7. KATHERINE RICH (National) Link to this
to the Minister of Education
What were the total production and broadcasting costs of the 20 free hours television commercial, which has been screening to promote the Government’s 20 free hours policy?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) Link to this
As I have outlined in answers to written parliamentary questions to Mrs Bennett, questions 2285 and 2831, the production and broadcasting costs are $267,771.
When academic research confirms that mums are the key influencers in decisions about children’s participation in early childhood education, why have 20 free hours commercials been shown during hard-core wrestling shows like RAW, SmackDown!, and, which are shows that are largely watched by young men?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY Link to this
As my World Wrestling Federation fan friend over here, the Minister of Finance, points out, shows like that have a very broad audience.
Hon Brian Donnelly Link to this
Could the Minister explain whether a centre that has decided to opt in to the 20 free hours scheme on the basis that all its current parents have agreed to pay, say, $60 per week for optional extras can refuse to enrol a child whose parents want to enrol him or her at a later date but refuse to pay the $60?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY Link to this
The rules are clear that centres need to talk with the parents and show them what is being paid for by the 20 free hours and then by the optional charges. The question that is raised here is pretty much a hypothetical one. As the member knows, centres have always had the right to say whom they will enrol. A lot of them have waiting lists, for example, and make choices about whom to enrol. The essence of the policy, however, is that they must make clear those charges so that a parent has a free and informed choice.
When academic research shows that mothers play the key part in researching early childhood education provision, does the Minister think shows like SmackDown, , , the All Whites versus Costa Rica, the Salford versus Wigan replay, beach volleyball, and David Lynch’s are good vehicles to deliver an early childhood message?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY Link to this
I imagine David Lynch is someone whose films all intelligent women around the country would like to watch. He is one of the leading film makers in the world. I repeat to the member that I know she may live a sheltered life, but people do watch programmes right across the schedule. She might like to have a go.
Paula BennettWould it not have been beneficial when spending over $200,000 of taxpayers’ money on a scheme that cannot be delivered to at least mention basic facts, such as that it is available only to 3 and 4-year-olds?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY Link to this
It may be worth mentioning to the House, in order to remind folks, that this is a $324 million policy. Promotion costs of the kind we are talking about here are relatively small, given those costs. I say to members on the other side of the House that their leader has been at pains to say he wants to see every 3 and 4-year-old child get into this policy. This kind of advertising will help his dream come true.
How does the Minister respond to reports that the TV adverts for the 20 hours free myth give the distinct impression that there will be no problem with the scheme, when the reality is that it cannot and will not be delivered as this Government promised, leading up to the last election?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY Link to this
I just hope people are enjoying the ads and getting the opportunity to see the wide variety of programmes that they are inserted into. I have learnt today that at least one member of the House would like to extend her viewing. Maybe this will entice her to do so.
I seek leave to table the media schedule for the 20 free hours campaign, which contains the wackiest collection of shows that could ever be put together.
I seek leave to table the editorial comment that states that the TV advertising is “a complete sham”—
Madam SPEAKER