Donnelly Brian: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Donnelly Brian: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises 
[Sitting date: 10 June 2003. Volume:609;Page:6102. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 The Leader of the House Dr Michael Cullen led off his speech by saying that this debate is one of the less enticing ones on the parliamentary calendar and I would have to agree with him. I must confess that I did not know it existed and I have been rushing around trying to find out what it is all about. I had to ask Dr Cullen what I was allowed to talk about and he said: “Education—you can talk about anything in that area.” and I am going to. 
It is instructive to go back and look at the sixth schedule to see which entities in education were referred to when this was actually lined up to see what has actually happened to them and to reflect quite sensibly on the way we administer education in New Zealand. Some people go back to the so-called glory days of the education boards and whenever they do I tell them a nice little story— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: This would be at the time of the provincial governments. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: No it was after that but they used the old provincial governments because they had nothing to administer. [ 
Interruption 
] No when Vogel abolished the provinces he had no one to administer education. That is where our 1877 Act came from. But I would like to tell this little story because it is instructive. I was principal of a rural area school and one day the bus driver came to me and said: “Look I need a brush to clean the back of my bus to get rid of the dust that’s on it by the time I get here.” So I went down to Ruakaka where there was a departmental bus garage and the guy said to me: “No that’s a board problem. You’ll have to go to the Education Board.” So I went to the board’s outpost in Whangarei and was told: “No you’ll have to see the board in Auckland.” So I went to see the board in Auckland. There I was told: “No that’s a departmental responsibility. That’s transport.” So I finally contacted the northern regional office of the Department of Education in Auckland and it said it would get right on to it. Three months later I got a little chit to say I could go out and spend $12 to buy the brush. Those were the good old days! 
Obviously the reforms at the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s were to streamline the whole process and to allow money to go into the schools themselves. Of course the department was broken down and the new Ministry of Education was supposed to become very lean and mean just a policy division. Other entities were to be set up to do a variety of things. In 1990 for example the inspectorate had been taken out of the Department of Education. It became the Education Review Office and was completely autonomous. The Lough report came along in 1990. The number of people—what was supposed to be 360—was cut down to 200 and I might add that it was wonderful to see the bureaucrats down in Wellington scurrying around protecting their positions while cutting the number of people out in the field; but that is another story. 
However my reflection is on what has happened to these people and to that lean and mean Ministry of Education since that time. I want to give members some numbers. In July 1999 408 people were employed by the Ministry of Education; in July 2000 633; in July 2001 702; and in July 2002 2902. Admittedly that was because the Special Education Service was rolled over—we have to be fair about that. Then by June of 2003 3377 people were working for the Ministry of Education. In other words it has just completely grown like a hydra. Once again the bureaucracy has flourished. In some cases it has flourished because the entities we are supposed to be debating here have been rolled into them. For example the Special Education Service which was a stand-alone organisation is in the schedules; but it no longer exists. It should be taken out of the schedules because it is now part of the Ministry of Education. New Zealand First agreed with that occurring because we believed it would align policy much more closely with practice. We now think the challenge is to get the resource teachers of learning and behaviour into the learning support centres as well because they are out there on their own which is one of the problems I think we should look at. 
This reunification under the Ministry of Education has come about because of the problems we have seen associated with the fragmentation of education administration. We got it wrong by not having a middle tier. We had the top tier the ministry and we had the bottom tier the schools themselves. We actually devolved too far and now we have to put something else back in its place. That is turning out to be a regional presence of the Ministry of Education. That is what is creating the middle tier and possibly if the present Government can really think this one through some economies of scale in the resources that are presently being used. I am talking about things like reading recovery etc. In 1998 the Early Childhood Development Unit became Early Childhood Development and in 2003 that is to become null and void. It also will be wrapped up into the Ministry of Education—in fact that is the only thing that can happen. Early Childhood Development cannot get staff members because the Ministry of Education is paying people more to do exactly the same job. So there is duplication and because of that it will be ta-ta to Early Childhood Education. 
There is also the Education and Training Support Agency which in 1998 changed its name to Skill New Zealand. That has gone ta-ta now. It is now part of the Tertiary Education Commission. Just while I am talking about the Tertiary Education Commission—a new agency referred to in the schedules—I note that whilst there has been a conscious decision by Opposition parties to give that entity some breathing space some alarm bells are ringing in the way it is restructuring. The reason is to give a regional presence. The only one of the bodies being absorbed into that is Skill New Zealand which has a regional presence. There is a concern that that is just being duplicated and that at the regional level it will be the culture of Skill New Zealand that will become the culture of the Tertiary Education Commission; whereas the commission has the huge challenge of ensuring that cultures from about four different sectors are merged together into a whole new and unique culture. If for example we are just taking personnel from one particular part of that—and Work and Income New Zealand had the same issue—then we could very well end up with having some problems with the Tertiary Education Commission further down the line. So we in New Zealand First make that comment at this particular stage. 
We would also like to comment on the Teacher Registration Board because once again it is another of the entities in the schedule. It has gone ta-ta too. There is no more Teacher Registration Board. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: This is 2001-02 you do realise. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: That is right but it has gone ta-ta as of today. The plans were obviously under way when we were talking about it during that period. It is gone though and we have to ask why. Was there a reason for it to go? Why was it set up? What are the pressures within our system that this has come about? We have some concerns because of the importance of the role of the New Zealand Teachers Council that the speed at which it is going is not in fact establishing a huge credibility for that organisation amongst the profession that it is supposed to be supporting. Particularly if it cannot even get the registrations done then how is it supposed to set up the educational standards for teachers colleges? 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Initial teething problems. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: Unfortunately some of those initial teething problems as the member will know with Work and Income New Zealand can actually create long-term problems further down the track. That is what our concern is. If that particular body cannot establish its credibility amongst the profession and the education sector then it will not be able to carry out the vital work that it needs to do. 
I want to mention just one other element in the way education is organised these days. It is partially reflective of all the different agencies out there but it goes beyond that. In fact hundreds of millions of dollars are going out on contracts to all sorts of bodies—to all and sundry. We would not have a clue what duplications of resources are happening but I do know for example when it comes to the training of school trustees that the School Trustees Association has contracts and so do the teachers colleges. What other duplications are there? It is very very difficult at this particular stage to know what is working and what is not. We get anecdotal evidence of some of these quangos that are not working but we really need to do some more investigation. In other words we in New Zealand First think it is time to do a stocktake on the totality of administration and on the way that is being administered in New Zealand after the 13 years or so of reforms that have been put in place. However the one thing we can say is that nowadays the schools are looking far far better than in 1989 so some benefits have come from those reforms.