Donnelly Brian: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Donnelly Brian: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12150] 
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.