Coddington Deborah: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Coddington Deborah: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12146] 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I would like to carry on from my colleague Stephen Franks in talking about Part 2 “Disestablishment of Board and associated matters”. While Stephen Franks was talking to Part 2 he referred back to the principal Act and the Minister interjected and corrected my colleague. When Stephen Franks said that $1 million might have gone astray the Minister interjected and said: “No it was $6 million that might have gone astray.” 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I want to make it very clear that I said $60000 not $6 million. The member is quite wrong. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes all right but that is a debating point. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: I hope that does not come off my time. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No it does not. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: The Minister said that he had known about this. It was not news and it had not just broken; he had known about it since 2002. Under the principal Act it says the management shall ensure in those early childhood centres that where a grant has been paid subject to conditions the conditions are complied with and the money is used specifically for the purposes for which it was provided. If the Minister has known since 2002 why have the police not been called in? 
The Minister has never ever given members a valid reason for this legislation at all. All members have had is press releases and announcements by the Education and Science Committee that the Early Childhood Development Board would be incorporated into the Ministry of Education. Early Childhood Development was given a glowing annual report in 2002. I say to the Minister: “If it was not broken why fix it?”. Was there someone on the board who offended him? Was this the International Rugby Board form of disestablishment or revenge for something? There has been no consultation at all. 
I just remind this Committee what happened when this Minister announced that the Early Childhood Development Board would be disestablished and drawn back into the Ministry of Education. Sue Thorne from the Early Childhood Council voiced her concern that the board was performing very well there was no need to integrate it and disestablishment would take away involvement at community level. Jill Pettis raised questions at the select committee. She asked the Early Childhood Development management who appeared before the committee whether programmes that were meant to increase participation in early childhood among Maori and iwi organisations were working and Ms Robinson said she could not confirm that was the case. That was at the announcement of the disestablishment of the board. 
The only reason the Minister has given for this legislation is that it would increase participation in early childhood. That is the only nebulous reason he has given apart from the fact that he favours centralisation. It was not increasing iwi and Maori participation at that stage. Why then did this Minister rush ahead before we had even passed this legislation and have increased participation schemes and grants that turned into as we have heard money being used to enrol phantom children? Why did he persevere down that path? 
One of the other matters raised at the select committee when this legislation was announced was that Donna Awatere-Huata asked whether there had been any research done on that participation. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I ask the member on her feet to forgive me for interrupting her speech but it is a longstanding tradition in this Chamber that the Minister in the chair does not interject. If he wishes to say something he should take a call because there is an open microphone next to him and it is unacceptable for the Minister to interject. If he wishes to say something in response to speeches being made he should stand and seek a call. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Although I have not been in Parliament quite as long as the member it is my experience that during the Committee stage of the debate there is generally an ability for a free flow between the Minister in the chair and the person who is taking a call. It is much less formal than when the House is sitting and that is the tradition. There have been a number of rulings to that effect. I do not have them at my fingertips but I have certainly been in the Chamber for them. I think members have to take care because members are aware that there is an open microphone but when members are being controversial and basically want some interjection to liven their speeches up I am willing to help them. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I agree with the member Dr Lockwood Smith. The Minister cannot use the live microphone to facilitate more interjections than he would somewhere else. It has to be in moderation. There are times when it is reasonable to answer a question but there should not be an ongoing dialogue and I would say that to the Minister. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: I conclude by talking about this so-called research that was part of the participation rates. I remind the Chair that the reason I am bringing it up in this Part 2 debate is that it is about the disestablishment of the board and associated matters. The Minister’s main reason for getting rid of the Early Childhood Development Board is to increase participation rates. These bounty hunters had to get parents to fill in a massive number of questionnaires as to why they had not participated before what their reasons were and why they had not enrolled their children and nothing has been done with those questionnaires—absolutely nothing. We do not even know how to fine-tune this policy. We do not have any information about whether it is working. We do not have any assurance that this Minister will do something by bringing in this legislation to make these sorts of grants comply with the funding section of the Act where the money is paid over for one purpose only.