Ogilvy Bernie: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Ogilvy Bernie: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8562] 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to support this bill’s progression to the select committee. The move to disestablish the Early Childhood Development Board which we all understand is a Government body emanates from two main sources. The first of course is the more general review of the State sector now known as the Review of the Centre. One of the stated goals of the Review of the Centre is to try to reduce fragmentation of public sector agencies when they are essentially performing synonymous functions. We all know that the State sector reforms of the 1980s and 1990s have led to a multiplication of agencies while the State sector has actually shrunk. 
 One of the rationales for this explosion was a desire to decouple as others have said funders from providers in what was essentially the staging post for an era of contractualising. However in some cases this process went too far and it was clear that coordination was becoming a problem for ministry policy shops and certainly their satellite provider entities. As a consequence the most significant outcome of the Review of the Centre to date has been the announcement that the Ministry of Youth Affairs will be merged with the Ministry of Social Development although I notice that the Ministry of Women’s Affairs seems to have survived. 
Simon Power 
: Why is that? 
BERNIE OGILVY 
: I have no idea. Of course there was the announcement that the Early Childhood Development Board would be integrated with the Ministry of Education. 
The second source for the decision of course to integrate the Early Childhood Development Board was apparently the release this year of the Government’s 10-year plan for early childhood education called  
Pathways to the Future: Nga Huarahi Arataki 
. According to the Minister in a speech he made to a symposium in July this year 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 general the approach of United Future has been one of trying to get some common-sense solutions. 
In the context of the State sector reform we do not see much sense in continuing to run two or more agencies that operate in the same field where there is the possibility that public work and a provision is being duplicated and costs multiply. But we would like the select committee to approach this bill with several other thoughts in mind. The first we feel is whether the merger will be in the interests of early childhood education—something that United Future thinks is critically important if we are to continue growing into a nation whereby every child has the opportunity to achieve his or her potential. The committee therefore will have to turn its mind to whether the fact that the Minister in charge of this bill is also the Minister of State Services is a happy coincidence or whether the Early Childhood Development Board is really a guinea pig for what is essentially a wider public management reform. In other words this change must be driven by educational imperatives and what is the best for our children rather than just administrative niceties. 
Another aspect that I think the committee should address is the broader question of the role of the Ministry of Education. By the way the Tertiary Education Advisory Commission wanted to see the commission established as an autonomous entity at arm’s length from the ministry. Unofficially its reason was that it had insufficient faith I think in the capacity or the capability of the Minister to achieve what it thought was necessary to steer and shape the tertiary sector. Yet under the Tertiary Education Reform Bill passed last year the Ministry of Education’s role as the principal policy adviser to the Minister on tertiary education matters was retained. 
I note that in terms of early childhood education the  
Pathways to the Future: Nga Huarahi Arataki 
 document recommends that the ministry be given “responsibility for the coordination of advice and support for governance management and professional leadership.” Although this helps to give the Minister something of a mandate to make these changes I would ask the committee to ask some serious questions and I will be doing that of the ministry about its capacity or capability for its expanded role. I hesitate to suggest that the flip side of State sector reforms that intend to reduce fragmentation is as we all know and could see to encourage empire building. 
Finally I would like to suggest to the committee that it take a long look at how this bill will impact upon the activity of the Early Childhood Development Board as it stands at present because it still exists. The committee will need to know what will happen to the 85 staff for instance and how the transition itself will be managed correctly. What will be the fiscal impact of this change? 
I note that the explanatory note to the bill makes no mention of compliance costs. I am somewhat suspicious as probably many others here are that there will be at least a one-off expenditure associated with this integration. It strikes me that unless this merger achieves some economies in the long term then there seems to be little point to it on that count. 
But the last and most important point that needs scrutiny is how this change will impact upon the services that the board provides today and how this will affect the early learning and development of our children. I do hope that the committee is responsive to these concerns that I have raised.