Coddington Deborah: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Coddington Deborah: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12151] 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I am speaking to the title clause 1 of the Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill. The Hon Brian Donnelly highlighted the issue of the constitutional problem of having the board already disestablished and then passing the legislation 12 months after it was first announced that the board was to be disestablished. He says that that is mismanagement and the Minister in the chair Trevor Mallard interjected earlier saying that he is a hard-working and overworked Minister but those are not excuses. They might be reasons for the strange—to put it kindly—process taking place but they are not excuses for the Government to behave in an unconstitutional way: when it does something and we then have the final reading of a bill under urgency as we will shortly that legitimates something that has already happened—something that has already been pushed through. 
If we were really seriously and honourably debating the title “Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill” we would not already have seen that board pushed into the Ministry of Education 9 months ago. It is utterly outrageous that the Government is allowed to behave in that way. [ 
Interruption 
] Seven months ago. I say to the Minister that it is a matter of degree. If it is 7 months not 9 months it is not quite as bad—Is that what he is trying to say? He should take a call to justify to this Committee how he can sleep at night when he uses Parliament to pass legislation to legitimise what he has already done by force. It is a very very bad precedent for this Government to be setting. 
We have a unique process here in this country where we allow people to appear before select committees with their submissions and have their say on legislation and how it should be improved. It is called consultation. The chief Government whip justified this legislation earlier on in this debate by saying that everybody supports it. She knows that that is not the case because she was on the select committee when it was announced that this board was going to be disestablished and she asked questions. The reason people have not submitted or appeared before a select committee the reason they have not gone through the usual process when legislation is brought in is that it had already happened and it happened without consultation with either the Early Childhood Council or the early childhood sector of the New Zealand Educational Institute. 
The Hon Brian Donnelly cynically asked why ACT should be standing up and backing the New Zealand Educational Institute. The ACT party does support people who voluntarily join a union. We have absolutely no problem with voluntary unions. We do support the people who are members of that union who are involved in the early childhood sector and who would have liked to have some say on this bill. But as they said in the Education Review magazine they did not get a chance. It is absolutely outrageous that we are now debating this after those people have been denied their chance to put in submissions and appear before a select committee because it has already happened. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What? 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: If the Minister does not believe me I have the articles here if he wants to read what the secretary of the New Zealand Educational Institute said at the time about consultation and about his view on disestablishing the Early Childhood Development Board. 
I would like to conclude by saying that clause 2 states that in this Act the Education Act 1989 is called the principal Act. I hope the Minister adheres to that and calls the police in.