Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you very much Mr Chair and for accommodating those circumstances that just arose.Look I'd just like to come back to the commencement clause and again the fact that it is almost immediate and the contrast between that and the term of contracts. All of the Round 5 schools—you see there were five rounds of partnership school authorisations—go through to 2023 if I remember rightly. Around four go through to 2022 and so on. The first partnership schools that were contracted back in 2014—their contracts only end at the end of 2020. So every partnership school is going to have its contract made illegal in the term that it was supposed to be valid. That's quite aside from the fact that this legislation prejudices any possibility that those contractees to the Crown might have had in respect of renewal because they were supposed to be six by six by six year contracts.It goes to the heart of the theme that we've heard from Nikki Kaye—and I've mentioned it—about what it means to have a contract what it means to have a partnership. It's now being violated at two levels: one we've heard about which is the contract between Queen Victoria and a number of iwi leaders back in 1840—widely known as the Treaty of Waitangi—but the other one is the contract between the Crown and a number of sponsors of partnership school kura hourua which we call partnership school contracts.I developed a little bit in my last speech why the ability to carry out your actions and make choices without concern for arbitrary coercion by another or others as Friedrich Hayek I think very eloquently put it is so important to the prosperity of our society. It's not just people who are in partnership schools who might be concerned about the Government legislating away a contract. This is actually much bigger than a Treaty issue. It's bigger than a partnership school issue an education issue; it goes to the heart of whether people in New Zealand can trust Parliament and whether they can trust the Crown to do what they say they're going to do. As I pointed out even school kids playing pick-up games at lunchtime intuitively get it: that it's not fair to change the rules halfway through the game just because it suits the people in power.Now if schools kids can work this out then I wonder whether the Labour Party caucus can work it out because so far in this debate they've made two contributions. I was very excited when Peeni Henare stood up to his feet—as I always am but particularly in this circumstance—and I thought he was going to give a speech. And he said I move that the question be now put." Now he may have read the Standing Orders and understand that technically that is a speech but I think he is capable of saying a lot more than that. He's capable but the question is will he? Does he have the gumption to stand up and say "Actually I think my party's wrong. I think the Treaty is more important than anything we've discussed in caucus. It's part of my soul and the reason I'm here and I'm going to cross the floor on this." That's the question. Will he or Kiritapu Allan stand up and say "I move that the question be now put."?CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Order! Come on; let's get to the substance of the debate please.DAVID SEYMOUR: Absolutely because if they were to do that then they would be upholding the basic principle that in the Treaty of Waitangi in partnership school contracts and in a whole lot of other contracts with the Crown people can trust that the Government will do what it says it's going to do.And this applies to people who contract to the Crown in the welfare provision space. It applies to people who have commercial contracts to build infrastructure. It applies to anybody doing business with the Crown of New Zealand. If we have this particular commencement date that makes contracts with the Crown illegal before they end then that is taking this whole country to a very dark place indeed."