Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12125] 
Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed. 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Minister of State) 
: 
 The last speaker Wayne Mapp is an indication of backward thinking by the National Party that proved to be disastrous in the past decade it was in power. We are supportive of this move because contrary to what the previous speaker talked about—centralisation—this move goes towards a more effective and consistent approach to improving participation levels in early childhood education. This is critical to my communities of Pacific people because our children have the lowest participation levels and it is only this Government’s policies approach and up to date thinking that has resulted in significant improvement in those participation levels. 
Under National it was around 60 percent—appalling—compared with everybody else who had around 85 percent participation levels. This Government has significantly improved that and it is now approaching 80 percent which is nearly a 20 percent improvement from the situation under the National Government. So I am very supportive of this move where there will be a more consistent approach throughout the whole Ministry of Education to work together to improve those participation levels. 
I want to acknowledge the work Brian Donnelly did in this area when he was Associate Minister of Education. Unfortunately it was probably too little too late although it did establish some improvement in my electorate. I congratulate him on his support in the establishment of some of the early childhood education centres in my electorate. But nevertheless— 
Hon Member 
: It was done years ago. 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD 
: That is right but I also want to acknowledge the work of the current Minister of Education Trevor Mallard because only a few months ago he set a record of over $1 million dedicated to the establishment of three pre-schools in the south Auckland - Mangere area. That is a continued approach to improving participation levels. I think that this move will significantly— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: After David Tua lobbied me I had to do it. 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD 
: But I think it was justified despite the little bit of influence from certain prominent people in the community. I would say that this move means better coordination better consistency and people working together to benefit everyone and particularly our children who are not yet at school. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 This legislation I mooted was not going to inspire or create a lot of really inspirational speeches—certainly not if members stuck to the topic—and the member from National proved my point because he did not talk to the bill at all. It has nothing to do with public-private partnership whatsoever. 
What I do have to say however is that there has been quite a large amount of comment recently—most of it coming from the National Party and ACT—about the misuse of taxpayers’ funds. That in fact is what this bill is about: not the misuse but the duplication of usage of taxpayer funding. That is the situation with Early Childhood Development or the Early Childhood Development Unit as it originally was and the Ministry of Education essentially doing the same task. As Early Childhood Development reported to us the irony was that it was having difficulty recruiting staff because the Ministry of Education was able to pay a lot more money to staff who had exactly the same qualifications and experience that Early Childhood Development needed and this seemed to be a ridiculous situation. 
The genesis of Early Childhood Development was in the reforms of the late 1980s and early 1990s and both the larger parties were involved in those reforms. Under those reforms the Ministry of Education was to be a policy ministry. It was hands off it did the policy making it decided how much funding would be given and then early childhood providers and school providers put things into practice. It was part of an ideology about how public service operated in that particular case. One Minister of Education is known to have told officials from the Ministry of Education: “Whatever you do don’t get out there and talk to the people in the field because it might taint your policy.” How ridiculous can one get? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Who was that? 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: I will not mention his name but I think it is well known by people in the educational field which Minister it was. Is there any wonder that by late 1996 there was a huge gap between the reality of people at the chalkface and the policy that was emanating from the Ministry of Education? 
Early Childhood Development was set up as a separate entity outside the policy division of the ministry to promote and support the development of early childhood education. That was the philosophy of the times and I think both Labour and National would have agreed with that particular model of public service development. However it did not quite work out that way. To start off with Early Childhood Development had some difficulties in covering the full gamut of early childhood needs and aspirations. It was not really able to extend itself across the full range of the population with its diversity of aspirations. It is fitting that Taito Phillip Field spoke of the area of need with the population he serves because Pacific Island early childhood education was not necessarily well served in the early 1990s as a result of the model that was put in place. 
 I have to give credit to Early Childhood Development which made some very large changes and grew tremendously by providing a much broader range of advice and connecting with a much broader range of population groups. However at the same time the Ministry of Education never gave away its hands-on approach to early childhood education. As distinct from schools where there was very much a split in the early 1990s that never happened with early childhood education. The opposite occurred in that as the 1990s moved on the ministry became more hands-on rather than less. So we ended up with two separate entities doing the same tasks with a duplication of function and costs. The irony is as I said that the Ministry of Education was able to pay its workers more and could attract the staff that Early Childhood Development needed to carry out its tasks as well as it could. 
So the decision to close down Early Childhood Development is really a logical conclusion to the events of the 1990s and to how they played themselves out. It is interesting that there was only one submission about this at the select committee stage. It was not as if people were marching in the streets saying that this was terrible. Early Childhood Development itself had come to the conclusion that a new way of organising the whole thing had to be found. Although employees were upset at the process they worked constructively with the ministry and we have to give them credit for that. Rather than being destructive or putting up obstacles they worked constructively for the benefit of early childhood education in order to bring about this legislation. 
Those parties that will vote against this bill are really saying to taxpayers that they do not mind taxpayer money being frittered away on inappropriate models because they want to play games with it. If they said that they opposed the bill because of Fitzgerald—as Wayne Mapp mentioned—then I would say that that is a much more solid ground than education or economic grounds. It has to be recognised that the changes we are now legislating for have already taken place quite some time ago. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Still on the board. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: In name only. This issue did not come to the House and it was not Parliament’s decision to make these changes—this bill should have been through Parliament before this stage. All we can say is that it was bad management by the Government because the Government obviously had this on its work programme but it advanced the work programme in advance of its legislative programme. The Education and Science Committee made only one change to the date on which this bill becomes law. The original bill was supposed to become law on 1 October 2003. I do not think it was even at the select committee before 1 October 2003. This is my first experience of legislation that was supposed to become law before it had gone through its first reading. It was untidy and messy probably because the Minister was so busy closing down lots of schools that he could not get on with pushing forward these legislative and work programmes. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: You support that work. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: Some of it. Nevertheless to summarise New Zealand First will support this bill. We think it is a logical and sensible step. We despise the unnecessary duplication and expenditure which certainly does not further advance the cause of early childhood education. 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 As the last speaker mentioned this bill emerged from the Education and Science Committee with minimal changes that do not alter the whole discourse too much. United Future notes that both the National and ACT parties have signalled their opposition to this bill saying that it represents “an aggregation and centralisation of function into the education bureaucracy”. To me this is a statement of the obvious when one of the stated goals of the Review of the Centre was as I recall to try to reduce fragmentation of public service agencies when they are essentially performing synonymous functions. 
As we all know the State sector reforms of the 1980s and 1990s led to a multiplication of agencies and the actual State sector shrank as part of a desire to decouple the whole area of funding from providers. I am told that in practice we have ended up with more than 30 ministries and more than 100 Crown entities as a result of all that reform. A very real problem is that we fail to get any coordination when ministry policy shops are split from their satellite provider entities. For that very reason United Future supports the amalgamation provided for in this bill. Early childhood education is too important not to be addressed as part of a coordinated strategy. 
In addition to the Review of the Centre it could be argued that this merger is warranted by the Government’s 10-year plan for early childhood education called  
Pathways to the Future: Nga Huarahi Arataki 
. According to a speech the Minister made to the early childhood symposium last July the goals of the plan required a cohesive streamlined approach with all the relevant early childhood education experts in the public sector under the same roof. In the context of the State reform sector United Future does not see much sense in continuing to run two or more agencies that operate in the same field with the possibility that policy work and provision are being duplicated and certainly the costs multiplied. 
Since it was established Early Childhood Development has been challenged through policy changes that introduced contestable service delivery. It has been faced with issues of financial viability and has used a number of third party contracts to support its infrastructure. Hopefully this bill will put it on a firmer financial footing. As I outlined United Future supports the second reading of the bill and its passage to the Committee stage. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party will vote against this bill because we think the Minister has done a really bad job in bringing this bill to the House a year after he closed down the Early Childhood Development Board and brought it into the ministry. As ACT said in the minority report that is totally unparliamentary and unconstitutional. The Hon Brian Donnelly talked about the benefits of this legislation in that it would get rid of the duplication of taxpayers’ money. That is exactly what it will not do because when the Minister announced he was bringing the board into the Ministry of Education he said that no jobs would be lost. We will still have a bloated bureaucracy and more people employed even though in April last year the chairman of the Early Childhood Development Board Michael Morris told the Education and Science Committee that contrary to what the Minister had said he did expect some staff redundancies. To date there has not been any. 
There has also been little if any consultation with the early childhood sector. The New Zealand Education Institute was not consulted and the Early Childhood Council—the biggest organisation that represents those who work in the early childhood sector—has not been consulted at all. It demonstrates once again this Government’s contempt for that most important area of children’s education the under-6-year-olds. It gets the least amount of money from the education budget is pushed around and ignored and is not consulted with at all. 
As I said the reduction to one agency will enable the Minister to exercise control from Wellington which he loves doing. In a speech to the early childhood symposium in July last year he grandly announced that his 10-year plan for early childhood education  
Pathways to the Future: Nga Huarahi Arataki 
 was: “…why I decided to integrate Early Childhood Development (ECD) into the Ministry of Education. The expertise of the Early Childhood Development agency staff will be critical to work on Pathways to the Future.” 
Pathways to the Future: Nga Huarahi Arataki 
 was going to focus on the needs of groups with lower participation rates. It would increase participation and quality and promote collaborative relationships. What has it done? It has produced a rort of bounty hunters. Talk about duplication of funding! I have lists and lists of community agencies revealed through parliamentary questions where two or three of them are owned by the one organisation claiming several times for the same children. What did “participation” mean as championed by the Minister bringing Early Childhood Development into the ministry under this legislation? It meant that those organisations cruised around the neighbourhood looking for children signing them up and collecting the money. The bounty on those children’s heads was $1000 per child. No checks were done to see whether they remained enrolled for more than 3 months—or even up to 3 months. No cross-checks were done to see whether those children were enrolled in two or three different centres or to see whether they actually existed. It was just a feel-good look-good  
Pathways to the Future: Nga Huarahi Arataki 
. It even had a feel-good look-good name. 
The ministry had a meeting in Auckland last week as a result of the  
New Zealand Herald’s 
 story on the bounty hunters. It decided to “facilitate dialogue” to try to stop the rort from carrying on. The amount of money will be reduced by $200 per child so the agencies will get $800 instead of $200. Audits will mean that 10 percent of enrolments will be audited. I suppose that is an improvement from none being audited but why 10 percent only? Why not audit all of them? The targets of greater participation that the Minister boasted about when he announced the disestablishment of the Early Childhood Development Board will not now be met because the contracts have all been frozen.  
I say to the member on the other side of the House who stood up and talked about how wonderful that was for his people who would be having more of their children participating in early childhood education that it will actually not happen at all. Why? Because it has been stuffed up by this Minister not keeping control of what has been going on. Now as a result of those bounty hunters all the contracts have been frozen. The targets for 2003-04—1278 Maori and 450 Pacific children enrolled—will not be met and the Minister has admitted they will not be met. At the Ministry of Education’s meeting last week officials admitted that the eligibility criterion is for people to have some Maori or Pacific Island ancestry. When asked whether they were considering extending it to other ethnic groups shown as being under-represented in early childhood education such as Asian they did not have an answer. That is another example of this Government’s race-based policy when it keeps insisting that its policy is based on need.  
There are people in poor areas who cannot afford the fees of early childhood education. They do not send their children to such centres. Why do they miss out? The reason is that their children are not of Maori or Pacific Island ancestry. That is the only way people can get help from this Government in terms of getting their children into early childhood education. What will the Government do? It is going to set up a discretionary grants scheme which will mean that organisations that no bank would formerly lend money to will now get taxpayer money for new buildings in areas where there are already vacancies in existing providers. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will come back to the bill please. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: I am. That is why we are voting against it. The Minister brought in this bill to increase participation in early childhood education. That is what he said when he announced it and that is why I am showing why we will not vote for it. It is not increasing participation in early childhood education. It is not even increasing it for Maori and Pacific children because the Minister stuffed it up so much. Instead what will he do? He will give out taxpayer money to build more buildings in areas where parents cannot even afford to send their children to early childhood education because that Minister has raised the standards for qualifications and brought in pay parity for kindergarten teachers. That is why we are voting against the bill. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not interrupt while my colleague was speaking but I do not think it is acceptable for the Government whip to be shouting out abuse at you while someone is speaking in the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do thank the member as always for telling on somebody else in the House. I have already chided her and told her she was wrong. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise to support the second reading of the bill. It comes from the work the Government has been doing on the Review of the Centre to make sure Government services work more efficiently together. The key driver in this bill is to bring all the people who are working on early childhood education together in order to implement the Government’s very good strategic plan in that area:  
Pathways to the Future: Nga Huarahi Arataki 
 a 10-year strategic plan for an area of the education sector that this Labour-led Government takes very seriously indeed if we are to give all children a good start. I support the bill. It is about getting the structure around early childhood education policy right and I look forward to its speedy passage through the House. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 May I read to members the minority view stated in the commentary on the Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill because I think it best encapsulates what the ACT party and the National Party are saying regarding it. It states: “The New Zealand National Party and ACT New Zealand oppose this bill. It represents an aggregation and centralisation of function into the education bureaucracy. Moreover the actual disestablishment occurred before the enactment of the legislation. It is a breach of constitutional principle for the Executive to implement a legislative policy without specific legislative authority.” I did not know before Deborah Coddington spoke that it has actually been a full 12 months from the time that that occurred in practice to the present when we are passing the bill that establishes the mechanism for that to occur. I would find a few weeks disturbing and I would find a few months of great concern but 12 months I fully agree is a complete breach of constitutional principle and is quite obscene. 
I have three issues that I would like to raise in the debate on the second reading that outline in more detail the general reasons why we oppose the bill. The first issue is that we have seen a drive by the Labour Government to see its philosophical desire to have centralisation and central control. We saw it in the merger of the Special Education Service into the Ministry of Education a few years ago. There was no real reason for that but the two were merged. The Special Education Service no longer stands alone. It is part of the ever-burgeoning Ministry of Education. Then there was the announcement members will recall of the merger of the Ministry of Youth Affairs and the Ministry of Social Development creating another super-bureaucracy. Again there was the issue of an agency the Ministry of Youth Affairs being off to the side author of its own destiny then becoming part of another superministry looked over by another Minister building his kingdom. Lastly in that series of course we see the disestablishment of the Early Childhood Development Board which also is being brought into the Ministry of Education. 
 The argument of this philosophical drive is that it will bring a decrease in bureaucracy but I have never seen a decrease in bureaucracy in the term of a Labour Government since I have been on this earth and that has been for some time. We always see an increase in bureaucracy. The Government also argues that centralisation will lower costs yet we hear from the Minister of Education himself that he will raise the amount of money he pours into the sector and the bureaucracy. He also says this measure will remove unnecessary personnel. That is the usual argument for centralisation yet we have seen a growing Ministry of Education. In fact percentage-wise the funding going into the Ministry of Education far exceeds the funding going into schools universities and early childhood education centres. So that is what we are seeing—a trend in the last few years to centralise and control under the banner of a decrease in bureaucracy lowered costs and removing unnecessary personnel. In practical terms we have seen an increase in bureaucracy increased costs and more employment of unnecessary personnel. 
There are some big issues facing early childhood education in particular the independent providers being hugely disadvantaged by this Government’s bias towards State-owned providers. We thought this merger would be used as an excuse to cut funding or divert attention from some of the big issues facing the sector. But in fact all we see is more funding being poured into the sector but not into the front line into educating kids; as I said before we see more funding going into bureaucracy and unnecessary personnel. We have been watching this merger. It has gone on for some time now and we can report back that that is certainly all that we have seen come out of it. 
The second overriding issue apart from that philosophical drive to centralise and control is a concern that the Minister through the disestablishment is actually now listening to only one stream of advice: his own little people. When he has a query or a concern whom does he run to? He runs to his little elves. He is not prepared to go to anyone else in the sector and listen to him or her. He does not get advice that is considered and he does not get advice without a bias. He talks to his own people. That is why a single bloated bureaucracy that is the inspection and enforcement agency the funding administrator the provider of advice and support the researcher and the policy adviser can only lead to confusion conflict and poor decisions. There is no accountability there is no contrary view and no one calling in the wilderness is being listened to by this Minister who wants to centralise and control. We point that out as one of our major concerns. 
The third concern is to do with resources. The country this sector in particular is quite confused about the messages sent out from this disestablishment and merger. We hear from the Minister that the integration would provide more cohesive service delivery in the early childhood education sector. In fact he said there would be more resources. In his press release of 12 March 2003 he stated that early childhood education is to be “boosted” by the merger. What did he mean by that? Did he mean more money for kindies and early childhood education centres? They do not have any more money. Did he mean more resources? They do not have those either. Did he mean more choice? He certainly did not mean that—and I mentioned that before—because of his love for public providers and his apparent hatred and distaste for private education providers. 
He said there would be more money and more jobs but according to a press release on the New Zealand education review the Education and Science Committee was told that job cuts would result from the Early Childhood Development - ministry merger. Early Childhood Development’s chair Michael Morris and its chief executive Caryl-Louise Robinson told the select committee that redundancies would result from the integration of the agency into the ministry. So has it been job cuts and unnecessary personnel laid off or more jobs for the boys and girls—as John Tamihere refers to them—in this ministry? We do not know. All we know is that in the last 12 months and even before that we have had an ever-burgeoning Ministry of Education with more resources going into the ministry and bureaucracy and fewer resources going into the front line into the teaching of our children. 
That is of serious concern to us. During the Committee stage members will hear detailed clause-by-clause arguments on these issues but those are the three concerns to us in the National Party and that is why we do not support the bill. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I am going to take only a very brief call on this bill because in effect the intent of the bill is already in action anyway. It is about reflecting this Government’s desire to increase significantly participation in and the quality of early childhood education. Comments from members on the other side of the House that they will not be voting for the bill because of this or that reason are absolutely naive in the extreme. They are not voting for the bill because it is a Labour bill and they are ACT and National. For goodness’ sake they should get real. This is a very very good bill. It is about promoting one of the most important areas of education and that is the early childhood sector which is the platform on which education for our young people is built. It is a good bill. Let us get it passed through the House because after all it is for the young people of New Zealand not for politicians’ egos. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Speaker for the opportunity to speak on the Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill. As my colleague says sadly that is exactly what it does. It is taking away something that focused on early childhood education which is so hugely important to this country. Yet the Labour Government is prepared to have this area which should be distinctive absorbed into the burgeoning bureaucracy of the Ministry of Education. 
There do appear to be some mild constitutional outrages in the way that the Government has done it. We have just heard that this bill is being brought in 1 year after the board was disestablished without consultation with the sector itself. I understand that neither the New Zealand Educational Institute nor the early childhood sector was consulted. That is the sort of excess we have seen from this Labour Government; it just takes things on without consulting the sector. 
It is particularly an outrage when it is to do with early childhood education because we all know just how important it is for the future of New Zealand and how very important it is to have choice in this area of education. As an obstetrician I am hugely aware of how important those first 5 years of life are particularly those years between 0 and 3 where there is no State sector involvement to ensure that all our children have the chance to achieve their full potential. If ever there is an area where there should be some degree of measurement to ensure that kids get a chance to achieve their potential it is the area of their first 3 years. We should be making sure that the outcomes of those kids are measured at that very early stage. I know of little work by the ministry despite its size to ensure the quality of the various programmes provided. 
But I think it is important to look at what the Government is doing in terms of the axing of this board. If we go back to look at the board’s function we see that it was “to promote and encourage the development and provision of high-quality accessible and culturally appropriate educational and development facilities and services for the benefit of children who have not yet enrolled at a primary school.” in accordance with the board’s document of accountability which the Minister must periodically negotiate. In that we have an instance of an absolutely appropriate function; a distinctive board concentrates on one of the most important areas of New Zealand’s education—early childhood education—yet the Minister wants to absorb it into the huge Ministry of Education. 
There are some remarkable conflicts in terms of what the Minister has to say. I look at his first reading speech when he stated: “Although New Zealand already has a relatively strong early childhood education sector compared with other countries the plan provides opportunities to build on its strengths.” Well already in New Zealand the State has a wide range of facilities that it resources. They include kindergartens playcentres education and care centres home-based services the Correspondence School te kohanga reo programmes and a variety of others. They are all there already but he is suggesting that by absorbing those functions into the ministry he will make them better. In actual fact the chance is that the very reverse will happen. We should have a distinctive early childhood area that we can focus on and can measure and to ensure there is continuous quality assurance and accountability so that that very important area will only improve rather than it being absorbed and made less distinct. 
In that speech the Minister went on to say: “I am the first to accept that the ministry has been very light in this area especially in the areas of Maori and Pasifika early childhood education.” That is not fact because what was set up by a very good National Government over 10 years ago—the whole variety of programmes that I talked about—was not a matter of being light in this area; it was a matter of having choice and diversity. But the Minister went on to say: “I want to make it clear that this decision in no way reflects on the work that the Early Childhood Development Board has done to promote and develop quality early childhood education.” Well he cannot have it both ways. After all on the one hand he is asking us to see that the Early Childhood Development Board has done a very good job and on the other hand he is saying he wants to disestablish it. 
He went on to say that the board “has had a particular focus on Maori and Pasifika communities which I know has been very greatly appreciated by those communities. Even in the past 12 months knowing that change was about to occur it has kept its eye on the ball and has licensed more non-registered services than its objectives in its annual plan required. I think the board is to be commended for that.” There he goes praising the board on the one hand and seeking its disestablishment on the other hand. One cannot imagine anything more contrary than that! It is absolutely inappropriate. 
To make matters worse the Minister stated that during the process of disestablishment “just to make it clear” he would form an interim board. That is classic Labour Party complexity—“We will axe the board and we will make an interim board.” Labour is up to its old tricks: “Let’s make it complicated.” 
Finally the Minister said: “I understand that there is a lot of support from around the House for this legislation …”. Well why was there only one submission on this bill? It is absolutely remarkable. The Minister did not consult with the early childhood sector. He did not consult with the New Zealand Educational Institute. The only response he got was one submission on this bill. How can he possibly say there was a lot of support? 
This bill is an affront to the aims of the Government in terms of it wanting to focus on the great importance of early childhood education. It is an affront to early childhood education which is something we all believe should be focused on because of its huge importance to New Zealand yet here we have the Labour Government doing the very opposite—absorbing this very important distinct entity into the ever-burgeoning Ministry of Education. 
A party vote was called for on the question T 
hat the Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a second time. 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) 
 on behalf of the 
Minister of Education 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the bill be taken part by part. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I turn to clause 2 the commencement provision in particular. In the second reading I alluded to why this was constitutionally inappropriate. The reason is that it is a fundamental principle that the legislature should not act or expend money without parliamentary authority. That was certainly confirmed in the well-known case  
Fitzgerald  
v 
 Muldoon 
 which went through the High Court—which at that stage was the Supreme Court of New Zealand. It is a fundamental constitutional principle deeply entrenched within our system. And of course a former Labour Party Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer made something of a career on constitutional behaviour. His first book was  
Unbridled Power 
. It was a very direct reference to the practice of Governments in New Zealand to act without legislative authority. He co-authored a book with his son some years later called  
Bridled Power 
 and the reason was that he considered that basic constitutional principles were being observed by New Zealand Governments. If only that were true. 
We had the extraordinary spectacle earlier this morning of the senior Government whip making a virtue of breaching constitutional propriety. She was basically saying that the board had already been established or disestablished more accurately so what was our beef? It is as though the means justifies the ends—that as long as the action was done that was all that was required and all that Parliament would be doing was acting as some sort of craven rubber-stamping body. That might be the view of the Government and I heard an interjection that the senior Government whip would vote for Parliament acting as some sort of craven rubber-stamping body. I guess that tells us a great deal about the sort of thinking that resides within the Government—a certain contemptuousness about parliamentary procedure. So the extraordinary spectacle we see today— 
Jill Pettis 
: Is that why that member voted for market rents? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I would like to hear from the Minister rather than the less than knowledgable senior Government whip as to why the Government thinks it is justifiable to pass legislation after the fact. Why could it not simply have waited? After all this is not one of the Government’s more important bills. One would have thought that the proper practice would be to simply leave the entity in existence then pass legislation then disestablish. What would have been the harm in that? But this is a Government that is now starting to get the sin of arrogance. It thinks it can do as it pleases when it pleases contemptuous of public opinion. This bill small though it is is merely a manifestation of that. I now draw back directly to clause 2—because this is what this is all related to—which refers to the implementation date of the bill 1 April 2004. The reality is that we are asked in this Parliament to vote for something retrospective. The Government— 
Jill Pettis 
: Oh goodness! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Again the senior Government whip says “Oh goodness!” Again she is showing that arrogance that we have come to associate with this Government. I ask the Minister to stand and justify why it is that it is appropriate to pass legislation like this. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First when it comes to bills like this believes a pragmatic approach has to be taken. We believe that taxpayers work too hard for the money they have taken off them by the Government not to see that there is duplication in expenditure of that funding and that is why we are voting for this bill. We think it is necessary. But we also believe in due process and if there is a criticism of this particular bill it is of the process—and particularly the timing—through which it has gone. To this extent we agree with the comments made by the previous speaker. 
The Government’s intention to disestablish the Early Childhood Development Board and integrate its business into the Ministry of Education was approved by Cabinet on 10 March 2003. The integration date was set for 1 October 2003 but the legislation did not get to the House until 26 August 2003 so it was impossible for it to achieve the intention that Cabinet had set out. Cabinet had said: “Here is the work programme. Here is how we will do it. We will get it all sorted out by 1 October.” It did not even put the legislation in front of the select committee until 10 September and the closing date for submissions was 31 October 2003. The commencement date for the legislation is 1 October 2003. 
I think the public listening would have to raise some very serious questions about the inconsistencies within those dates. Obviously members of the Opposition parties will say that this is a breach of the Fitzgerald principle but I believe it is more purely and simply mismanagement. It is simple mismanagement by a Government that sets up a programme and then cannot commit itself to the programme because it is so poll-driven that it is jumping all over the place responding to different issues. So here we have it and I guess in some respects it tells us all about the history of this particular Government in this Parliament. 
Everything was running so smoothly when the bill went to Cabinet on 10 March 2003. There were no obstacles in front of it. The Government thought it would be able to get this through but guess what? All those things started to go awry and what we now see is a record of things going awry with the Government. So if New Zealand First has a criticism of this bill it is that it has been so poorly managed and the times are so inconsistent that there are some constitutional niceties being overridden in this particular case. The question was asked: why we are bailing the Government out? We are not bailing it out; we purely and simply believe that what is inherent in this legislation is a necessity. Therefore rather than just play political games we will stick to our principles of doing what we believe is right under all circumstances. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I would like the Minister of Education to take a call to tell us why it has taken 1 year for this bill to get to this stage and why he disestablished the Early Childhood Development Board and put it into the Ministry of Education a year ago. The chief Government whip sits over there and in her dulcet tones calls out that everybody supports the legislation and that is why there was only one submission. But what is the point in wasting one’s own time—and taxpayers’ time—by putting in a submission on legislation when what it provides for has already happened anyway? These people out there are not stupid. The Minister knows that the Early Childhood Council opposes this legislation. He did not consult it— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Who? 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: The Minister asks “Who?”. That demonstrates exactly—he has done it himself—his contempt for early childhood education. The Early Childhood Council is the biggest representative of private providers of early childhood education. But this Minister is ideologically opposed to private ownership of any form of education at all. 
He is not content with just using legislation to get the board off the playing field; he rams it through first—he does it in practice. It is a case of “Let’s suck it and see if it works then pass the legislation.” This Committee is owed an explanation from the Minister today. He should stand and tell us why this legislation has taken so long to get through. 
But we oppose this legislation on more than those grounds. I turn to clause 3(b) which says that the new organisation will still be able to behave as a funding mechanism for certain early childhood centres to enable grants to be paid by the ministry. In other words the same grants will come out of the ministry as came out of the Early Childhood Development Board. But there is nothing in the bill about the monitoring of those grants—whether we will still see the rort which I brought up in the second reading of the payment of those grants. The ministry is desperately trying to backtrack on it and is putting in place some issues to try to rectify it. I raised this issue last year. The Minister in reply said he was very proud of what was going on with the grants from the Early Childhood Development Board. But there is nothing being done for instance on the potential conflict of interest. Kohanga reo have received over $1 million in grants under the early participation scheme. The Minister has done nothing in terms of conflict of interest. What is there to stop a provider from acting as a bounty hunter and rounding up kids collecting grants for those children then saying: “Look here there’s no competition. You will have to come to my centre.”? The provider collects all along the way. The ministry is very uncomfortable about that situation. The Minister should stand now and tell us why he will not put into place something to monitor that potential conflict of interest. 
So those are just two of the reasons why ACT opposes this bill. It is a very small bill but that does not mean to say it is not important legislation in terms of the sector. We are owed an explanation as to why this bill is coming in under urgency a year after it was first enacted in practice. Why have legislation if what it provides for is just going to be done anyway? Furthermore what is this Minister doing to ensure that taxpayers’ money for this participation scheme which is race-based no matter what he tries to say about it— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Where’s the participation scheme in the bill? Which clause? 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: I am talking about clause 3(b) which provides for the ministry to pay these grants. The Minister knows what I am talking about. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: But the ministry pays the grants. It doesn’t need this to do it. What a foolish member. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: The Minister can take a call if he wants. He sits there interjecting as he loves to do but there is nothing to stop him from taking a call when I have finished speaking and telling us what he means by accountability and by the monitoring of these organisations. This Minister is unable to do that. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 In speaking to Part 1 of the Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill I want to argue that the purpose as spelt out in clause 3 hides the real purpose of the bill. What is stated in this bill is not the real purpose at all. The real purpose of the bill is the building of the Ministry of Education bureaucratic empire. There is absolutely no question as to what has been going on in the Ministry of Education and in education since the Labour Government took office. I did a little bit of research. I was Minister of Education for 6 years and put a lot of effort into— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: 6 years or 5 years? 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: It was almost 6 years. I put a lot of effort into taking money out of the central bureaucracy of education to enable it to be put into the actual providers—the early childhood centres the schools the tertiary institutions. I want to share with the Committee what has happened since. In 1996 after I had been Minister of Education for almost 6 years there were 482 employees in the Ministry of Education. My colleagues my successors the Hon Wyatt Creech and the Hon Nick Smith might have been kinder than me because when National left office in 1999 the numbers had climbed from 482 to 581. So there were 100 more employees in the Ministry of Education by the end of the 1990s. As of last year there were 1849 employees. When I was last Minister of Education there were 482 employees in the ministry and the number has risen to 1849 employees. That is damn near a fourfold increase in the number of employees in the Ministry of Education. If that is not empire building I do not know what is. If the Hon Trevor Mallard can sit there and say the Ministry of Education is not building a huge bureaucratic empire how come the number of employees has risen from 482 in 1996 to 1849 last year? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Because Specialist Education Services has come into it. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Admittedly Specialist Education Services has come into it but it is all part of the expansion of the empire. If we look at what has happened in education over the years which sectors do we find have been successful? The early childhood sector has been hugely successful. We have expanded the number of children in early childhood centres. We have seen an explosion in opportunity in that area. And tens of thousands more New Zealanders now benefit from a tertiary education. Those two sectors were not under the control of the Ministry of Education bureaucracy. There was a freedom in those sectors. The least successful sector the schooling sector was more tightly under the control of the Ministry of Education. It has been the least successful in adapting to the modern world. In the last 10 years we have seen far more innovation in the early childhood sector and the tertiary sector. It is the schooling sector that has lagged behind. 
Part 1 which states that the purpose of the bill is to disestablish the Early Childhood Development Board just adds to the empire of the Ministry of Education. Those figures are staggering. In 1996 there were 482 employees in the Ministry of Education and in 2003 there were 1849 employees. No wonder there is less unemployment in New Zealand right at the moment! I suspect that the Government bureaucracy has had by far the biggest percentage increase in employment in the last 4 years in New Zealand—a far bigger percentage than the private sector. I think the purpose of the bill should be spelt out more honestly. The purpose quite clearly is to build the Ministry of Education bureaucratic empire so that this Labour Government can have more control over the entire education sector and particularly the early childhood education sector because it does not like private providers. This Labour Government does not like private tertiary providers. It does not like private early childhood education providers. It has already given more funding to kindergartens. There is absolutely no justification for it. It is pure prejudice. This Government has already advantaged the Government sector through extra funding of kindergartens. We will see more of that as the ministry will control the whole lot. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I think we have heard quite a lot of drivel. All that the change that the member is getting so upset about does is give to the Ministry of Education the ability to give grants to small groups around the country. It currently does not have the ability to give grants to non-licensed centres. [ 
Interruption 
] The Early Childhood Development Board has always had the power to make grants to non-licensed centres. There are obviously a lot of playgroups around that we would like to continue to get money. Sometimes they become licensed centres; sometimes they do not. I think the member protests too much. 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 I would like to take a call on this part of the Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill. During the second reading United Future pointed out that we supported this bill and we still do support it. But one of the things we had to overcome was clause 2—that is the commencement criteria. Like others on the Education and Science Committee we have been concerned about the timing of this bill and how it got into place. It seems to me—and the Minister of Education might be able to correct me on this—that as I recall the intended change was to be incorporated in a State Sector Amendment Bill but the Clerk ruled that it was outside the scope of that bill at that time and therefore it has been dealt with as this separate bill. Nevertheless the actual disestablishment occurred way before the enactment of this legislation which was intended to take place on 1 October 2003—the initial commencement date in Part 1. 
As the select committee pointed out that raises constitutional issues about the ability of the executive to implement policy requiring legislation before actually passing that legislation. We in this Committee are aware that in certain circumstances or even in the same circumstances with a more contentious bill that practice could attract some legal action to halt its progress. This is not the first time we have heard of that practice but it is certainly a surprise to me that this matter has taken place in the way that it has. 
As United Future has said we are happy to see this bill passed into legislation. It is a very practical bill and requires passing in order to inaugurate what has already taken place. So with that proviso on Part 1 we are happy for this bill to continue. 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I have sat here quite intrigued while listening to the arguments surrounding Part 1 and in particular the commencement date and constitutional issues which as far as I can understand this Minister and this ministry have ridden roughshod over. We heard from Brian Donnelly the chair of the Education and Science Committee that this bill was presented in September which is some time ago and was expected to be reported back in late October. Having sent out information about submissions the committee received I suspect—or at least I hope—oral submissions in a period of only 6 to 8 weeks. That is quite appalling when one can argue that this disestablishment of the longstanding Early Childhood Development Board is very important to those involved in the early childhood development sector. 
But that is not enough; I then hear that the board has been disestablished for a full 12 months and we are passing the legislation only now. I thought there was an out for the Government. Members may recall that I asked why the Early Childhood Development Board needs legislation to be disestablished. Why do we have to pass a statute for it to be disestablished? The answer came back and it is a fairly obvious and fair answer. The reason is that it was established under statute. It was established under statute and it should be disestablished under statute. Interestingly enough it was actually established under a Labour Government and now it is being disestablished under a Labour Government. 
I thought that the Government might have an out—that this disestablishment by statute might just be window dressing. I thought that the board had not been established by statute but through window dressing the Government would disestablish it through statue and in that way avoid the accusation that it was riding roughshod over Parliament by disestablishing the board in practice then 12 months later on the tail of that actually providing the mechanism to do so. But no I discover in the purpose clause that this bill provides for the Early Childhood Development Board “… a Crown entity continued under Part V of the principal Act”—that is the Education Act 1989—“to be disestablished and for its functions assets liabilities and rights to be transferred to the Ministry of Education;”. In other words the Early Childhood Development Board was established under statute. Its functions its assets its liabilities and its rights were established under that principal Act. We then saw in practice out there 12 months ago its rights taken away without statute its assets taken away without statute its functions taken away without statute and its liabilities taken away without statute. In fact 12 months later the House got the bill that provides the mechanism for that to happen. 
That is appalling constitutional mismanagement. I would like the Minister to take a call and to challenge that: to tell us why something set up under statute has to be disestablished under statute and why that would happen 12 months after the fact—that is retrospectively. It is appalling that that happened. The Minister may think it is a minor matter to do with a minor sector of not much interest to New Zealand but it simply points to an arrogance that this Government is reflecting to us here in this Committee and to the general public. 
I am also interested in the other purpose of this bill—that is to provide a “funding mechanism for certain early childhood centres to enable grants to be paid by the Ministry rather than through the Early Childhood Development Board.” The board had the power to make grants to non-registered services. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT) 
: 
 I am pleased that Dr Wayne Mapp pointed out the constitutional issues over which the Minister has got himself into difficulties. However I want to talk about the purpose clause and paragraph (b) in particular. Clause 3 states: “Purpose—the purpose of the Act is—(b) to provide for other matters related to the reorganisation such as a new funding mechanism for certain early childhood centres to enable grants to be paid by the Ministry rather than through the Early Childhood Development Board.” This is what worries the ACT party because we have discovered that Trevor Mallard has spent some $5 million on bounties. We heard the Hon Taito Phillip Field say that Pacific Island and Maoriparticipation had increased. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Fairly early on in the member’s speech I would like you to rule on whether the subject of grants that have been made legally by the Ministry of Education and are not affected by this bill—and certainly not grants to licence-exempt centres which are outlined in Part 2—are appropriate matters to be raised. This is a very narrow debate in the Committee stage and I ask you to rule on whether it is appropriate for the member to continue to highlight issues that have nothing to do with this bill. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Speaking to the point of order I point out that we are discussing Part 1 and I think the Minister will agree with that. We are discussing clause 3(b) and ministry funding and early childhood education. The Hon Taito Phillip Field has already discussed this matter. This is one of our concerns. ACT is trying to explain what is wrong with this bill. If you rule out debate on the funding and the way the early childhood system is being run then what would we talk about? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Rodney Hide’s comments reflect the point I was making. Phillip Field spoke in the second reading where his points might just have been appropriate but certainly those matters are not appropriate in the Committee stage. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I certainly understood the member was talking to clause 3(b) but there has been quite a bit of straying during this coverage on Part 1. It does contain the purpose clause and such provisions allow members some latitude in the discussion of the issues across the bill. I would remind members to keep to the bill. The member was talking to clause 3(b). 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Thank you. That was a very wise ruling and I support the Chairperson in that. We do have concerns about this bill and we have concerns about this Minister and the way he has gone about the business of early childhood education particularly as it relates to the purposes set out in this bill. This is a Minister who has blown $5 million. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No no. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I know he does not want that discussed in Parliament. I know he does not answer Official Information Act requests. I know he likes sitting beside the Chairperson and trying to shout down Opposition members who are raising issues. I am highlighting a problem with the Ministry of Education and with centralisation. That is the purpose of this bill is it not? 
The ministry had these contracts that involved phantom children. It also involved children who were pre-enrolled. Taxpayers’ money was used to the extent of $600 to $1000 a person. The ministry was paying these contractors who were ringing up pre-schools and asking for the names of the kids who were enrolled. Then the contractors were using those names to get money out of the ministry under this Minister’s contracts. He knows that. That was $1 million worth of fraud and that Minister is guilty of a cover-up. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am going to have another attempt. Some activities that happened in the 2002-03 year have been misrepresented by the member. They have nothing to do with this legislation. They have nothing to do with the issues of the transfer of the Early Childhood Development Board across to the Ministry of Education. I submit again that this is a narrow technical bill and it is not appropriate for the member to raise matters that happened under an entirely different function of the Ministry of Education over 18 months ago. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: The disestablishment of a very significant part of this country’s education sector is not a narrow technical matter. The purpose that is intended invites wide debate because there can be serious questions as to the wording of the purpose of this bill. The disestablishment of a very significant sector of our education system is a very big matter. 
Stephen Franks 
: The effective date is in Part 1. We are told that the changes will create an effective date that is after this change was made. It is relevant in that an institution that was functioning properly as far as we know is being transferred to a ministry that appears not to be under proper control. 
Although the Minister may not like to have the performance of the ministry appraised in connection with this bill what else should parliamentarians do when they have a bill that takes an existing organisation and merges it into another one? It is a natural debating point. These are natural questions that would occur to anyone—such as which one is working which one is defective which one is under proper control which one has a Minister who knows what it is doing? The organisation was independent before. There is no hint that it was operating with fraud or colluding in contracts that were fraudulent. We have a ministry that is tarred with that reputation and it is perfectly proper for us to debate it on those terms. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member on his feet can raise reasonable relevant matters. However he needs to stick to the purpose of the bill. The performance of the ministry in previous years is not absolutely relevant but the member can certainly discuss the ministry’s future role in carrying out its functions under this bill. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Again can I say that is a very wise ruling in support of Parliament. I thank the Chair for that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member knows he must not comment on rulings that are given. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: What we have in clause 3(a) is that the Early Childhood Development Board is to be disestablished and that all the functions assets liabilities and rights are sent across to the Ministry of Education. That is where our concern lies. The Ministry of Education has shown itself in this area to be incompetent incapable and the object of fraudsters. That is what has happened. The Minister knows it and has done nothing. That is why we like the independent board. That is why we are opposing this legislation. Four companies and the same people applying for the money got away with $1 million and the silly old Ministry of Education and the Minister did not know. 
If the Minister wants Opposition parties to support this bill why does he not honour his obligations and deliver on my Official Information Act requests instead of denying them instead of playing games instead of fighting the Ombudsman every step of the way? Indeed why has he had his own officials go into the file to reorganise it to try to sanitise what has gone on? What has happened here is fraud of the highest order. We oppose this bill. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Disestablishment of Board and associated matters 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Part 2 deals with the disestablishment of the board and associated matters. I think it is worthwhile to look again at what the board’s function is. That is to promote and encourage the development and provision of high-quality accessible and culturally appropriate educational and development facilities and services for the benefit of children who have not yet enrolled in a primary school. What is wrong with that? What is more important than ensuring there is a distinct entity for the children of New Zealand to be given the opportunity to achieve their full potential and that of course is with regard to the hugely important area of early childhood education. Yet this bill is removing that distinct entity. It is removing that distinct focus on the incredibly important function of having an independent board that focuses on early childhood education for the children of New Zealand. 
It is really important to look at what the Minister said about the Early Childhood Development Board. The Hon Trevor Mallard is a man of complex contradiction. On the one hand he is disestablishing the board helter-skelter and on the other hand he wants to make it clear that the decision in no way reflects badly on the work the board had done to promote and develop quality early childhood education. The Minister of Education wants it both ways. In the introduction debate he said the board had done a great job but he is disestablishing it. He wants to have it both ways. 
The Minister probably had quite a good education. He went to Onslow College. Maybe his early childhood education was the problem; I am not too sure. Maybe it would have been much worse if he had not had early childhood education. Whatever the case the Minister is a man of contradiction. On the one hand he said that the Early Childhood Development Board was a worthy institution and had carried out its functions very well yet he wants to disestablish it. We heard about the process but in actual fact he disestablished the board about a year ago. That is a constitutional outrage yet we are debating the bill 1 year later. Furthermore he is wanting to absorb the board into the Ministry of Education. The education sector is absolutely fatigued as a result of restructuring done by the Labour Government. The Government has done it with the health sector and the science sector. Once again it is restructuring the education sector particularly in the area of early childhood education which is so vitally important. 
In the introduction debate the Minister said the board had a particular focus on Maori and Pasifika communities and that the work had been very greatly appreciated by those communities. So why is he disestablishing the board given that he said it had done such a good job? It seems remarkable that for the sake of his ideological bias against independent education he will restructure and absorb that very important distinct entity into that ever-burgeoning bureaucracy—the Ministry of Education. The ministry just gets bigger and bigger with every breath under this Labour Government. 
The Minister said that even in the past 12 months the board knowing that this change was about to occur had kept its eye on the ball and licensed more non-registered services than the objectives in its annual plan required. He said the board is to be commended for that. Now is that not great? The Minister is sitting there grinning away thinking: “Yes the board’s done a great job but I’ll axe it.” That is the kind of contradiction shown by the Minister of Education. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 Comment has been made about this legislation removing the previous rights the Early Childhood Development Board had to distribute grants to the Ministry of Education. I point out that the legislation is very specific that the rights are purely and simply those that under present legislation relate to the Early Childhood Development Board it being the only entity that legitimately has the right to grant that money. It really relates to licence-exempt groups—basically play groups. The Minister will tell me whether I am right but I think it is about $1 per hour per child. It may be slightly more now I do not know; certainly it is not in the vicinity of $1000 per bounty head—as it were—that Mr Hide was talking about. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I can answer the question very quickly. It’s not $1; it’s $1.01. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: I got it wrong—the Minister has increased the amount dramatically since he got into power when it was $1. 
We need to reflect back to the reforms that created the Early Childhood Development Board which went across the early childhood sector and the compulsory sector. In the compulsory sector that involved getting rid of the education boards. The comment has been made that the ministry would be putting out grants that were previously put out by Early Childhood Development. People seem to forget that the money came from the ministry first. It then went to the Early Childhood Development Board and was distributed from there—just as in previous days the money went from central government to the education boards that had been established in 1877. They were the old provinces. Education could not be administered under the 1877 Act without the old provincial structures. Therefore the situation was that funding went from central government to territorial authorities then was distributed. 
The whole idea behind Picot and Tomorrow’s Schools was to cut out one part of the bureaucratic loop. In fact that is what this legislation is also doing. It is taking out one part of the bureaucratic loop. More money will be released to go directly to the providers. Therefore it is inexplicable that parties like ACT are trying to defend the continuation of this particular bureaucratic loop. It is almost like their arguing that we should bring back the old education boards. The purpose behind this legislation is to take exactly the same step as Tomorrow’s Schools took when it came to primary education—that is to take out one bureaucratic step and be able to make sure the funding is moved from the central provider to the providers of the services themselves with no encumbrances in-between. 
I also find it extremely difficult to understand why both National and ACT are critical of the Minister for not consulting fully with the New Zealand Educational Institute—in other words for not consulting fully with the union of workers in only a part of the sector we are talking about. The great protectors of unionism—ACT and National—are critical of the Government because it did not consult fully with the New Zealand Educational Institute! In fact there was a lot of consultation and this particular move had been flagged in the sector long before it came to the select committee. It was a little bit unfortunate however that the timing was such that quite genuine criticisms can now be made of the Minister and the Government. 
Once again we will be supporting this legislation because as I said—and the Minister can explain it—it will allow funding to go directly from the ministry to the providers without a duplication of service. That exists in the present system and it existed all through the 1990s when the National Government was in power. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Very briefly I thank the last member who spoke for his explanation. I reiterate that when I became Minister I found there were a number of occasions when funding for early childhood services went from the Ministry of Education to a Crown entity—theEarly Childhood Development Unit—and then to another—the Special Education Service—andthen to community providers. The transaction costs and legal costs of all of that were enormous. This legislation involves something that is much more straightforward— 
Stephen Franks 
: Quantify it. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I cannot give the member exact numbers. However from memory something between 30 and 40 percent was going out in transaction and contractual costs. That was a total waste of money and just not acceptable. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 Part 2 of this bill has the operative parts. It has a number of what the Minister has just explained as rationalisations—cutting the delivery chain short. He says 30 or 40 percent was getting consumed in transaction costs. It really must have more explanation than that. New sections 311A and 311B inserted by clause 6 allow grants to licence-exempt centres. These exempt centres can be created by the Minister simply gazetting that a centre does not have to have a licence. When it does not have to have a licence it appears to me that it does not necessarily comply with the stipulations that go around grants. 
Ordinarily this might be seen as something that was to give flexibility that did not matter but we have had experience of the ministry’s very poor performance in dealing with flexibility. My colleague Rodney Hide has mentioned the rort that has been associated with chasing up and enrolling Maori and Pacific Island children. Perhaps a million dollars has gone west through failure to specify contracts properly in the first place failure to supervise them and failure to check that the children are actually registered and attending or that they even exist. 
Section 311 of the principal Act stipulates the administrative requirements for early childhood centres—that is they must keep a register keep the date of birth keep the attendance keep a record of all fees and charges paid and keep evidence that the parents have regularly examined the attendance record. I wager that virtually none of those requirements is being observed by some early childhood centres and I would be very surprised if some of the exempt centres the Minister wants to be able to favour with his ministry’s direct grants are any better administered than the contractors the Minister’s servants engage to chase down unregistered children. 
When the Ministry and the Minister come forward with a proposal to replace an independent organisation—an organisation that has a board of directors who supervise knowing that they could be personally liable for malfeasance or misfeasance—with people in a ministry that does not even know whether it will chase the fraudsters with the police; that 10 days after the story broke still does not know whether— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The story broke in 2002! 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Well why did the Minister not know more about the background and the facts? If that is 2002 why is the Minister sitting on the Official Information Act material—the file. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Because I am re-reading the old material. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: If it is that hard why has the Minister not handed it over to someone who can read it? He has had 2 years to do it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: There are four boxes of the rubbish. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: The Minister has 1890 civil servants to read it for him. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No no— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Order! The Minister will take a call. He is not to interject like that— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It’s an exchange of questions. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The exchange of questions will be handled during a call. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: The Minister has just told us it was 2002 which brings us to another point in this bill. The effective date is the date the bill is passed. We understand that the legal dissolution might not have occurred but the functions have already transferred. Can the Minister tell us just how many reporting requirements and grants to licence-exempt centres have already been made and how many the ministry intends to make? Can he give the Committee an idea of just how significant this is going to be—what kinds of conditions does he envisage for licence-exempt early childhood centres? Is this provision to get around requirements that are onerous and imposed on the private sector to advantage State-sponsored organisations that could not hack it? Just exactly what is proposed by new sections 311A and 311B? Surely that is a matter the Minister can give us clarification on when he must know that we would have to come to this bill very suspicious of the ministry indeed. 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 I will focus on clause 11 in Part 2 because it deals with the final report and accounts. There will be a number of unanswered questions in the minds of a lot of folk and even in this debate today which deserve further scrutiny.I note that neither in the explanatory note to the bill nor in the Education and Science Committee was there any mention of the costs of this merger. It was raised as a question but nobody seems to know how much this will all cost—despite we were told the reasonable assumption of one-off expenditure associated with the integration. Unless this merger achieves some economies in the long term there seems to be little point in it. That is the point we are questioning. 
Much of the operational detail is contained in the organisational plan which as far as I am aware is still secret information. Clause 11 provides that when the bill is passed we will get a full accounting of what happened in the transfer of assets and money. We have been told that the integration is expected to be financially neutral. I have been able to look into that a little and was able to establish that the cost of transitions associated with managing the change and redundancies was expected to be somewhere in the region of $1 million to $2 million. But the Early Childhood Development Board had cash reserves of about $1.4 million to $1.7 million which I imagine will be used in the transition costs of early childhood education delivery. 
However it is expected that overlaying the work of the two agencies will mean that some efficiency in service delivery cost may be achieved down the track. Unfortunately this House and the public of New Zealand will have to wait until clause 11 takes effect—that is when the bill is passed and becomes an Act. So we are still left up in the air as to the efficiencies and whether this will be a neutral fiscal arrangement. That is the point I wish to highlight. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 Part 2 of the Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill of course is the part that deals with the disestablishment of the board and associated matters like funding unlicensed centres. 
I was fascinated by the contribution of the New Zealand First member the Hon Brian Donnelly. It is fascinating that New Zealand First seeks to cuddle up to the Labour Government. The poll fortunes of New Zealand First are reflecting those of the Labour Government. I say: “Good luck to New Zealand First.” 
This issue is serious. Mr Donnelly said—[ 
Interruption 
] The Minister should not really interject when there is a live microphone in front of his mouth. He has a big enough mouth without needing that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: But not a smile like yours. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: That is true. The Minister could well do with a bit more of a smile as he seeks to undo the mess he has created in the school sector with his mergers. 
Mr Donnelly said there was advantage in removing the Early Childhood Development Board from the system because it was a funding conduit and there was a cost associated with Government money going via the board to early childhood units. Because of the snuggling up between New Zealand First and the Labour Government the Minister got to his feet instantly and thanked Mr Donnelly for helping explain this rather strange measure in the bill. 
What is fascinating is that if that is correct and true and that is the prime purpose of this legation— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It’s not the prime purpose. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: So efficiency and saving are not the prime purpose? The Minister claimed that 34 percent of the money for early childhood funding was chewed up in the bureaucracy of the Early Childhood Development Board. Now he is saying it is not the prime purpose and Mr Donnelly is saying it is the prime purpose. If they are snuggling up as much as they are they should at least agree on what the prime purpose of this legislation is. 
The point I want to make is that if that is a serious purpose for this legislation why on the one hand is the Government getting rid of the Early Childhood Development Board and on the other hand establishing a Tertiary Education Commission? In the tertiary sector the funding used to go straight from the Ministry of Education to the tertiary education providers; now it is going via a Tertiary Education Commission which is itself a burgeoning bureaucracy. 
Whereas there used to be a very small team in the Ministry of Education involved in funding the tertiary sector there is now a rapidly growing bureaucracy in the Tertiary Education Commission that will chew up a far greater proportion of tertiary funding than the Early Childhood Development Board ever chewed up. I can see from Mr Donnelly’s and the Minister’s expressions that I am not totally wrong in that assertion. If this legislation is designed to create greater efficiency it is hard to reconcile those two positions of this Labour Government. 
What troubles me about Part 2 which disestablishes the Early Childhood Development Board is that the real motive is more sinister. When the funding for the tertiary sector used to be done by the Ministry of Education it was very transparent and clear-cut. The equivalent full-time student funding system did not lend itself to political manipulation. Basically the institutions knew that the funding they would get depended on the enrolments they achieved. Maybe some of the auditing was not as good as it should have been in some cases but it was a clear transparent system. 
What troubles people in the early childhood sector is this: with the Early Childhood Development Board there was a powerful voice for those beyond just the “State sector” because everyone knows that the kindergarten sector is sort of a surrogate State sector. The real worry about this legislation is that with the ministry now controlling the entire early childhood sector there is far more room for political manipulation in the funding of the system. What makes the sector nervous in my view is that it has already seen that. Prior to Trevor Mallard and this Labour-led Government coming into power the early childhood sector was funded in a pretty transparent and consistent way across the private and the quasi-public or kindergarten sector. Trevor Mallard became Minister when the Labour Government came to power and the kindergartens—the quasi-State sector—suddenly got more funding relative to the private sector. Once the whole lot becomes part of the Ministry of Education there is concern that it will be more vulnerable to political manipulation and that is the worry. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
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. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 By way of an aside I am intrigued at how lightly the Minister took the issue over the disestablishment of the Early Childhood Development Board happening 12 months ago and being legislated for only today. Clause 7 “Consequential amendments to other enactments” relates to this disestablishment affecting the Official Information Act which has to be amended. The first schedule of the Ombudsmen Act the fourth fifth sixth and seventh schedules of the Public Finance Act and the Education (Change of Name of Education Entities) Order have to be amended. Not only does the original 1989 Education Act which was the statute allowing the set-up of the Early Childhood Development Board have to be amended but these Acts—and they are important Acts—have to be amended as well. All that is happening 12 months after the fact. 
That is concern enough but we move to clause 8 “Consequential changes to other references”. Gee I am struggling with words today but I am willing to acknowledge it. I notice that “Dazza” Hughes who probably left kindergarten most recently has not taken a call on this at all and perhaps he should. “Dazza” might interject but perhaps he should. [ 
Interruption 
] I did not realise. We learn every day. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chair. The junior whip may not object but I think we have to have some decorum in the House and members should be called either by their name or by the name of their electorate—in this case I understand it is Otaki where the member cleaned up Roger Sowry twice. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member knows that he must address members by their correct name. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: I was interested by clause 8 which states: “If any other enactment or other thing refers to the Board and that reference is no longer appropriate because the Board has been disestablished the reference must be read as a reference to the Ministry.” Given that this has been on the Order Paper for some time now—it was at the Education and Science Committee some time ago—officials would have been able to identify where this board was referred to in statute. I find it quite unacceptable that we will take some sort of blasé attitude to its reference in statute and not identify where it does occur and where it should be amended. I wonder why that is the case and whether it is usual to take that approach. 
I did want to point that out but I move on to more important issues about the cost of the merger. That was raised by United Future. National members found it quite amusing that United Future members are willing to support this legislation yet put so many questions to the Minister were quite challenging towards the Minister’s approach to it and questioned the costs. In other words United Future acknowledges that it does not have all this information about the cost of the merger and whether it will do any good but it still supports the bill. United Future raised issues around clause 11 about the cost of the merger the final report and the accounting structure. 
I was disturbed to hear that United Future thought there would not be a full period of accounts to be scrutinised by those in the position to do that. It has been a year since Early Childhood Development was disestablished in practice. I would have thought that over that period we would have good insight into the costs of the merger and into how the new system is working so that we could compare. I would have hoped that the Minister might have brought that to the House to justify his actions all that time ago. I am disappointed that he has not. Perhaps the Minister will take a call to tell us how it is going financially and how it is operating. It was also stated that the Early Childhood Development Board was just a conduit of funding to early childhood centres. That is not the case. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Clause 1 Title 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 This is the title of the bill. It reads: “This Act is the Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Act 2003.” In fact we know that this bill is being passed into law in 2004 more than 12 months after the board’s disestablishment. This is a wide-ranging debate under the new rules and I want to draw attention back directly to Part 2. Clause 5 states: “On the effective date—(a) the Board ceases to exist;” and the effective date is the date on which the bill comes into force. We have the extraordinary situation whereby the bill declares that the board ceases to exist at the time the bill becomes law but the board has already ceased to exist. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No it hasn’t. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: In practical terms it has ceased to exist and the Minister knows that. We are in the amazing situation whereby the Government months after the board has been disestablished wishes to address its constitutional errors retrospectively. They are taking the attitude—[ 
Interruption 
]—and the Minister in a cavalier kind of way through interjections—and are being completely indifferent callous and careless about the constitutional process that is occurring here. What would one wonders their former hero Sir Geoffrey Palmer think of this? Would he applaud that paragon of constitutionalism Trevor Mallard? I suspect that no he would not. Will this lead to a footnote in  
Bridled Power 
—the later version of  
Unbridled Power 
—to show that unfortunately even his former colleagues have not learnt basic constitutional lessons? 
National will vote against the bill on the principle that we are opposed to retrospective legislation—legislation that is intended to perfect errors. The reality is that there was a different way of doing this. The Government could have introduced legislation and passed it into law then gone about the disestablishment in a procedural sense. 
That brings us to the second objection to the bill in the first place. Unlike New Zealand First we are opposed to the centralisation of power into the ministry in order to obscure the way that the sector can interact. That reduces transparency and largely takes away the autonomous entity that was the direct conduit for the sector—in short its own board. It has been buried in the ministry. 
We had to listen to the extraordinary contribution earlier in the Committee stage by Dr Ogilvy who seemed to be of the view that that was inappropriate and wrong. Yet I would suggest that notwithstanding that United Future speech its members will be voting for the very thing that he spoke against. I know that the Deputy Prime Minister is looking puzzled. He is wondering whether he has United Future under control in the way that he would like to have. The reality is that it seems not. But on the votes I can assure him he has United Future members under control. They are his willing lapdogs on all issues even if in a mild kind of way they kick from time to time through their speeches. The reality is that they are willing cohorts of the Government in that process. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 It was interesting to hear from the previous speaker Dr Wayne Mapp that National opposes this bill on principle because it is opposed to retrospective legislation. That is somewhat different to a conversation that I had with National’s early childhood education spokesperson when this bill first appeared. The member rang me up and said: “What are we going to do with this bill?”. I said: “Well look New Zealand First is going to support it because we don’t believe in wasting taxpayers’ money but you guys will probably oppose it because you’re opposed to the centralisation of power into the education ministry.” And guess what? When Mr Heatley came down to the Chamber I heard him make a speech about how National was opposed to the centralisation of power into the ministry and it is interesting that Dr Wayne Mapp also just made that speech. The question really has to be just why it is that National opposes this bill. I will have to give more extensive explanations next time to Mr Heatley. 
However I believe that the bill should be called the Education (Belated Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill. We have gone over the point. It has been belated and there have been some costs pretty obviously. I know they are minimal but the fact is that members are wrong when they say that the board has already been disestablished. It is actually still there in a minimalist form and there have to be some costs associated with it. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Who’s there? 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: It is Labour’s form of minimalist Government. They keep those boards going but doing nothing. It is a bit like the school up at Taipuha which was kept going for a term even though it had no kids. It could have been shut down and the board wanted it shut down but the Government had to pay out $30000. So it is a similar situation to Taipuha. We have continued to have a board since 1 October last year even though ithas in fact been disestablished for all practical purposes. 
I take the opportunity to congratulate and thank the members of the board. I referred in my second reading speech to the fact that in its early period the unit did have some difficulty in connecting with the broad range of population groups and needs in the early childhood sector. However it recognised its lack of capacity and made some very very genuine strides over that period of time to extend its capacities as it were and to ensure that the functions it had to fulfil were carried out. 
When it comes to early childhood education one of the things that National has been criticising is centralisation and the bias towards kindergartens over private sector providers. That occurred during the unit’s time. In itself and by its existence the unit could not prevent some of the great evils when it comes to early childhood education that members have been told about this morning. 
I finish off by saying that once again we do have to mention the mismanagement that has allowed a bill to come before Parliament calling for the disestablishment of the Early Childhood Development Board 8 or 9 months after the actual disestablishment of the unit itself. Nevertheless we would still be supporting the bill because of the organisation that is actually functioning behind it. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I am speaking to the title clause 1 of the Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill. The Hon Brian Donnelly highlighted the issue of the constitutional problem of having the board already disestablished and then passing the legislation 12 months after it was first announced that the board was to be disestablished. He says that that is mismanagement and the Minister in the chair Trevor Mallard interjected earlier saying that he is a hard-working and overworked Minister but those are not excuses. They might be reasons for the strange—to put it kindly—process taking place but they are not excuses for the Government to behave in an unconstitutional way: when it does something and we then have the final reading of a bill under urgency as we will shortly that legitimates something that has already happened—something that has already been pushed through. 
If we were really seriously and honourably debating the title “Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill” we would not already have seen that board pushed into the Ministry of Education 9 months ago. It is utterly outrageous that the Government is allowed to behave in that way. [ 
Interruption 
] Seven months ago. I say to the Minister that it is a matter of degree. If it is 7 months not 9 months it is not quite as bad—Is that what he is trying to say? He should take a call to justify to this Committee how he can sleep at night when he uses Parliament to pass legislation to legitimise what he has already done by force. It is a very very bad precedent for this Government to be setting. 
We have a unique process here in this country where we allow people to appear before select committees with their submissions and have their say on legislation and how it should be improved. It is called consultation. The chief Government whip justified this legislation earlier on in this debate by saying that everybody supports it. She knows that that is not the case because she was on the select committee when it was announced that this board was going to be disestablished and she asked questions. The reason people have not submitted or appeared before a select committee the reason they have not gone through the usual process when legislation is brought in is that it had already happened and it happened without consultation with either the Early Childhood Council or the early childhood sector of the New Zealand Educational Institute. 
The Hon Brian Donnelly cynically asked why ACT should be standing up and backing the New Zealand Educational Institute. The ACT party does support people who voluntarily join a union. We have absolutely no problem with voluntary unions. We do support the people who are members of that union who are involved in the early childhood sector and who would have liked to have some say on this bill. But as they said in the Education Review magazine they did not get a chance. It is absolutely outrageous that we are now debating this after those people have been denied their chance to put in submissions and appear before a select committee because it has already happened. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What? 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: If the Minister does not believe me I have the articles here if he wants to read what the secretary of the New Zealand Educational Institute said at the time about consultation and about his view on disestablishing the Early Childhood Development Board. 
I would like to conclude by saying that clause 2 states that in this Act the Education Act 1989 is called the principal Act. I hope the Minister adheres to that and calls the police in. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Undoubtedly the title of this bill is hugely reflective of how little importance the Labour Government views early childhood education as having. Clause 1(1) states: “This Act is the Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Act 2003.” That reflects absolutely accurately what the Labour Government has to say about the importance of early childhood education. I can think of no other area that is more important in terms of the outcomes for our children than early childhood education and it is important to have a special focus on it. It seems absolutely remarkable that on the one hand the Minister has praised the Early Childhood Development Board yet on the other hand in this bill he is callously disestablishing it. 
Let us put aside the constitutional aspects. Well we should not really put them aside at all because as my colleague Dr Wayne Mapp has pointed out there has been constitutional carelessness on the part of the Labour Government here. He is quite right in saying that Sir Geoffrey Palmer would be wringing his hands in despair over what his former colleagues are now doing in this bill. They are disestablishing a part of the education spectrum that was specifically designed to focus on early childhood education. It does seem extraordinary that as the Minister says the board was replaced a year ago and now here finally under urgency this bill is being put through Parliament. It does seem remarkable how careless the Government is how careless it has become and how carelessness is very much a trend that we are seeing in this Labour Government. My colleague Dr Lockwood Smith says it is arrogance. That is right. We must also throw in that quality and that is such a pity when this issue is all about the hugely important area of early childhood education. 
I was a bit surprised to hear New Zealand First’s Brian Donnelly say that the Government had behaved in a minimalist way in terms of the board. I think that is quite outrageous because there is nothing minimalist about it. The Government replaced the board a year before bringing in this bill and the title of the bill clearly reflects just how severely wrong it was to do that. If anything the early childhood area should be focused on strengthened and kept away from that ever-burgeoning bureaucracy the Ministry of Education. I can see the Minister smiling and he should not be because he knows about the excesses of absolute inefficiency that go on within his ministry. We have seen that up and down the country as the Minister does U-turns and weaves his way trying to defend the mistakes he has made over the last 3 to 4 years. 
The Minister cannot even tell us what sorts of outcomes there are from the interventions he has implemented in terms of early childhood education. That is an absolute outrage in itself. We should be measuring at the early childhood stage because that stage is fundamentally important for the children of our nation in terms of the chances they have to achieve their potential. But oh no the Minister intends to disestablish this board which he earlier said had carried out its functions very well. In fact let me repeat this: “I want to make it clear that this decision in no way reflects on the work that the Early Childhood Development Board has done.” 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I appreciate the opportunity to talk on the title of the Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill. I would like to make a suggestion that has not yet gone down by way of amendment to this clause. The title should really read the “Education (Post-disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill”. I say “Post” because as we know although this statute provides a mechanism for the Minister to axe the Early Childhood Development Board that has actually been done already almost 12 months ago. In other words this bill by way of statute lags behind what has happened by almost 12 months. We have talked a lot about the constitutional ramifications of the situation whereby a Government can go out and act railing against legislation and regulation and then 12 months later come in and tidy it up—in other words make it lawful that it disestablished the board. 
 We have seen a lot of legislation in the last 12 months and I as National’s spokesperson on fisheries have seen lots of retrospective legislation regarding fisheries matters go through this House. I know that Damien O’Connor has registered concerns about the Ministry of Fisheries supporting such legislation year in and year out but now we see the Minister of Education getting into the same habit. A mistake is made or a gamble is taken—in this case the gamble was to disestablish the Early Childhood Development Board—and the Minister comes into the Chamber 12 months later and has legislation passed that allows him to do that. I do not know why in a Western democracy we should allow that to happen. That is why I suggest the title should be the “Education (Post-disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill”. 
I listened keenly to Brian Donnelly’s speech. He is a member of Parliament for the New Zealand First Party. I recall making a phone call to Mr Donnelly to ask his advice because I respected his opinion. I got Mr Donnelly’s opinion. He then came to the House a few weeks later and dogged me in this House basically mocking the fact that I had rung him and asked for his advice. Since that time and it must be a good 6 to 12 months ago I have not rung and asked him for advice—and I never will again. It is a very sad thing indeed that when a member of Parliament looks to a member of another party asks for help and suggests they work together on something the member who was approached would come to the Chamber and mock the member who did that. I am quite disappointed by that and I know that listeners to the radio broadcast of this debate and the people in the galleries will be also. Whereas we would have been able to share information no longer will we be able to—certainly not after today when Mr Donnelly decided to do that again. I find that quite appalling particularly given we both live in the same city. Working together we could achieve much more. It makes me sad that we cannot do so. I digress but I did want to make that point and I ask the member for New Zealand First to reflect on it. 
I go back to my original issue which is the fact that we are passing this legislation today. National will be voting against it for all the good reasons we have put forward previously. I wanted to highlight that particular constitutional issue because I do not want the Minister of Education to get into the habit in such an important area of having policy go into action and then for him to sweep things up afterwards with legislation. It should not happen that way. We are a democracy. This is a transparent nation and a transparent Parliament. To have him do that reflects only an arrogance that I hope is not growing in this Labour Government. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Third Reading 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I move  
That the Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This is a good bill and the time for its passing has come. 
Bill read a third time.