Heatley Phil: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Heatley Phil: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12148] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 By way of an aside I am intrigued at how lightly the Minister took the issue over the disestablishment of the Early Childhood Development Board happening 12 months ago and being legislated for only today. Clause 7 “Consequential amendments to other enactments” relates to this disestablishment affecting the Official Information Act which has to be amended. The first schedule of the Ombudsmen Act the fourth fifth sixth and seventh schedules of the Public Finance Act and the Education (Change of Name of Education Entities) Order have to be amended. Not only does the original 1989 Education Act which was the statute allowing the set-up of the Early Childhood Development Board have to be amended but these Acts—and they are important Acts—have to be amended as well. All that is happening 12 months after the fact. 
That is concern enough but we move to clause 8 “Consequential changes to other references”. Gee I am struggling with words today but I am willing to acknowledge it. I notice that “Dazza” Hughes who probably left kindergarten most recently has not taken a call on this at all and perhaps he should. “Dazza” might interject but perhaps he should. [ 
Interruption 
] I did not realise. We learn every day. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chair. The junior whip may not object but I think we have to have some decorum in the House and members should be called either by their name or by the name of their electorate—in this case I understand it is Otaki where the member cleaned up Roger Sowry twice. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member knows that he must address members by their correct name. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: I was interested by clause 8 which states: “If any other enactment or other thing refers to the Board and that reference is no longer appropriate because the Board has been disestablished the reference must be read as a reference to the Ministry.” Given that this has been on the Order Paper for some time now—it was at the Education and Science Committee some time ago—officials would have been able to identify where this board was referred to in statute. I find it quite unacceptable that we will take some sort of blasé attitude to its reference in statute and not identify where it does occur and where it should be amended. I wonder why that is the case and whether it is usual to take that approach. 
I did want to point that out but I move on to more important issues about the cost of the merger. That was raised by United Future. National members found it quite amusing that United Future members are willing to support this legislation yet put so many questions to the Minister were quite challenging towards the Minister’s approach to it and questioned the costs. In other words United Future acknowledges that it does not have all this information about the cost of the merger and whether it will do any good but it still supports the bill. United Future raised issues around clause 11 about the cost of the merger the final report and the accounting structure. 
I was disturbed to hear that United Future thought there would not be a full period of accounts to be scrutinised by those in the position to do that. It has been a year since Early Childhood Development was disestablished in practice. I would have thought that over that period we would have good insight into the costs of the merger and into how the new system is working so that we could compare. I would have hoped that the Minister might have brought that to the House to justify his actions all that time ago. I am disappointed that he has not. Perhaps the Minister will take a call to tell us how it is going financially and how it is operating. It was also stated that the Early Childhood Development Board was just a conduit of funding to early childhood centres. That is not the case.