Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:662;Page:10640] 
Education Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 20 April. 
Part 2 Transitional provision validations and consequential amendments ( 
continued) 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 When this bill was last debated I was outlining the position of King’s High School Dunedin and the building of its performing arts centre which the Hon Trevor Mallard’s Supplementary Order Paper 99 addresses. I was pointing out that the school built a performing arts centre that was 60 percent larger than was required for a school of its size. It had paid a rate that was 168 percent higher than the industry benchmark rate for this type of facility. It paid almost $4.5 million for the centre compared with the ministry’s current valuation of $1.2 million. The situation the school is in now of course is that it took out a loan to complete the building of the centre. I am advised that the financial position of the school is healthy and that it is not in any trouble. I understand that it has investments of about $374000 in the bank so there does not seem to be any immediate reason financially for us to take this extraordinary action here today. 
It is also unclear whether the change that the Hon Trevor Mallard has made in his Supplementary Order Paper would resolve the issue that the Ministry of Education would be in breach of the Public Finance Act 1989 if it provided funding in the clear knowledge that it would be used for a purpose other than which it had been appropriated for. So the point is made that the clause is still vague and creates some ambiguity. I repeat that allowing one school board to use 5-yearly agreement funding for a different purpose is a highly likely way of raising expectations across the sector that similar provisions would apply to all school boards. This is not a good way to make policy. It is policy on the hoof made around particular circumstances and for that reason the Government does not support the Supplementary Order Paper. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 There is a saying that an old friend of mine used with me on one occasion and it went something like: “Slow horses fast women and lost causes.” I think this matter might be in the last category but it is important to put on the record the Opposition’s reason for voting in this way. I will directly address the chief Government whip as I do this and indicate to him that there will be four or five further opportunities this year when the Government introduces bills around the Public Finance Act validation and matters that are normally uncontroversial and that the Opposition would normally support and not insist on a Committee stage for. But we will keep bringing in amendments to this effect in relation to finance bills until the Government sees sense in this area. 
There is actually not a lot of debate around the Education Amendment Bill. Most of what the Minister of Education the Hon Anne Tolley says is true: the mistakes occurred in my time as Minister; the recommendations to the board occurred in my time and probably in the time of David Benson-Pope. The matter was considered by Mr Maharey and Mr Chris Carter and neither of them made the decision that I think is appropriate. 
The Minister is right that three other schools are in this category: Kaikorai Cashmere and Rangiora. This amendment does not take account of those schools but I make the point that their issues could be solved by the Minister if she chose to do so. The Minister made some points about the costing and size of the school facility. She said that the facility is 60 percent larger than a school of that size would normally have and she is absolutely right but it is a joint school facility for King’s High School and Queen’s High School. It is not a hall for one school; it is a centre for two schools and the Minister left that out. She went on about the costing of the facility and it was expensive. I happen to know quite well a house in south Dunedin which is not very far away from the site of the facility and there is no doubt that it is hard to put in foundations in that area. Because of modern requirements about three-quarters of a million dollars’ worth of slab had to be put down for the facility to be built on and that added to the cost. So we have to take those two factors into account. The Minister spoke about the full cost but unfortunately she got mixed up between building costs and fitted-out costs. She added the fit-out costs into the building costs and was confused on that point as well. 
Notwithstanding all of that as a result of the poor advice given to a previous board by a previous principal we now have a situation whereby a school is paying $4900 every month—not every year but every month—to the Westpac bank when at the same time it has a credit sitting in the ministry. If there was a little bit of flexibility on the part of the Government that credit could be used and it would not cost the taxpayer one extra cent. That money is set aside and ring-fenced for that school. The money is sitting there and the school has indicated that the use of that money would be its highest priority. I think that it is a relatively simple issue. 
I accept that the school made mistakes in my time. I think that the Ministers who followed me took the ministry’s advice in a way that they should not have. I think it is fair to say that some parts of the ministry are more rigid and think less about the quality of education and the purpose of operational funding than others. My view is that on occasion the property division of the ministry can be fairly narrow in its thinking rather than having the flexibility to ask what the best thing is for kids and what best educational outcome can come from the situation. The amount of $4900 is enough for another staff member and enough for a couple of nearly full-time teacher aides to work with kids with disabilities. That amount gives the school the ability to buy five computers every month and to do some routine maintenance. Lots of things from my perspective can add much more to the quality of education at King’s High School than giving $4900 every month to Westpac. I reiterate to Government members opposite that I am not asking the Government to appropriate any extra money. 
The Minister says that that measure does not meet the Public Finance Act requirements but I am now briefed by two experts that it does. She says it is a terrible way to validate expenditure when it has not been properly validated in the past. I went to get a pile of legislation from the library on this issue and I pulled out at random the Appropriation (2007/08 Financial Review) Act 2009—and I emphasise 2009—passed under her Government. The Act validated tens of hundreds of millions of dollars of expenditure. The money was not appropriated; it was spent and validated. 
It is the essence of our constitution that it is the role and the right of Parliament to validate expenditure or to amend its legislation and there is no doubt that a specific amendment like this on a particular issue overrides the Public Finance Act for that issue only. No one should pretend that that is something unusual or does not happen often. As I pick up the legislation I see on page 14 that the Department of Conservation had $44.988 million worth of expenditure validated in this way and the Inland Revenue Department had $123.897 million worth of expenditure validated in this way. I emphasise that the expenditure in respect of education would not normally result in extra expenditure like those examples did. 
In my concluding comments I will say to some of the smaller parties in the Chamber that I appreciate people who come to these things with an open mind. I appreciate Catherine Delahunty who did things very quickly. But I especially appreciate the work that Sir Roger Douglas has done on this matter. Sir Roger Douglas and I very rarely agree on anything controversial. It is not often these days to use the old expression that we go in the lobbies together but I can say that he can work out pretty quickly that something is silly in respect of a Government organisation. He can work out when money meant to be spent in one particular area is being spent on the wrong thing. I appreciate the ACT Party support for this amendment. It is something that we have worked through. Sir Roger Douglas helped to get the wording right so that it met his bill and did the right thing. 
I say to the Maori Party that I am very very disappointed. Kaikorai Valley College is a mid-decile school which for Dunedin is relatively low. It sits in the poorest part of Dunedin. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 In speaking to Part 2 of the Education Amendment Bill I will highlight the transitional provision in relation to police vetting. The Education and Science Committee spent some time as I understand it considering the matter of police vetting. There is a provision in Part 1 new section 78CB(2) that states: “The board of a State school or the management of a school registered under section 35A that is required … to obtain a Police vet of a person must apply for the vet no later than 2 weeks after the person begins work at the school.” That amendment to the Act came about as a recommendation from the Education and Science Committee. Its members had determined that the previous amount of time was too long and it needed to be shortened so that a police vet would occur within at least 2 weeks of non-teaching staff starting work and that has been incorporated in the legislation. 
Part 2 contains a transitional provision and I would be interested to know from the Minister of Education what kinds of provisions will be put in place to allow this clause to be implemented. Clause 76 “Transitional provision in relation to Police” states: “the board of a State school or the management of a school registered under section 35A or a service provider of a licensed early childhood service (as the case may be) must within 4 weeks after the date on which this Act comes into force apply for a Police vet of any person in respect of whom—(a) a Police vet is required … and (b) no Police vet has been obtained within a period of 3 years immediately before the commencement of this Act”. In other words it is a tidying-up clause that requires schools to initiate the process of police vetting within a period of 4 weeks after the date on which this legislation comes into force. 
The question I have for the Minister of Education is: what consideration has been given to the communication strategy that is required in order for this to happen? Clearly the Ministry of Education I presume will be communicating with every school immediately after the passage of this legislation. This legislation will pass in due course because Labour is supporting it despite our disappointment at the non-inclusion of some clauses that we were particularly keen on. However it will pass and I trust that there will be some communication to the schools and institutions that draws their attention with some sense of immediacy to the need to apply for a police vet of any person particularly where no police vet has been obtained within a period of 3 years immediately before the commencement of the Act. So these are tidying-up provisions to make sure all the police vetting processes are in order. 
Although I am sure the Minister can answer the question quite readily this is still an important consideration and it is one of those parts of legislation that sometimes do not receive a lot of attention but for the assiduousness of officials who are obliged to draw this to the attention of schools. Obviously in this instance a vet is not an animal doctor nor is it even an animal doctor who looks after police dogs but it is a process of scrutiny and assessment of the fitness of people—teaching and non-teaching staff—who have access to children in our schools and early childhood education centres. 
Nothing could be more important than the fitness of both teaching and non-teaching staff to be in contact with children right up to the age of exit from secondary school in a teaching or non-teaching capacity. So the transitional provision requires some assiduous application of the ministry to advertise this provision to schools in order that they comply. In fact the Education and Science Committee thought this was so important that it reduced the time from the 8 weeks that was in the legislation in its first iteration to 4 weeks. That requires even speedier compliance than was originally envisaged by the Minister. I presume from the Minister’s nodding a moment ago that she is very much in favour of this shortened time frame. I assume that her instruction will be very clear to officials to ensure that not only are the usual communication channels followed—the gazetting and things of that sort—but also there might even be additional communication to principals and boards of trustees that this requirement needs to be complied with within 4 weeks. That is a reasonably short order but it is one of the essential components if we are to keep our learning institutions—our early childhood education centres and our primary and secondary schools—safe for the children who attend them. 
The shortening of the period contained in this transitional provision is a good move by the Education and Science Committee. Obviously it has perceived the urgency of this provision and the urgency of the issue behind it. There is nothing more important than the safety of the children in our schools and early childhood education centres and the process of establishing the fitness of people who come into contact with them—not simply teaching staff but also non-teaching staff—must be paramount. So the process that determines the fitness of those people needs to be enacted it needs to be complied with and it needs to be satisfied in every letter and every respect. 
The transitional provision in relation to police vetting is an essential part of Part 2. My colleagues may well speak to other parts of Part 2 but it seems to me that it is appropriate to draw the attention of the Committee to the importance of even a simple transitional provision. It is something that every principal of every school and every chair of every board of trustees needs to know about so that they can ensure compliance within the shortened time frame. As I say Labour supports having a shortened time frame for this compliance period and supports this transitional provision not only for its mechanics but obviously for its greater import and purpose in protecting the safety of children in our schools. 
I support these provisions together with the provisions of Part 1 which deal not only with the appropriateness of teaching staff but the police vetting of non-teaching and unregistered employees and the police vetting of contractors and their employees. Thank you. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 As a member of the Education and Science Committee which considered the Education Amendment Bill I will rise and speak to Part 2. Because it is now some time since the select committee considered the wording in this legislation a lot has happened since then and I wonder whether committee members may have had some different views if we had known then what we know now. 
Part 2 requires early childhood education centres to have some additional costs put on them for going through some vetting procedures and to do those procedures as my colleague Maryan Street just said in a truncated period of time compared with what the original legislation said. Of course at the foremost of the minds of select committee members at the time when we wanted that time period truncated was the safety of children which is as it should have been. We wanted to make sure that there were as few loopholes as possible. But that was before we learnt that there were to be Budget cuts for the early childhood education sector. I think that now on reflection as I look at this entire bill and in particular at Part 2 the costs that are contained in there for the sector were not a major concern for committee members at the time because we believed then that the Government would not tamper with early childhood education funding. We believed that the funding was in place because the Government had promised that. National had promised it before the election and we had no reason to doubt that but this week we suddenly learnt that the early childhood education sector is costing too much. Suddenly the Government has decided just this week that the early childhood education sector is costing too much and that funding must be cut from the sector. 
In Part 2 the sector is required to undertake police vetting procedures that it has not been required to undertake up until this point. The timing of that will be incredibly important because Part 2 concerns the transitional provisions and because we do not know when this legislation will come into effect—it commences on the day after it receives the Royal assent so there is no named date in the bill—we do not know whether its enactment will occur before the Budget. It is unlikely to be enacted before that. It could be but the transitional provisions are likely to be set in place and be requirements for the early childhood education sector following the Budget. We do not know because the Government will not say what cuts-to-funding situation the sector will be placed in by then. As a member of the select committee I find myself in a very difficult position: I am supporting this legislation because that is the right thing to do for the safety of our children but I am now very very worried about the sector’s capability to put these measures into place—to go through these police vetting processes and to make sure that that is done thoroughly and property—because I do not know and neither does the sector the level of the funding cuts that it is facing in the Budget coming up on 20 May. 
Here we are today in the Committee stage debating with a new piece of information. When we were debating in the Committee stage last week I felt less worried about the funding position of the sector than I do this week. I do not know when we will be debating this bill’s third reading but I wonder what on earth we will be facing then. What situation will the sector be in? Where will its capability be to deliver what we supported in good faith in the select committee and what the submitters told us about in good faith? The submitters wanted these changes to be put in place as well but they did not know—and neither did we on the select committee—about the plans that the Government had for cutting funding to the sector. The reason we did not know about those plans is that National had promised that it would not tamper with early childhood education. It said that it would keep the same level of subsidies and it would keep the same fee controls in place. It promised that before the election but now those promises look shallow. They are ringing completely hollow. Now all the Government can do is talk about how much it will cost it to support children through early childhood education. Well for goodness’ sake. When the Government keeps saying that it wants to improve participation and have more children in early childhood education of course the cost will be larger. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 I will follow on from what my colleague Sue Moroney has been saying about police vetting and about the need for support for principals and boards of trustees within schools to go through that process. It is quite a simple process really when we think about it but unfortunately in schools many school leaders have been trained purely as teachers. They used to get very little training in the art and skills of being a principal let alone training in the sort of legal stuff that principals now have to do. So there is a real gap in the knowledge of many principals between the art of leading the school in terms of the curriculum and administrative work much of which is based around legal needs. 
The process of a police vet is quite simple; it is a matter of filling in a form and posting it off. But that and all the other requirements that principals have when they employ staff build up for principals and often they do not do administrative tasks in the timely manner that they should. I support the fact that the time frame to apply for a police vet has been shortened from 8 weeks to 4 weeks. I think it could be done even faster. However one of the problems of having a limit of 4 weeks in which the police vet is to be applied for is that there is a time period when a person is allowed to work in a school but when we are unsure whether the person has a criminal background. The application has to be filled out within 4 weeks yet there is another 4 or 5-week lag in receiving the police vet back. It could mean that a teacher has been working in the school for close to a term or for a quarter of a school year without the school knowing the status of the teacher’s criminal history—hopefully the teacher would not have a criminal history—so there is that danger. 
Going along the same lines of principals not having the legal background and training to allow them to follow the processes I will flick back to the first part of the bill that talks about what happens when a police vet is returned. I am talking about section 319FA inserted by clause 70 which states that principals “(b) must not take any adverse action in relation to a person who is the subject of a Police vet until—(i) the person has validated the information contained in the vet;”. This is really important but quite often because of our lack of legal knowledge as principals— 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This is very interesting but we are on Part 2. I thought that was what the member was talking about but he is still on Part 1. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: There are of course the transition provisions that relate to this and they are in clause 76 which is in Part 2. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I think the Minister has a point. The member should draw into Part 2 and make his speech relevant. 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: Clause 76 in Part 2 talks about police vetting and I was referring to the process that principals follow and the need for support for principals in this whole process of police vetting. Quite often they can react hastily to the results of a police vet without a person having an opportunity to validate the vet. It needs to be drawn to the Committee’s attention that principals need a lot of support with the police vet process. As I said earlier it is a legal process and we risk personal grievances being taken because principals inadvertently react too soon or too hastily to the results of a police vet. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 99 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to insert new clause 78A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 8; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 58; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 112 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 8 
Green Party 8. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I know this is a relatively narrow debate. Clauses 1 and 2 relate to the title and commencement date of the Education Amendment Bill. As we consider these clauses it is important that we consider the title of the legislation which is the Education Amendment Act 2009. I wonder about the habit of this Committee in relation to truth in legislation. I know that the ACT Party is very much for truth in legislation but unfortunately we have a bill whose title clause says it will be the Education Amendment Act 2009. I am not sure whether there is a proposal on the part of the Minister of Education—I have looked on the Table and I have found no amendment from the Minister—to amend the title of the bill to the “Education Amendment Act 2010”. 
It is worth focusing a little on what has happened here. I think the process at the Education and Science Committee was very good. I say to Allan Peachey that I thought he chaired the select committee well in its consideration of this bill. He got it through that committee in good time. If his work was appreciated even a little bit—well if his work was appreciated then he would be the Minister of Education—then I think the bill would have come back to the House and been passed through its remaining stages and we would have been able to have an Education Amendment Act 2009 but unfortunately it is now 2010. 
The other point I make to the senior Government whip is that this bill could have gone through its Committee stage in about 10 minutes. We moved a number of amendments in order to filibuster it. We hoped that the Minister would consider a particular issue and change her mind on it. We have debated Part 2 across some hours in the hope that the Maori Party would focus on it. But a large amount of parliamentary time has been used on a bill that I think it is fair to say everyone who understands it and who has considered it carefully other than the Green Party is voting for. The bill would have gone through quite quickly and would still have been entitled the Education Amendment Act 2009 as the title clause indicates. 
I do not think there is much argument around the commencement date. The legislation comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent. I would be interested though in the Minister’s view of the title. Does she propose to put forward a Supplementary Order Paper to correct the title of the bill? 
Chris Tremain 
: Probably not. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: She does not? She does not intend to correct it. I have got into a little trouble before for using the word “fib” in the Chamber and associating it with a Minister but I think— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Do not go there. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No I am not. But I should say that the House as a whole should not— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Committee. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well the bill will go back to the House; the Committee will report to the House. We should not be passing a bill that contains an untruth right in the very first or second line. I think that a few things in the bill could have been improved— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Has she signed it? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Probably 37 times. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: She signed every line. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well we have certainly seen one paper that was like that. I say to my colleague that we wondered why there had been a slight accumulation of paper in the Minister’s office. But now we have seen the results of the Official Information Act request. We see that time after time even on the same page this Minister feels an obligation to—in very careful childish script—sign her name. I presume that it is not a stamp. It might be a stamp; Mike Moore had a stamp. Mike Moore had a stamp that might have been appropriate. I am not absolutely certain whether I can share with members the total detail of that stamp but I think Mr Chairman that as an agricultural gentleman you would appreciate that Mr Moore used a word that was associated with the bovine species. When he received paper from either officials or his caucus colleagues that he disagreed with— 
Chris Tremain 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This member is a longstanding member of the House. He began his speech by saying that the debate on the title was a narrow debate but now he is going on about bovine species which has nothing to with the title of the bill. I ask you to bring him to order so that we can get on with this particular debate please. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I just clarify for members that it is in order to say that the bill contains an inaccuracy. To go into matters of bovine species or to indicate fibs or anything else of that nature is quite out of order. I ask the member to continue. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: On that point I think the Mayor of Invercargill wrote a book— 
Chris Hipkins 
: That’s right he did. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: He did. He wrote a book.  
Jellybeans  
was the second part of its title— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I asked the member to direct his comments towards what is a very tight debate on clauses 1 and 2. I do not think that we need to include the Mayor of Invercargill fine gentleman though he is. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: What about the next mayor—will the next mayor write a book? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No she sang a song. I am beginning to wonder as my colleagues get ready to assist me in this—Mr Hipkins—whether the senior Government whip would have preferred to seek leave to raise the House a little earlier. 
I am making a point and it is a relatively easy point. I would like an assurance that the Minister will take a call on this matter sort it out and indicate whether she intends to get the bill cleaned up so that it reflects the truth and is accurate and so that her lack of diligence in getting this bill through can be corrected in at least a minor way in order to indicate to the Committee that this legislation is current. If she does not do it then I am sure that eventually the Clerk’s Office will come along behind her. I am sure that it will sweep up after her clean up after her clean the streets and tidy things up in the way that it normally does for a Minister who makes a mess of things in a bill. It will probably be regarded as a minor technical amendment of the sort that the Clerk’s Office is allowed to correct maybe with another printing of the bill before the third reading. I think even if it went through its third reading in its current form it would be one of those areas where it would be allowable for the Clerk’s Office to change the year but I am not sure. 
Therefore it is important that we have some assurance from the Minister that the date in the title clause “This Act is the Education Amendment Act 2009.” will be corrected in some way. At the moment it is inaccurate. It cannot possibly be the Education Amendment Act 2009; it can be the Education Amendment Act 2010. It is a relatively easy matter; one would have thought that the Minister could answer it. She could have put a Supplementary Order Paper on the Table. She has indicated that she does not want to take a call on the matter. I would much prefer her to take a call and clarify it. Then we could move on to clause 2 the commencement clause. 
I ask the Chairman whether we are debating the two clauses together. We are; that is good. In the next set of calls I am sure I will be able to get on to that clause. But as she is not taking a call there continues to be a question. If it is to be the Education Amendment Act 2010 will it be the Education Amendment Act 2010 (No 1)? I understand there is to be another Education Amendment Act 2010. Or is it her intention when that legislation comes in to give the subsequent legislation a different name? Will it be called the “Undoing of Zoning Act” or the “Operational Funding for Taking the Top 5 Percent and the Bottom 25 Percent of Kids from School to School Act? Will it be the “Education (Introduction of Vouchers) Amendment Act”? There could be a number of areas. 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You have made the point to that member a number of times. He is a very experienced member of the House. This bill has nothing in it about vouchers or zoning. We are debating the first two clauses: the title and the commencement. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The point is upheld. The member should refer to clauses 1 and 2 of this bill. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am. As I do so I wonder whether my colleagues are drafting amendments to the bill that make that clear. For example it could be called the “Education (This Has Nothing to Do with the Introduction of Vouchers) Amendment Bill 2010”. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am very happy to take a call on the Education Amendment Bill 2009 but I am disappointed that the Minister has not risen to her feet to respond to the very legitimate concerns that my colleague Trevor Mallard has raised with regard to the title of the bill. In fact I look across the Chamber to Mr Allan Peachey and I am sure that had he been sitting in the chair as the Minister he would have taken a call and clarified this issue. He would not have let this sloppy process continue: the process of passing an amendment bill dated 2009 despite the fact that we are now nearly through the fourth month of the year nearly one-third of the way through 2010. I do not think that Allan Peachey would have let the Government get away with that. I think he would have had much higher standards than that. Certainly that is the feedback I have had from my colleagues who sit on the Education and Science Committee. 
I refer in particular to Standing Order 307 “Verbal or formal amendments” which states: “In preparing the bill for the Royal assent”—which comes under clause 2 the clause stating that this bill will come into force once it has received the Royal assent—“amendments of a verbal or formal nature may be made and clerical or typographical errors may be corrected in any part of the bill by the Clerk.” Would this particular problem that we have raised be a clerical or typographical error given that it has been brought to the attention of the Committee prior to a vote being taken on clauses 1 and 2? Could the error be regarded as clerical or simply as a minor or typographical error if the Committee already knew about it when it voted on it? The issue that my colleague has raised is quite significant. 
Is the title appropriate? What would the consequences be if this bill’s title were to be changed to the Education Amendment Bill 2010 only after the Committee had voted on it knowing that it was voting on something that was not strictly speaking correct? Would there be consequences for somebody who then changed that arguing that the error was clerical or typographical if in fact the Committee had known about that problem when it voted on it? There could be some reasonably significant issues with that so I think it is a shame that the Minister in the chair the Minister of Education has not taken the opportunities there. It would be a relatively small amendment. In fact I could probably talk for the length of time it would take her to handwrite an amendment that we could then vote on; I am happy to keep going in order to give her the time to write an amendment. It will not take her very long—well it might take her a while actually. Trevor Mallard has done it so in fact we can vote on an amendment to change this legislation to the Education Amendment Bill 2010 which would be a very sensible thing to do. We are from the Opposition and we are here to help. 
It would be very unwise for this House to go ahead and pass legislation with factual inaccuracies in it right from the very beginning. We are talking about the very first line of the bill. I have to speak for a few more minutes because Trevor Mallard apparently has to produce six copies of the amendment before we are allowed to vote on it. I will do my best. 
I will give it a go by going back to the issue of the Royal assent. The commencement clause states: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” Commencement dates are discussed by select committees quite a lot. I have been involved in all sorts of discussions about when it is appropriate for law to come into effect. The Regulations Review Committee has produced an entire report on that very issue on the dates when legislation should come into effect. The Regulations Review Committee has made recommendations about making sure that the date when the bill can come into effect is clear within the bill. Of course there is a particular clause relating to a king—I cannot remember which one it was— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: King James? 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: No I do not think it is the King James clause. I cannot remember which king it was but basically the provision says that we should not where possible write into the commencement clause of a bill that the bill can come into force on ministerial prerogative or that there should be some discretion in there. Parliament ultimately— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Is it the Annette King clause? 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: My colleague is asking whether it is the Annette King clause. I am not sure. I do not want to speculate on that too much; that could be career-limiting for me. 
Chris Tremain 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I bring to your attention Standing Order 107(2) which brings into light “the conduct of a member who persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition either of the member’s own arguments or of the arguments used by other members in debate”. I think we have been through this issue over and over again. It is out of order I believe. I ask you to stop this member and ask him to desist from doing that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I was out of the Chamber for about a minute and a half doing some photocopying but I think we are on only the third call of what is an important issue. I am sorry; I see that Mr Chairman is motioning that we are on the fourth call of an important issue. There really needed to be only one call. If there was an indication that the amendment had been accepted I am sure we would have had only four or five more calls in order to get through into the next day. I know there is a lot of debate here. I wonder as we have had no reply from the Minister what we will do after this— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No no. That is not part of the point of order that I was hearing the member speak on. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Well I— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I ask the member to sit down please. I am going to overrule the point of order that was raised on this occasion. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I believe that I am the first member in this part of the debate to talk about the commencement the importance of the commencement date some of the considerations around it and alternative commencement dates. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I move that the Speaker be recalled in order to rule on the question of whether the change of date is a clerical error that can be corrected by the Clerk’s Office or whether an amendment is necessary. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Well the member has moved that motion and I am bound to do that. But the member has not asked the Chair for a ruling on that. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I apologise for being premature. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: So what are you intending to do? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The question on which I would like you to rule is whether the changing of the date is a matter of clerical or administrative or—I forget the wording under Standing Order 307. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Clerical or typographical. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes; whether it is clerical or typographical and can be corrected. I am working on the assumption that it is not. But I would like your opinion and then we can see. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am happy to say this is not a matter upon which the Chair would normally rule. A bill normally reflects the date of introduction. It is not unusual for a bill to go through its passage and on to the Committee stage while still retaining a date that may be from a previous year—that is not unusual. Standing Order 307 does have that provision as Mr Hipkins said and that is when those anomalies are clarified—when the bill is printed. Does the member still want to recall the Speaker? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. None of us is suggesting that the bill should have been reprinted at this point. I think the question is whether it is automatic as we move to the third reading that we will get a reprint of the bill with the 2010 date in it at that stage or whether there is the power in the Clerk’s Office to amend the bill on the way to the Royal assent. The Minister has nodded her head at both and if we had a ruling from someone that that was going to occur we would have finished here about 25 minutes ago I think. My question is: is it an automatic process— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Let me respond. It is a normal practice a standard feature of a bill that normally it is adjusted when the bill is sent for Royal assent. That is the normal process. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The Hon Trevor Mallard signalled to you about a motion of recall. Could you could advise the Committee at what point in this debate on the title and commencement clauses—which could have been finished a long time ago; I have come down to the House and I am surprised we are still on this as it should be completed by now—the Minister is able to clear up the whole thing by putting forward an amendment that would guillotine the need for Mr Mallard’s motion? It seems to me that she could stand up and take a 10-second call and say that that is her intention so at what point do we trigger a situation where the Minister is not able to do that and where Mr Mallard’s motion would stand? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I have been at pains to point out that this is a normal procedure. The process we are involved in happens not infrequently. Bills are corrected typographically and in every respect before they receive the Royal assent. That is the normal procedure. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 8; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I know that I will be testing you a little bit here— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Yes it looks like it! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: —but I have a very quick question I would like you to answer. Were there any other amendments to the bill? I am asking whether the passing of my amendment would require an extra printing of the bill. I would be slightly anxious about incurring any cost to the Crown in that way. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: If there are no amendments to the bill it will not be reprinted. If any amendments are passed the bill will be reprinted. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Further to that can we have an indication about whether the—what is it called—the pre - Royal assent amendment will be done before or after the third reading? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: My understanding is that if this amendment in your name is passed the bill will be reprinted before the third reading. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Sorry; that was not the question. It was the other way round—whether the typographical error if it is an error can be corrected before the third reading. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am advised that it is after the third reading. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am not sure now whether I need to seek the leave of the Committee—I certainly do not want to put the Crown to the expense of reprinting this—to withdraw my amendment. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 The point that I think has been missed is that the bill has been going through the Committee stage for some weeks and it is a question of whether there were any amendments to Part 1 or Part 2 of this particular bill. I am not sure whether there were any Minister’s amendments or amendments from the Opposition that affected Part 1 or Part 2. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: There were none. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: So the bill is as it stands. So Mr Mallard can withdraw the amendment? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The question I have is this: do I have the right to withdraw it or do I need to seek leave? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: You need to seek leave. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I seek leave to withdraw my amendment in order to not put the Crown to cost. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is not. The amendment in that member’s name is withdrawn and the time has come for me to report progress. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You are in the middle of a closure motion. I think you have to put a vote. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: We have completed the vote on the closure motion but we have not commenced the next vote. I have to put the question on clause 1 then on clause 2. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 112 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 8 
Green Party 8. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. With the time now being after 5 to 6 are you not required to report progress to the House? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No once the voting has been commenced it has to be concluded. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 stand part. 
Ayes 112 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 8 
Green Party 8. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted.