Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Thank you Mr Speaker. The question is quite significant in terms of the relative power balance that always exists in the Parliament between the Opposition and the Government.There are three substantive points that I want to make. The first really significant question is: are the amendments substantially different or not? Now if we reflect on the Speaker's ruling from 2010 I was actually the Minister in the chair and what happened was that there were over a thousand amendments moved to slightly change the date whether the date was going to be 1 November then an amendment for 31 October then 30 October etc. The Speaker at the time ruled that those amendments were substantially the same. I think that was a correct and a balanced ruling. I've looked back on the rulings if we go back to the bible of our Parliament Erskine May and the reference that it makes about what determines what is a substantially different amendment. I think it provides some guidance as to whether the amendments are substantially different for the Parliament to be able to reasonably consider those.Then my second point is around the practical effect. Parliament's procedures need to be practical they need to be able to work so that the Opposition is able to fairly express its opposition to views but equally so you as Speaker have to ensure that the Government is able to reasonably do its business. Now if you take the Speaker's ruling from Lockwood Smith back in 2010—of which you made a very considered and in my view sensible contribution at that time as a member not Speaker at that time—it is that if every individual amendment was allowed you would have the Parliament voting for about 13 hours in that situation and that is not reasonable. I would put to you that for Parliament to have approximately 20 minutes to consider nine amendments about each of our individual polytechnics is not at all unreasonable in the context of the balance of power that you as Speaker have to dutifully and carefully try and manage.The third point I wish to make is actually really important in terms of the role of a constituency member of Parliament. One of the amendments is in my name as the member of Parliament for Nelson. It affects the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology which is the second-largest public institution in my electorate. It's been around for 115 years. It is unique and different—and this is important in terms of the substantial question—in that it's the only polytech in New Zealand where the land was actually funded by the ratepayers of Nelson. We're talking about a substantive asset being transferred over to central government going from the control of a board that is 100 percent locals to one that has no locals on it. So I would put to you that for the committee of the House not to allow a constituency member of Parliament to individually have their amendment voted on—that is the second-biggest institution in Nelson that's been around for 115 years—is infringing on my rights to be able to advocate for the 70000 people that live in the constituency of Nelson who feel very strongly about this issue.I think on the basis of those three points that proper balance not just about the practical issue but more importantly about the rights of the Opposition to be able to fairly put amendments around each individual institution when there are only 16 is reasonable. I put to you if let's say it was an amendment to exclude 2600 schools and each individual school was moved I would suspect that a reasonable Speaker would say That would tie the time of Parliament up for many days." We are only talking about 16 individual institutions nine additional votes. I think you should rule in favour of the Parliament being allowed to individually consider those amendments particularly to protect the rights of constituency members of Parliament to be able to advocate and put issues to the House."