Sio WilliamSu'a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): Earlier David Seymour the ACT Party leader made a comment that Pacific people are all going towards charter schools. He gave a false image really because in the Government's report there are only nine charter schools. Two of those are run by Pacific organisations. I tell you that at the beginning I think the Government gave the message to our community to the Māori community that charter schools ought to be embraced because they were going to save our young people—that they were going to provide an opportunity for our young people to lift the standards and quality of education. That has not happened. In fact in the Government's own regulatory impact statement it says that so far the diverse range of sponsors that was envisaged for the model has not eventuated. That is a failure statement for this exercise. I say that because right from the outset the Government promised that charter schools would each have a particular sponsor that would provide an education programme that would be different from what was provided by our public education system but that is not the case. Most New Zealanders pay their taxes and collectively do so because it is our expectation that the Government provide an education for all of its citizens because of the public good that that provides. But what I am seeing here are two models: one is the private sector model; the other is the public sector model. The Government has said that there would be these slush funds from the private sector that would set up charter schools but that is not the case. The case is that they still continue to use public funds. What we are seeing from this bill is an extension of a failed system which I do not believe—I do not believe at all—is going to achieve what this Government says it will achieve. I look at clause 9 inserting new section 75A and I am asking myself why—what is the driver behind having one principal be the principal of two or more schools? This was an exercise that did take place at Sir Edmund Hillary Collegiate. It attempted to have one board and one principal for its three schools. It did not work. It also was applied here at Southern Cross Campus where there was one principal for three separate distinct schools. They have gone back now. Each school demanded to have a principal for its particular school. It is a specialist role that principals are required to perform and the needs particularly the needs of our communities are so great that you require a hands-on full-time principal not a part-time principal because that is how I am seeing that clause apply: you have a principal who is responsible for two or more separate schools—it could be a college; it could be a primary school. What drives that? That is what I am asking. What evidence is there that this is going to improve the lot of our young people? Many of the problems that often occur in our communities stem from the fact that still today in the 21st century our education system has not accepted the fact that our young people—Māori and Pasifika—have significant assets that they bring with them to their education. Too often teachers and some schools—and I would say too often this Government—look upon our kids as if they have a deficit or they have something bad to contribute to this society. I think this Government needs to get its head in the right space. It will be the Māori and Pasifika communities who will far outnumber the white community in Aotearoa New Zealand. If we want this country to realise its full potential we have got to give these kids the best opportunities there are and I do not believe that this is the way to go about it.