move, That the Speaker be recalled.

Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

Speaker Recalled