Hutchison Paul: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Hutchison Paul: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12132] 
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.