Muller ToddTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): I rise to speak against the Education (Teachers' Code of Ethics) Amendment Bill. Tracey Martin it is very important to get people's names right. I am Todd Muller not Todd Müller. It is really important to get this stuff right.I just want to ask the question: where on earth did this come from? I can imagine the Labour Party war room—the education war room. Chris Hipkins is the chair we have got Ruth Dyson there we have got Sue Moroney and the others and they are reflecting on how they can put a chink in the National Party armour.Todd Barclay: The A-team!TODD MULLER: Yes the A-team—the education A-team.How can we put a chink in the education armour of the National Government?""I know! We'll attack national standards.""Oh no that's not going to work because that's actually very popular if you ask any parent if you ask the kids."I had a conversation about this just last week. It is actually a popular policy."Oh no we can't deal with that one.""I know! Let's attack communities of learning.""Oh no 1400 schools have signed up to that." That was probably updated by Sue; she would have popped that into the war room conversation."A total of 1400 schools and half a million students are involved now. Oh we can't use that as the attack line.""What about the Education Amendment Bill?""Oh well we'll have a go on that."But yet again the way the Government spoke to that legislation so comprehensively yesterday and talked about how it will fundamentally change the education sector moving forward they realised that they do not have an opportunity to hit us with that. And so Ruth Dyson says: "I have an idea. I know what can really put the Government on its heels. Why don't we change the name of the Education Council back to the Teaching Council?". "Brilliant" says Chris Hipkins. "Absolutely brilliant. Let's put that up as a member's bill. Based on Ruth's luck that might actually get picked."So here we are. So emboldened by that she decided to add a bit of depth to it—Todd Barclay: A bit of spice.TODD MULLER: Yes a bit of spice. She looked to revert to a teachers' code of ethics as opposed to the code of conduct. To echo the deputy chair of the Education and Science Committee is that the best you have got? When you are trying to find an angle as an Opposition MP to be able to articulate a different vision in terms of the education provision in this country if that is the best you have got to be able to stand up and say: "Mr Speaker I want a change of name back to the Teachers Council. We do not want the Education Council of Aotearoa. Let's change the name back to the Teachers Council."—with respect that is not the level of contribution—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I apologise for interrupting but I am going to ask the member sitting beside the member currently speaking to stop interjecting in a way that draws the Chair into the debate. He may be pretending to be nice but he sounds sarcastic.TODD MULLER: That is so unlike him. Let us turn more deliberately to the components of this particular member's bill which has had so much thought go into it.We have already heard from so many of the speakers on this side that this Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand was actually a carefully considered name. It was chosen to represent a more refocused organisation that would arguably take some of the best of what was there previously and put it together with a refreshed mandate to talk to the whole sector and its particular interests not just the teachers. That was well received. A number of stakeholders were involved in that and it was well received.So when you look at that you say: "Why on earth are we wasting parliamentary time to have a conversation about reverting back to a model that was proven to be a failure that had so many negative consequences that has been adopted as being successful over the last few months and genuinely reflects the ambitions of the broader sector and not just a single component in it?".And of course the second component which we have already heard and which was even acknowledged by Ruth Dyson as largely redundant is that we already have this document out in the sector for consultation. Yet again we have to waste the Parliament's time reflecting on a particular view that it would be useful to go back to yesteryear and create a model that has already been so comprehensively thrown out. This is a waste of time. I do hope that the House will see sense and reject it when we vote on it shortly."