Muller ToddTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): I rise to say a few words this afternoon in the third reading of the Education Legislation Bill. Perhaps if you would not mind I can just start with an acknowledgment of the Minister Hekia Parata who spoke to launch this discussion this afternoon in light of her announcement yesterday. I think she will go down as one of the greatest Ministers of Education that we have had and what is clear—and you saw it again this afternoon—is the absolute focus that she has on our children—Scott Simpson: Passion.TODD MULLER: —and their achievement and attainment through the education system. As Scott Simpson in front of me has said it is a passion that you can see. It is a passion she has lived by and it is a passion that she has driven through the education sector. She has got a lot to be proud of. When this Government took over Māori education achievement in National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2 was at 44 percent. It is now well over 70 percent and the national level is 83 percent. These are real results and as a parent of three kids in the education system I am delighted with the leadership that she has provided. And was it not great to see the near unanimity of acknowledgment of her contribution yesterday? It was not exclusive of course. There were a couple of unions that did not have the grace to acknowledge her contribution but in my view that actually talks more to their lack of reputation than it does to the Minister. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the bill.TODD MULLER: This is a particularly strong piece of legislation which we on this side of the House are very very happy to support. One of the interesting I guess components of the difference in philosophies that we have seen throughout the debate—we have heard it already this afternoon; we have heard it every single time this House has reflected on this piece of legislation—is this view from the Opposition that what we have embedded in this legislation is compulsion. It is not compulsion; it is choice. It is enabling communities of schools—in this case boards of trustees—to have more flexibility in the way they manage their affairs. But that talks more to the political philosophy that underpins the other side because those members see every example of innovation and reform through the lens of compulsion—through the lens of directing from the centre to the rest of the country how people live their lives and what they need to do; everything needs to be prescribed and every single variable noted and it has to be driven from the centre—whereas this party's philosophy is that you create a framework that enables choice and that choice is delivered by boards of trustees and parents around the country for the benefit of their kids. It works and we have got a clear record of it working over the last 8 years. In particular when we reflect on the very considered comments from Jenny Salesa she talked and gave voice to those members' concerns about the changes that are in this bill. Again you see those differences coming into stark focus. When we talk about school opening hours creating opportunity their view is that somehow that could result in communities not being aligned and so therefore it is a problem whereas we say that this is a choice that a community can sit and reflect on and if it works for them—if it works for the parents; if it works for the schools and their children—then they should be enabled to consider it. That I think points to the difference in philosophies that underpins our two sides including the example of having principals lead more than one school. Yet again we have heard today this particular scenario around who exactly is going to the employer of the principal if he or she is across one or two schools. There is a complete lack of imagination on the other side. Somehow two boards of trustees cannot get together and cannot identify which of those two boards of trustees would be the best group to oversee the contract of the lead principal across the two schools—that cannot be imagined. Those members cannot imagine that you could develop a contract that could deal with the permutations around performance and what would happen if they needed to step away from that position. It happens in the real world every day but that side cannot imagine that boards of trustees have the wit and the intelligence and the common sense to pull it together. Well as I have said before this party understands that you can back parents—that they have got the collective capabilities sitting on boards of trustees to imagine that and deliver it and get an outcome that is better for our kids. That is why this party is so supportive of this legislation. It talks to the stark difference in philosophies around the future of education and this side knows how to deliver it in partnership with parents. Thank you.