Dyson RuthHon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Can I just note the member Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga's more considered contribution to this debate than that of his colleagues—it was appreciated. His colleagues demonstrated arrogance and a disregard and a lack of understanding of the proposal in this bill that I find really frustrating. It does not take long to read a member's bill. They are very rarely large or complex. We do not have the advantage of Government departments or agencies to write them; we write them ourselves.One of the members Todd Muller suggested that my bill was a waste of time. This is the member who supported his colleagues writing outstanding contributions to the parliamentary process such as allowing airport companies to advertise lost books from the cafe at the airport in different ways or Matt Doocey's bill which gave companies the right to ask their shareholders by letter or email whether they wanted a hard copy of the annual report. That is the rubbish that those members supported to waste the time of Parliament and they have the arrogance and the audacity to say that this bill is a waste of time. At least the member who just resumed his seat acknowledged the integrity and the professionalism of teachers. That is actually what this bill is about.National has got a track record in regard to its relations with teachers. I remember when the National Government removed the registration of teachers. What did it do at the same time? It introduced a mandatory registration for vets. That is what that Government did. You do not have to be registered to be a teacher but you do have to be registered to be a vet. How does that show respect towards a profession?Hon Simon Bridges: Teachers don't operate on children to be fair.Hon RUTH DYSON: Come and join this side if you are so supportive of our debate the Hon Simon Bridges. You would be welcome briefly.Todd Muller also demonstrated his ignorance of the process that the Education Council is going through. I should not pick on just him—Todd Barclay and other National contributors did it as well including sadly the chair of the Education and Science Committee.My bill was put in the ballot as a response to the punitive measures introduced by the Minister of Education coupled with her disregard for teachers and the recognition of their profession in the name of their regulatory body formerly known as the Teachers Council. It is not something you need to die in a ditch for but if those members had the courage of their convictions and the confidence of the quality of their debate they would test that at a committee. They would support this bill to go to a committee and say: Let's hear from the public. Let's hear from the professionals. Let's hear from parents and the broader education sector and see what their view is." But they are not able to do that. They do not have any courage of their convictions. They just have poorly written research notes—probably written by Mr Bishop actually judging by the quality of them—that they just read out. There is no understanding—[Interruption] All right. Perhaps they were not that bad. I apologise for that insult to the researcher who did write the notes.So the Education (Teachers' Code of Ethics) Amendment Bill recognises the value and the integrity of teachers as professionals. It goes to that high-regard high-trust relationship that I talked about earlier. It is an aspirational code an aspirational set of principles rather than a punitive one. It has a commitment to learners to families to society and to the profession.The timing of this was that it was in the ballot until the day before the Education Council released its draft code. My bill came out first and then the Education Council released its draft code. I am supportive of the code. I think it looks good. There is no guarantee that a future Minister will appoint to the council people who are as supportive of the profession as the current make-up of it allows. We could end up with a punitive regime for the code for teachers in the future. This bill would futureproof against that and ensures that we retain the integrity of the profession and retain the confidence of the public."