Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Can I apologise: with flight delays I have only just arrived back in Wellington. In addressing Part 2 I want to note the significance of this bill for the community and electorate of Nelson that I represent. Schedule 6 of Part 2 removes the term polytech" as part of this Government's plan to get rid of a structure that has served New Zealand for over a hundred years.My first question for the Minister: where is the mandate from communities like Nelson that has had a polytechnic for 115 years for you to take away the local control over that important institution? Did any Labour candidate or any Labour Minister indicate that if my community voted for the Labour Party they would be getting rid of the independent Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology? I've heard from people in the sector that this has always been Mr Hipkins your secret plan from Opposition days and that you did not have the courage of your convictions to put it to the electorate and that you have as a consequence—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry can you use another descriptor please? Could you use a more appropriate descriptor please?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Minister in the chair the Hon Chris Hipkins was not open with the community of Nelson or New Zealand about his plans to get rid of institutions like the Southern Institute of Technology like the Otago Polytechnic and the likes of my own Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology. So my first question for the Minister: where is the mandate for this radical policy?The second question I have is in respect of the coalition agreement and I note there are New Zealand First members of Parliament in the Chamber this afternoon. That coalition agreement says that the Government is going to decentralise that it is going to provide more control in the regions. I say to the New Zealand First Party: where is your mandate to take away from regions like Nelson and Marlborough the control of crucial public institutions like our polytechnic?The third question I've got for the Minister related to those is what about the Nelson City ratepayers? In this bill and in Schedule 6 you are going to nationalise an asset that was paid for by Nelson ratepayers. Do you know the history of the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology? The valuable land in Hardy Street was funded by ratepayers was funded by the Nelson community. So where is the justice in central government taking over an asset that was paid for by the Nelson community? As I read this part of the bill there would be nothing to stop the national institute from one day selling off the land in Hardy Street taking the money and deciding to spend it in Christchurch Auckland or any other part of the country. So I say on behalf of the Nelson ratepayers how is it fair for the Government to take away an asset that was uniquely paid for by the ratepayers and community of Nelson?A further concern that I have is how can we possibly expect the national institute proposed in Part 2 and Schedule 6 of this bill to be more responsive to the skill needs? I'll tell you what was insulting Minister is when you had a nationwide consultation process on this bill and you told the businesses of Nelson to go to Christchurch. Does the Minister in the chair have any idea that it's a five-hour drive to Christchurch? For any of my businesses—and they strongly objected to the process—to consider that Nelson is somehow some suburb of Christchurch shows how out of touch this Government is to regional New Zealand and how flawed this policy and this part of this bill is.I have been overwhelmed with opposition from business overwhelmed with opposition from students and lecturers and others—[Time expired]"