Kaye NikkiHon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): I'm very pleased to take a call in the committee stage of the legislation. Firstly can I just acknowledge my colleague the Hon Paul Goldsmith who couldn't be here this evening. But he has tabled Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 17 which is about amending a particular section that is in Part 2 and I will be very focused in my comments to talk to Part 2 but I'm just going to weave in a few broader themes into those clauses as well.So I just want to mention a couple of things. Firstly it is important to understand what we're trying to do here with this legislation and how Part 2 works. Firstly the reason that the Hon Paul Goldsmith has made this SOP—and the SOP is absolutely focused on equal treatment of tertiary providers—is very simple. There is one point and it has played out throughout this Government's tenure of office: ideology plain and simple—ideology before the opportunities of young people. The Hon Paul Goldsmith's SOP—I'd encourage all members to read it—is about a very simple principle that we have some equal treatment for all tertiary providers and that was taken out of the legislation by the Government members at select committee and we oppose that.I do want to mention today I found out that the Aspire scholarships for a whole lot of disadvantaged young people have been scrapped and that is relevant to Part 2 of the bill because it demonstrates complete ideology—whether it's scrapping partnership schools or getting rid of all these opportunities for young people. Again I come back to this SOP and say it's all about ideology. A whole lot of young people are missing out. Shame on the Government—shame on the Government—that a whole lot of young Māori and Pasifika students will not get opportunities as a result of these scholarships and these partnership schools as well are being scrapped. So we on this side of the Chamber are not afraid to make amendments like the Hon Paul Goldsmith has made to ensure that every New Zealander understands that we on this side of the House will do what's right for young people and those on the opposite side of the House will do what is absolutely about being anti-ACT or about ideology. Just coming back to Part 2 of the bill can I also mention that we are supporting the bill. There are some very good provisions in Part 2. There are some very good provisions around community tertiary education providers. Again if we come back to what the heart of this bill is about it's about lifting quality in terms of our tertiary sector. That's why we supported the provisions in Part 2 in terms of improving compliance. We heard in Part 1 again that this bill does enable us to ensure that we've got quality and where we might have issues with international students—corrected quite rightly by the Hon Tracey Martin—we have the ability to deal with that.So this is a good bill overall—and I want to acknowledge that on this side of the House we will scrutinise the Government and sometimes we will oppose—but there are some fundamental flaws like the issue that the Hon Paul Goldsmith has tried to address. It does come back to a very strong theme that many New Zealanders are starting to understand which is that on this side of the House everything we do is about the best opportunities for young people and on that side of the House everything is about ideology and taking opportunities away from those disadvantaged young people who were getting $16000 scholarships. Three-hundred and fifty young Māori and Pasifika students since 2009 have got those scholarships but no longer. Why? Because of hell-bent ideology which is very important to Part 2 of this bill.