Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Thank you Madam Chair. I want to put to the committee that a far more sensible title for this bill would be to refer to it as the Ratting on Regional New Zealand Bill". I think that would fairly describe it. I want to put to Government members any single member of the Government—I don't mind whether it's a Labour member or a New Zealand First member—to answer the question as to how the title of this bill is consistent with the coalition commitment. The coalition commitment—and I read it word for word—the coalition Government is committed to relocating Government functions to the regions.Kieran McAnulty: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I'm reluctant to interrupt any speaker's contribution but in my view this contribution is clearly in breach of Speakers' ruling 114/6: "An amendment to the title of a bill must be a serious or objective description of the bill rather than an attempt to criticise its contents." I put to you that the alternative proposed by the member is in breach of that very Speakers' ruling.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I thank you very much for your consideration. However I think the argument that he's making around the title—I wouldn't call it sensible but I think the argument that he's making is quite rational. I'm going to allow it.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would love that member or any member of the Government to understand how the title and this bill are consistent with that commitment that they gave in black and white to New Zealanders that they would be relocating Government functions to the regions when this bill does the exact opposite.We shouldn't pretend this is some minor bill. For most of regional New Zealand the polytech is one of the biggest Government agencies and what this bill does is take away the local regional control and give it to a central bureaucracy. It does the opposite of what the coalition agreement does and that is why I seriously say this Parliament should consider the title of this bill to be the "Ratting on Regional New Zealand Bill"—because there was no mandate at the last election. Neither the Greens Labour or New Zealand First said to regional New Zealand "If you vote for us we're going to get rid of your local polytechnic." Nobody said that.In fact like I say in the very coalition agreement of which the Labour and the New Zealand First parties form this Government they promise that they would actually return services to the regions. I would love my colleague opposite from Wairarapa rather than taking some pedantic point of order to answer the fundamental question: how is this bill consistent with the coalition agreement of committing to relocate services to the regions when this bill does the opposite? Is there any member on the Government benches—Hon Andrew Little: No because we're not clowns like that member.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well Mr Little might want to indulge in personal abuse—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Order! Order!Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Why doesn't he answer the question? How is this bill consistent—Hon Andrew Little: The member is a clown. I'm not talking to clowns.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Order! Minister all members in this House are honourable and will be treated as such.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would love Mr Little to honourably explain how a bill that takes away 16 regional polytechs and puts them into a national organisation is consistent with the coalition agreement and the title of the bill—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I would love you to debate the title.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Indeed. I'm saying that the title of this bill should reflect what it does and that is it rats on the coalition agreement that commits to relocating services to the regions and that if the Government wants to rat on the black and white words that's in the founding coalition agreement of this Government they need to explain why. I have not yet heard a single contribution from any Government member to explain why this bill does the opposite of what they said they would do. We might choose a different title. We might call it the "New Zealand First Memorial Bill" because that party is doing so much damage to regional New Zealand that most political commentators think they're toast and this bill is contributing to it and so the "New Zealand First Commemoration"—or "Valedictory"—"Bill" might be a more appropriate title. My view would be that any title that makes plain the scale of the reform and the impact on regional New Zealand would actually be an honest description and the fact that there is not a single Government member who is prepared to explain the consistency of this bill with their commitment to relocate services to the regions when it does exactly the opposite speaks volumes about how morally bankrupt this coalition Government is."