Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. Madam Speaker it is a pleasure to rise in the House this afternoon to hopefully bring some calm and sense to this debate. I'd like to address a few of the points that have been raised by the National Party Opposition if they'd like to listen to them. The first is that the Hon Nick Smith challenged the next Government speaker—I'm only in confidence and supply but I'll do my best—to answer the question about the number of jobs and the number of courses that will be lost or in the inverse gained. I'd like to state to that member of the National Party the member for Nelson that even under the status quo we simply could not predict the number of jobs and the number of courses to be available in Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology or in any of the polytechs around the country under business as usual.The point of this development as the speaker has asked for is to hear from the voices of those who are currently involved in vocational education when we get this through the select committee process. I myself have made it incredibly incredibly pertinent to the Minister that the point is that we have to get this right and we have to make sure that we get the best outcomes particularly for regional New Zealand which is predominantly going to be affected by this. So there are no guarantees about the changes that will be made here and if the National Party does come up with some good ideas here and chooses to collaborate as opposed to opposing for the sake of it then I would say that we would love to collaborate with them on it.Something needed to happen here. We've known this for a really really long time. The Hon Michael Woodhouse in his contributions spoke to a piece written by Phil Ker who heads up Otago Polytechnic about a piece that he wrote in the ODT the Otago Daily Times. He spoke to the fact that there are certain explanations for why there is falling enrolment and he stated that that is per lower birth rates and a stronger economy but he also importantly noted what the Hon Michael Woodhouse failed to state that the former National Party Government ran down the sector almost irreversibly.So my question is: what would the National Party do here to ensure that those failing regional institutions had the support required and that regional New Zealanders seeking to get their education had the opportunity to do so? Because they simply had allowed for the running down of the sector to the extent that courses were an exodus in droves out of some parts of regional New Zealand that were left to flounder. So I'd really like to call out some of the fear-mongering and the misinformation that has occurred under the guise of contributions to this debate by the Opposition because quite frankly it's just super unconstructive. But worse than that it really whips up fear in regional New Zealand and it does not help to progress us as a country. Instead it actually really only serves to divide us. There are so many more opportunities to get on with this and to collaborate and to get it right.On the point of jobs which the National Party has banged on about in relation to this bill they've continued to speak to how this bill will override Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act 2000. I must say it's the first time that I've ever heard the National Party speaking on behalf of vulnerable workers. But the reason that that is presently included in this legislation—[Interruption]—if I can read from the legislation itself which I would recommend as some reading material for the members currently heckling me. If you refer to Schedule 1 clause 33 on Transfer of employees" clause 33(1) says: "On and off the commencement date every employee of an existing polytechnic becomes an employee (a transferred employee) of the polytechnic's corresponding NZIST subsidiary". Moving further along in subclause (2) of clause 33 it states: "For the purposes of every enactment law determination contract and agreement relating to the employment of the transferred employee—(a) the employment agreement of that employee is to be treated as unbroken; and (b) the employee's period of service with the existing polytechnic and every other period of service of that employee that is recognised by the polytechnic as continuous service"—Dr Shane Reti: Oh you're going to stop there.CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Continuing on to address more of the National Party's unfortunate—Dr Shane Reti: Cherry-picking.CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —misinformation being put forward here I want to refer to the point of academic freedom which is being raised by a number of speakers including Dr Shane Reti who's presently yelling. That is section 222E in clause 49 confirming "Academic freedom of NZIST". And if I may read again from the legislation itself notably for those members of the public who are listening today. This is actually what the legislation says and therefore what it will do. Subsection 1 says "It is declared to be the intention of Parliament in enacting the provisions of this Act relating to NZIST that NZIST's academic freedom is to be preserved"—but wait; more than that—"and enhanced" In subsection 2 it refers to "For the purposes of this section academic freedom in relation to NZIST means—(a) the freedom of academic staff and students within the law to question and test received wisdom to put forward new ideas and to state controversial or unpopular opinions;" As supposed proponents of freedom of speech you'd expect the National Party to be supporting this. Referring to the points that have been raised about supposedly protecting staff and students the National Party's protecting staff and students! I really really want to check the historical record on this because what members of the public may not know who might be listening today is that it was former National Party Minister the Hon Steven Joyce who removed staff and student representation from tertiary and polytech councils. And then last year when this Government sought to reinstate that staff and student representation the National Party opposed it. But worse than that they opposed it in Opposition to the majority of submitters to the select committee. And when they removed it in the first place they did so ignoring the majority of submitters to that select committee. So I'm really fascinated here about this new-found light in the darkness that National is following about hearing staff and students. I would implore National Party members of the Education and Workforce Committee to listen to the submissions at the select committee and I would extend the challenge to them that if there is an opportunity here to get cross-partisan support and to actually do something meaningful without this useless bickering back and forward I would really love to see them on board with that because oh my lord we could do with some more of that in this bizarre weird and wonderful place.With regard to the point about the regions that the National Party have continued to bang on about berating the champions of the regions New Zealand First my colleagues including the honourable member Mark Patterson my mate on the Education and Workforce Committee. I want to refer again not to some bizarre op-ed that a National Party member has decided to write in their local paper but again to the law itself as drafted. Section 222B in clause 49 refers to functions of the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology (NZIST). For members who are looking confused that is on page 17. There are copies of it on the Table in front of you. Section 222B states and I quote that their role is "(b) to be responsive to and to meet the needs of the regions of New Zealand and their learners industries employers and communities by utilising NZIST's national network of tertiary education programmes and activities:" And lo and behold there are even more things that NZIST has to be accountable to: requiring that they are consulting with their community. There have been ongoing discussions by all members in this Government and I would hope—Simeon Brown: You're not in Government; you're in confidence and supply.CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —constructive conversations. I am in confidence and supply. Thanks for noticing Simeon Brown. That means that I can oppose the Government but here I am choosing to support them because we believe they're doing the right thing where you left polytechs to flounder. So with regard to the point on autonomy I'd like to note that both myself and Mark Patterson from New Zealand First have spoken extensively to Phil Ker from Otago Polytechnic and to Penny Simmons from the Southern Institute of Technology. We have found that there has been some really unnecessary fear-mongering from the Opposition when instead there is actually a real deep appetite from those leaders of those outstanding institutions to work with the Government to get meaningful outcomes here across the country. What they are looking for is a system of earned autonomy. To clarify what that means for members of the Opposition this is about learning from those institutions that are doing things well and ensuring that we help those who aren't. If the National Party is so worried about the notion of access to a high-quality tertiary education in the regions and that supposedly constitutes socialism oh God forbid; the sky just might be falling in. The Greens are proud to support this legislation."