Lee DeniseDENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you very much Madam Chair for the opportunity to speak. It has been worthwhile listening to my colleagues talk about some of the monumental reforms that this bill represents and the quite frankly disastrous effects on local communities and the regions that they represent. While those economic impacts are extremely important to consider I'd like to consider this afternoon the timing of the bill and the wider economic context.We know that our economy is facing an uphill battle at the moment. We've got an overburdening Government that's for sure and there's a significant skills shortage and what we have here is a bill that actually doesn't relieve those pressures—you could argue it compounds them. The building and construction sector is crying out for new workers. That is a fact; we all know that. And we also know that if the Government wants to build any KiwiBuild homes they should look to get people who know how to use a hammer. But what the business case shows for this particular bill is that there will actually be over 2000 fewer apprentices. That when we get down to raw impact should speak for itself that particular number.The other thing that we should consider is the impact of these reforms on the international student market. What we know now: it's worth over $500 million to our economy. Unfortunately the Cabinet paper barely mentions it and it seems to have been somewhat overlooked when developing this policy. But then we've also got delays in visa processing that was limiting the growth in this area. Now just getting back to the economic context we've seen the impact of coronavirus on the international student market. Economists are forecasting that potential negative growth in quarterly GDP and we've got the tertiary sector pleading for exemptions on travel bans that have stopped Chinese students coming to New Zealand.So we've got a context here that needs to be understood for this particular bill and the timing of it and I do have a question for the Minister around—or quite simply this represents massive upheaval in the sector and we're facing this context that I've just tried to outline. Is this a good time to be doing this? Has the Minister thought through and has he quantified the full impact especially after knowing how I'll just call it dark Treasury was on the full impact of this bill.Now I want to switch over to an amendment in my name and it is asking for the deletion of clause 43(a)(vii) from Schedule 1—and that's on page 68 lines 20 and 21 just to be very specific—and what it does is remove the New Zealand Hair and Beauty Industry Training Organisation from being recognised as a transitional Industry Training Organisation (ITO) for the purposes of transitional arrangements for this bill to take them out and here's why: they were very clear in their submission. And for those that were able to hear what they said in person they were very clear and the numbers again speak for themselves. This is an ITO that has had to work very hard to get where they're at. So they're obviously registered. The industry is not regulated so their qualifications aren't compulsory. They've celebrated 50 years of apprenticeships not 15—50 years—and they've got a very long successful history of on-the-job training. They're well respected; they represent $579 million to the economy 11500 people employed. So there's context for why we think that this amendment should pass and remove their particular industry.What they've also said is that they know that the industry ownership of workforce development councils should be in the hands of industry. This is some of the feedback that they were giving on the bill. They've also said that they need further clarification of roles within the system. So they were being constructive with what they were saying. And when you come down to the final sum of things they should have that deletion clause work we think in their favour. They know that the bill is a massive risk to apprenticeships and to trainee numbers. We also know again that Treasury backs them up with that and that providers don't have—[Time expired]