Macindoe TimHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Ha ha! Tēnā koe e Te Kaiwhakahaere. Kia ora e Te Whare.Mr Chair thank you for that call. This is only my second call in Part 1 of this debate so I'm pleased to feel that I can now resume where I left off. I was going to acknowledge the member for Hunua for his passionate oratory a short time ago; in particular for ensuring that my fine constituents in Hamilton West were able to hear him without the assistance of the fine technicians up in the broadcasting box. It was a very impassioned approach.I was also going to acknowledge the Minister for having taken a few calls because it's very important in the committee stage that the Minister is willing to engage in the debate and in particular to answer the legitimate questions that the Opposition members are putting forward. This is after all our detailed scrutiny part by part clause by clause. As I say I was going to acknowledge the Minister but I have to say I think actually his contributions have been in the nature of pre-emptive strikes. In fact one of Mr O'Connor's most distinguished constituents would probably describe it as something of a three hearts bid in trying to anticipate what might be coming and then a very quick once-over-lightly treatment rather than detailed engagement in the substance of the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) because as he's highlighted there are a large number of SOPs on this bill and I want to talk about a couple in this contribution.I just feel that so far he has dismissed some without really actively engaging with them as if by suggesting that if he mentions them here in the Chamber that will do; he'll convince people that we've had the debate. Well Minister that won't do. We do need far more detailed engagement. I'm very pleased to see the Associate Minister of Education the Hon Tracey Martin has been sitting over there with her head down. I assume that she's been writing out her apology that she's going to deliver shortly for the outrageous slur that she uttered against me in both the first and second readings of this bill. So I encourage Mrs Martin to take a call and to acknowledge that at no stage have I ever uttered the suggestion that anyone can teach. Mrs Martin knows that and I look forward to her correcting the record because I know that she is a decent and honourable person and she wouldn't mean to have allowed that slur to go on unchallenged for so long.I was making the point to the Minister of Education that in Part 1 in new section 380(1)(b) is this obsession with one representative per sector. The Minister in his reply suggested that I was arguing against representation. Well of course I wasn't doing that at all. The point I was going to be making had I not been interrupted by the five-minute bell was that in going for such a highly prescribed sector representation I think that the Minister is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. He's actually overlooking the fact that just as not all politicians speak with one voice—and here we have tonight a range of people in the Chamber who have different views; that's a good thing—to suggest that one person elected from say the early childhood sector and let's say might be from down in Invercargill can speak for all of the early childhood sector teachers right around the country is farcical.Yet the Government seems to have accepted that this idea of very sector-specific representation will bring greater skills on to the council than we have at the moment. Well even if that was an untested theory it would be highly dubious but the evidence totally contradicts it. So I want to ask the Minister has he really given detailed consideration to the review that was commissioned and released in 2012 that showed the very substantial flaws in the previous entity which effectively the Minister is now trying to reintroduce because he's taking us back to a model that was discredited? As the Hon Nikki Kaye pointed out it was one that was beset by financial issues. I wouldn't want to overstate it but there was a problem with a sex offender being caught up there. The most important thing however was just a lack of core competencies and that's why the new structure the new entity was set up.Again if we look at the evidence the new entity is working incredibly well. So why would you move away from a model that has been proved to be working well that is actually highly respected in the profession to go back to a model that is highly prescriptive will not achieve the degree of representation that the Minister requires and which will overlook much of the core competencies that are the whole point? So Minister I ask what is the rush?I want to move on to the Hon Nikki Kaye's amendment and that is an amendment to clause 2. If we talk about what is the rush here we have a provision—[Time expired]