Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. One of the amendments is in my name. It relates to the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology. It's an institution that has assets worth way over $50 million. It seems an extraordinary ruling that just because an amendment may be lost in another part of the country the Parliament is not to have a specific vote as to whether my Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology—and I point out it's the second-largest public institution in Nelson second only to our hospital and it's a change after 115 years and the effect of your ruling is to not allow myself as the elected representative for the people of Nelson to specifically put to this Parliament whether the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology will be gone.Now I have noted many debates both from Opposition and Government to various reforms. This is a very novel ruling that just because an amendment that affects some other part of the country might be declined you're ruling that I can't even put to the Parliament the amendment that has such a profound impact on my constituency.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Thank you Dr Smith I did explain—Hon Dr NICK SMITH: So I seek your clarification as to whether my amendment in respect of the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology is out of order or whether you as Chair are not allowing the Parliament to vote on that because of some ruling that there's been some vote on some amendment for some other part of New Zealand.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): It's neither novel nor new Dr Smith. I outlined the procedure before I started taking the vote. There was no question then—had there been and as I will now I will confirm that Speaker's ruling 117/2 from 2010 by Dr the Rt Hon Lockwood Smith says that A chairperson has to consider the admissibility of amendments that are substantially the same as an amendment that has already been negatived by the committee."Hon Dr Nick Smith: Speaking to the point of order.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Have you read the Speaker's ruling yet?Hon Dr Nick Smith: Yes I have. And I also know that—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry Dr Smith. Have you read the Speaker's ruling that I just referred to?Hon Dr Nick Smith: Yes I have. I have it right in front of me. And I am also familiar with—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Point of order Dr Smith.Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The ruling that was made by Speaker Lockwood Smith related to a series of amendments that were moved by the then Labour Opposition that chose to choose every single possible date. So when the legislation came into effect could it be 1 January 2 January 3 January 4 January? And what he says in that ruling 117/2 is that you could effectively stymie the reasonable processes of Parliament by effectively moving 367 amendments per year on different days of which a law would have effect. And it was a perfectly reasonable ruling with those many dates.The judgment that you need to exercise is as to whether it is reasonable saying that you couldn't just amend every single date that you will not allow amendments for the 20 different polytechs around New Zealand. And as I remind you you're talking about my own polytech an asset of over $50 million and an institution that's been around for 115 years which I think is a very different proposition and that is why I'd ask you to reconsider and to allow those members of Parliament constituency members who are talking about the second-biggest institution in Nelson an organisation that employs hundreds of people thousands of students that has been around for 115 years—that I as the constituency member of Parliament for Nelson should not be debarred from moving an amendment to protect that institution."