Macindoe TimHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you Madam Chair. Earlier this afternoon I hadn't anticipated that I would be—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Just a reminder—sorry to interrupt—but just to remind everyone I did indicate to Dr Smith that we're on the Title" "Commencement" and "Principal Act". It's not a general debate; it's title commencement and principal Act. I call the Hon Tim Macindoe. Hon TIM MACINDOE: Thank you Madam Chair. I was simply going to indicate that I hadn't anticipated taking a call in the title and commencement debate but I wanted to explain the reason why I am doing so. And that is primarily because this is a very significant measure which has huge implications for the tertiary education and the industry training sector and huge implications by extension to the New Zealand economy. This afternoon on regular occasions I sought a second call. I had spoken once. I sought a second call including as I had foreshadowed in my first call the opportunity I hoped to speak in favour of my own Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). I never got that opportunity and while listening to the Green member Chlöe Swarbrick take the sole call for the Green Party I heard her make the comment that we had had plenty of debate and therefore there was no need for any further debate we could move on—or words to that effect. At that point I interjected to Ms Swarbrick that her party had only taken the one call as she'd just indicated and in fact apart from the Minister there had been no other Government parties' speakers at all. That in my view did not indicate anything like sufficient debate. So when I interjected I heard from Ms Swarbrick that I was apparently filibustering. I took great offence at that because not to be able to speak to my own SOP was hardly a case of filibustering but just as Dr Smith has so eloquently argued it was in my view a denial of my right and my responsibility as the member of Parliament for Hamilton West in whose electorate the two campuses of Wintec are located to be able to push their case to be exempted. So I am speaking now in this title and commencement phase strongly in support of Dr Reti's proposed amendment. I don't actually agree with his suggestion that we should go for the earlier date of the end of this year 2020 because of course it's a very busy year that will be interrupted by the election campaign and people's focus will be not only on the general election but also the referenda that we are considering. I don't therefore believe that that is sufficient time whatsoever. I am however strongly supporting his alternative suggestion that the date of implementation or of enactment should be deferred until the end of 2022. As has already been noted that will give all of us as parliamentarians the opportunity to campaign on that and other candidates from outside Parliament at the moment the opportunities to front up to the institutes and the industry training organisations in their electorates find out what is felt there get a grasp of the issues then go out to the wider public and argue for or against.Now if this bill which has had such inadequate debate in this Chamber today is then rushed through and enacted at the end of this year I believe we will be doing a great disservice to the public of New Zealand and in particular to the polytechnics who are the subject of this very important measure. Now I acknowledge that the Minister took a few calls latterly. He is a very articulate and measured speaker but I was very disappointed that he glossed over many of the important questions that he was asked including three that I put to him—none of which he answered. So again I would suggest that there has not been sufficient debate. This is our only opportunity in this House to give really detailed consideration to the specific aspects of this legislation. I don't believe that we have had it. Therefore I am arguing strongly that the very least we can do is defer the date of enactment to ensure that if necessary the 52nd Parliament and its members have a chance to consider this measure in greater detail with greater engagement from members across the House rather than the very one-sided debate that we have had today and I don't believe that that is unreasonable. As Dr Smith noted before we have a precedent in the way that the previous Government led by Sir John Key dealt with the mixed-ownership model for State electricity companies and the part share in Air New Zealand. That was a matter of considerable public importance and concern; so is this. And I hope very much that even at this late stage the members opposite will see the reasonableness of that particular case and instead of just moving closure motions which is all most of them have chosen to do all afternoon they would engage in the substantive nature of this debate in particular as to the implications of rushing this through by the end of this year which I consider to be deeply undesirable and unfair."