Hipkins Chris; Tolley AnneHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Thank you very much Madam Chairperson Tolley. I'm very happy to answer some of the questions that have been raised on Part 1 of the bill so far. So the question that was raised by Jan Tinetti—Andrew Bayly: What questions?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: If the members listen I'll happily review the questions for them as they seem to be having difficulty keeping up. There haven't been many questions so I'm surprised that they're having difficulty keeping up but I will answer the questions that have been raised.So the first question was raised by Jan Tinetti which was what will happen if these provisions are inconsistent with the existing code that relates to international students. Now my understanding is that they're not inconsistent but that the code will be reviewed once these provisions have been brought into force as you would expect when there is a law change. So it's not a question of there necessarily being great inconsistency at the moment but when the law changes of course the code should be reviewed and that will happen.The second question that Jan Tinetti raised was whether or not the students who have been subject to a disciplinary action would have some ability to challenge that decision. I think that's a very good question because the consequences for these international students of being subject to the disciplinary action are obviously very high—potentially very high—and therefore it's very legitimate to ask what they could do to challenge that. There are some existing provisions within the code that will of course continue to apply. They can make a complaint via the code of practice administrator the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and the dedicated international student contract disputes resolution scheme. So there are a number of potential avenues already available and if an international student feels that they have been treated unfairly they'll have the ability to do that.The other question that Jan Tinetti asked was around international students who might be living in New Zealand with their own family. They are treated differently to international students who are living with a host family. The reason for that is the international students living with a host family will be subject to basically a contract with that host family whereas the students living with their own family of course they're not subject to that. So therefore those provisions that relate to the contract will of course not apply to people in their own home.So what does all that mean in plain language? It means that if you're a domestic student and you do something wrong outside of school hours the school doesn't have an ability to discipline you regarding that. If you're an international student—as of today—and you do something wrong outside of school hours the school doesn't have the powers at the moment to undertake disciplinary action either. With the change they will have the ability to take disciplinary action for those students who are living with a host family. But the provisions relating to those students living with their own families of course will not change. So I think that clarifies that.The other issue that was raised by Erica Stanford—a very legitimate question—is why different provisions will now apply to international students rather than to domestic students. I think that's simply for the case of clarity. Those provisions that apply to domestic students apply only in so far as they are in school time in school hours. So the school doesn't have an ability to discipline a domestic student outside of school hours. As the new powers are going to be broader than outside of school hours it was deemed appropriate that that be the subject of separate provisions rather than extending the scope of existing provisions to some students but not to others.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I call Marja Lubeck. We're still on Part 1.Marja Lubeck: OK—no.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I call the Hon Clare Curran.