Simmonds PennyPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise to speak in support at this first reading of the Education and Training (Freedom of Expression) Amendment Bill brought in the name of Dr James McDowall. Congratulations Dr McDowall on having this chosen.The bill's purpose is seeking to ensure that tertiary institutions who receive public money have some accountability around properly balancing their health and safety obligations on the one hand and their obligation to be a place of open debate on the other hand. Now the Education and Training Act 2020 and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 requires our institutions to uphold academic freedom and freedom of expression. Our universities are required to be the critic and conscience of society; however there is no consequence for them failing to do so.This bill shouldn't be needed—it really shouldn't be needed—but we've seen a number of examples of why it is needed. Let's have a wee look just at April this year: Auckland University of Technology cancelling bizarrely a talk on feminism advocacy and free speech. Back in July last year seven University of Auckland professors dared to take a position on mātauranga Māori and NCEA science and were publicly chastised by the vice-chancellor. And of course the example that we had back in 2018 when Don Brash was cancelled by Massey University for health and safety reasons that were found not to be health and safety reasons and had to be reinstated. So if we weren't seeing this disturbing trend of things such as this happening the bill wouldn't be needed but sadly it is.But unlike the current Government that when it decides on something everything has to be centralised and they have to make the decisions this bill gives the institutions the ability to issue their own codes of practice to set out their own policies and procedures that student and staff should follow to uphold freedom of expression. So it gives the responsibility back to the institution to ensure that they can get that balance right but not lean on health and safety as a reason for cancelling.So if institutions are found to be stifling free speech or de-platforming speakers as a general practice they may lose all or part of their public funding for failing to act in the public interest.Now universities are worried about speakers encouraging violence—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! With apologies to the member. Masks are to be worn in this House unless the member has an exemption or is making a call. So members may not remove their mask even if only partially to make a call under these circumstances.PENNY SIMMONDS: Thank you Madam Speaker. So if universities are worried about speakers encouraging violence or inciting lawbreaking they have plenty of protection already. The Crimes Act the Summary Offences Act 1981 the Broadcasting Act 1989 the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 the Harassment Act 1997 and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 all place constraints on what people can say to protect against harmful speech. So tertiary institutions should not be falling back on health and safety when they have those protections in place. Tertiary institutions should be maximising free expression within these limits not trying to further constrain it.National is supporting this bill at first reading. If by chance the Government members might vote for it and the bill goes to select committee and beyond there would have to be some consideration made to how the bill could actually enforce these obligations. In the case of loss of funding how will that impact some unrelated work at the same institution? How much and why—and all those details. But I'm sure that Dr McDowall is working on that and is prepared to see a select committee work on that. But given this growing trend of tertiary institutions disinviting or de-platforming speakers we believe this bill is necessary.