Muller ToddTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): A few weeks ago I had the great privilege of going to the United States and viewing the two conventions. One of the things that struck me when I was over there was how intensely divided that country was and as I reflected on the cause of that division it was clear that there is a significant portion of that country that is anti-establishment is anti-globalisation and has sensed that the world is changing at such a fast pace that they cannot see how they can find a way forward for themselves and their families. For those people—and you see that not only in America but in other parts of the world as well—their natural reaction to that pace of change and globalisation is to put their hands up and to say No let's just stick with the status quo." or even more nostalgically "Let's just see if we can return to 20 or 30 years ago."That is why I am so supportive of this piece of legislation. What this piece of legislation does is talk to this Government's fundamental view that we best prepare our children by giving them the tools to embrace change because the change will be the constant in their lives and we need to ensure that we have an education system that is fit for purpose and can evolve with the trends that are happening around the world. When you look at what we have put in this document where we emphasise the importance of collaboration where we emphasise the importance of getting careers advice—which we all know in this House needs to be tuned to the reality of today's and particularly tomorrow's job environment.The other area for me that is of particular interest is our thinking in respect of communities of online learning. We cannot as members of this House be absolutely sure that all the future permutations can be captured in this bill and that is what I would like to spend a few moments on particularly directing my comments to my fellow Education and Science Committee members who are from the other side. Let us see if we can have a conversation in respect of what is in this bill that actually leaves some of the historical legacy ideology at the door. Let us not reference this document through the debates of the 1980s and 1990s where all change needs to be resisted where the only difference between today and success is more money—that the structure does not need to change. Let us leave that at the door. Let us also try not to focus simply on the shadows that through your own particular perspectives you think this legislation might cast and actually look at it through the lens of opportunity.This is what this legislation is doing—it is putting on the table how we intend to frame our education sector and delivery for the next 10 and 15 years and it actually needs us to be open-minded as opposed to closed-minded. In particular I would like to ask all of the select committee but again particularly my colleagues from the other side—let us not be caught in having to imagine every permutation and variation that might come through changing a piece of legislation as substantive as this. There seems to be a desire from some quarters that whenever change of a structural nature is proposed every permutation choice and consequence needs to be codified and noted down and any change to a delivery therefore needs to be negotiated to that granular degree. With respect I believe it misses the point.My challenge to the select committee is that we take in good faith the purposes that are listed in this bill and debate a structure of education that can enable our children to achieve for learning to be delivered and for the system to breathe and be as flexible as it needs to be in the 2020s. If we do that well we deliver for our children and in time our children's children. But a yesterday view simply will not suffice and that is why I am so keen to be able to support this legislation and look forward to the conversation in the select committee. Thank you."