6. KATHERINE RICH (National) Link to this
to the Minister of Education
Will the payment the Government offers to early childhood providers as part of the 20 free hours policy cover all operating costs for centres?
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) Link to this
Yes. The funding rates are designed to cover all the operating costs of providing early childhood education to the regulated quality standards. The rates are based on information provided by centres to the Ministry of Education in the 2006 operating cost survey.
Whom should New Zealand parents believe: the Minister, who said that the rates would cover “all operating costs”, or the Barnardos chief executive, who said: “We are concerned that the rates set by Government do not cover the full cost of providing quality early childhood education to children and families.”?
In my view, the public should believe both, because they are both telling the truth. The funds that are available have been provided to meet the operating costs to the regulated standards. That is not what the chief executive of Barnardos was referring to. The member should try to be a little more rigorous and accurate in her questions.
Hon Marian HobbsHas the Minister received any reports about alternative payments offered to early childhood providers to cover operating costs for 20 hours a week?
As a matter of fact, I have. I have seen proposals to scrap 20 free hours of early childhood education. That policy would mean that all parents would have to continue to pay fees to meet the costs of early childhood education for those 20 hours. That is the National Party policy. Labour’s policy will substantially reduce costs for parents. That is why the early childhood education sector is very supportive of this initiative. It will increase participation and does support families. I cannot imagine why that member is so opposed to it.
Why does she not admit that the Government will not be covering all operating costs and that it works out its figures based on average operating costs, and does she agree with the Ministry of Education’s handbook on 20 free hours of early childhood education, which states that providers can enforce the payment of optional charges by withdrawing or withholding children’s enrolment; if so, why does she continually say that providers will not be able to charge for 20 free hours when the rules clearly state that they will—will those charges be optional, or not?
To repeat the answers to the same questions by the same member last week, I say the free early childhood education rates cover all operating costs as determined by information provided by the centres in the Ministry of Education’s 2006 survey. The costs include teachers’ salaries, administration costs, professional services, utilities, capital and property costs such as rent and mortgage repayments, and the replacement of assets.
How can extra fees on top of the 20 free hours of early childhood education be “voluntary”, when ministry guidelines for centres state: “The service may enforce the payment as they would a fee.”; how can something be voluntary if it can be enforced in a compulsory way—will parents be referred to Baycorp if it is not paid?
To repeat the same information given to the same member in reply to the same question last week, I say the key rule is that parents cannot be charged for 20 free hours of early childhood education. That is really what the word “free” means. Parents may be asked for, and may choose to pay, a donation for services—[ Interruption] It is the same information as that given last week. It is for services in addition, such as—
Madam SPEAKERFor example, if the centre provides sunscreen lotion, parents may be asked to pay for it. They may be asked to provide for clothing or for any additional items, and may choose to pay for that. The 20 free hours of early childhood education is just as it is stated: 20 free hours.
Does she think parents are idiots when she says they may be asked to pay money and they may choose to pay that money, when in fact if they do not pay their child will be asked to leave the centre or will not get into the centre in the first place; how can a voluntary payment be voluntary if it is enforceable by centres as per the ministry’s own guidelines—or does the Labour Government have its own special definition of the word “voluntary”?
In general, my answer would have been: “No, I do not consider that New Zealand parents are idiots.”, but having listened to the member repeat the same question time after time, I may now reconsider that.
The question will be asked in silence. Anyone who interrupts will leave the Chamber. It is becoming too disruptive.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
Will the Minister accept Katherine Rich’s implied suggestion that the Government should pay for whatever an early childhood centre chooses to provide or whatever parents demand should be provided; if so, how would she reconcile that with Bill English’s call for cuts in Government spending?
Yes, I certainly would infer that, from the member’s continued questions. But although that is inconsistent with co-leader Bill English’s stated position, it is consistent with that of the spokesperson on health: one of accepting every demand in the health system and demanding that every health provider gets more funding.