Smith Nick: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Smith Nick: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8567] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 What a pathetic contribution from the previous speaker on an issue as important as early childhood education. I want to reinforce the points that have been made by National’s forward-looking early childhood spokesperson Phil Heatley and the comments by Simon Power because members on this side of the Chamber take early childhood education seriously and want to see young New Zealanders getting the very best for their futures. 
The first point I want to make is that members opposite seem to believe that we should put all of the power and responsibility with the State agency the Ministry of Education. This bill is about killing off the Early Childhood Development Board and handing over authority to the Ministry of Education. I ask the House whether we are confident that the Ministry of Education a bunch of bureaucrats in Wellington will be able to deliver the quality of early childhood education that we need. When I look at the chequered track record of the Ministry of Education it would be the last agency that I would want expanded and given even more responsibility. 
Let me share these figures with the House. Over the course of this Labour Government we have seen a 38 percent increase in Budget funding for the Ministry of Education. At the same time we have seen only a 9 percent increase in funding for schools. Where does the money go the furthest? Do we want to spend that money on bureaucrats or on kids? We on this side of the Chamber want to see the resources going to children because the level of funding increase that has been provided for schools and early childhood centres has not even kept up with the rate of inflation. We have had 11 percent inflation since this Government has been in office but only a 9 percent increase in funding for schools and early childhood centres. We know that that amounts to a real cut but members opposite care more about bureaucrats than they do about kids. This bill will only further expand the bloated bureaucracy of the Ministry of Education. 
I have a second question for members opposite who are going to get rid of the independent Early Childhood Development Board. Why do they want to get rid of the board? 
Phil Heatley 
: They don’t want to hear what it has to say. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I know. My colleague Phil Heatley the MP for Whangarei has it exactly right. He says they do not want to hear from anybody else. If they are ministry bureaucrats they can just be puppets for the Government. If one does not agree with the Government one ends up like poor old Shane Ardern who has been dragged before the courts or like myself who raised some legitimate questions about the Family Court. 
Members opposite will do everything they can to silence any independent point of view. It is part of socialist dogma which is that the only way is the Government way. Once Government members get their hands on power they will use every instrument at their fingertips to silence those who disagree. Getting rid of the independent Early Childhood Development Board is just part of that agenda. 
Hon John Tamihere 
: Get on to the debate! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I say to Mr Tamihere that it is all just part of that agenda but we welcome a diversity of views. I did not say that I agree with everything the Early Childhood Development Board has said but I want to listen and I want its point of view. I want that kind of non-bureaucratic point of view and expression in the development of early childhood policy because it is through diversity and open debate that we get the best policy possible for our children. 
Then we come to the provisions in this bill that further centralise decision-making. We all know that Trevor Mallard does not want anybody beyond the control of his fingertips. He knows that if the policy advisers within that early childhood development unit are not under the control of an independent board but are right in the lap of the ministry then he has them under control. 
It is just like the Special Education Service which was an independent body. When parents came to me as a member of Parliament with legitimate concerns about their special-needs children not getting services I used to be able to go directly to the Special Education Service and sort it out. Do members know what I am told now? I am told that I cannot talk with that service; I now have to go through the Minister’s office. It is then 3 or 4 months before I get answers from the Minister’s office whereas previously as a local constituency member of Parliament I was able to get a response from the Special Education Service within a week. 
Simon Power 
: It’s exactly the same with the Land Transport Safety Authority. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: As my colleague says it is exactly the same with the Land Transport Safety Authority. 
I want to ask another question: is the Early Childhood Development Board broke? Let us look at the record over the last 10 years. Over that time there has been a doubling of the participation rates in early childhood education. That is a stunning result. There has been greater growth in investment in the early childhood sector than in any other part of education—bigger than in schools and bigger than in the tertiary sector. Why would we want to break something that is not broke? Surely that sort of performance—a doubling of participation rates over the last 10 years—is something that members across the House should be celebrating. Why do members opposite want to break up that role which has proved so successful in improving participation rates in the early childhood sector? We have heard nought from members and Ministers opposite about why we would want to get rid of a structure that has delivered such a stunning performance over the last 10 years. 
Let me expand on what I think is the real agenda. In early childhood we have the benefit of a diversified sector with a large number of—dare I say it—non-State providers. Government members—whether in relation to school funding tertiary education funding or the early childhood sector—hate the private sector. If anybody tries to provide a good early childhood service that is not part of the State this Government goes after that service. That is why we have this nonsense whereby a kindergarten gets a different level of funding from another sort of provider even though the teachers may be absolutely identical. I have yet to hear from any Government member what the rationale for that is. 
I am absolutely in favour of funding quality and our spokesperson Phil Heatley has expanded on that. Funding quality makes good sense but whether the provider is a State provider a community provider a Maori provider or an independent private business should make absolutely no difference at all because it makes no difference to the child. We on this side of the House are not interested in the interests of the State or in trying to provide some job for some teacher. The most important thing to us is the children and that is lost sight of in this bill. I ask Government members again why they want to get their sticky little fingers on everybody. Why do they want to control every single element of the education sector? Why do we have to get rid of an independent early childhood education board? Why do they not value the input of people from other parts of New Zealand rather than having the whole thing controlled by bureaucrats? 
The last challenge I give to Government members is this: how far will they go in expanding the Ministry of Education? I ask how come during this Labour Government schools have gone backwards in real terms yet the Ministry of Education has had a 38 percent increase in funding. The message this Government is sending to the people of New Zealand is that bureaucrats matter more than children or teachers. The people of New Zealand are waking up to the Government’s statist approach. [ 
Interruption 
] I tell Mr David Benson-Pope that the people of New Zealand have had enough of this sort of legislation which just gives more and more power to the State. They know that children and teachers matter more than bureaucrats. They are looking forward to a change of Government when the priority will rest with children and teachers not with bureaucrats and politicians.