1. HILARY CALVERT (ACT) Link to this
to the Minister of Education
Does she stand by her statement that “early childhood education is a good investment for our young New Zealanders”; if so, why?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) Link to this
Yes, I do stand by that statement; because it is correct. Secondly, I think both the report that was produced recently by the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Sir Peter Gluckman, and the report of the Taskforce on Early Childhood Education that was released last week show that all the evidence is that good-quality early childhood education benefits children right through their lives.
What is her best estimate of likely increases in participation rates resulting from extra spending of $550 million in early childhood education?
The Ministry of Education’s estimate for children taking part in early childhood education in 2012, as against 2011, is an additional 8,200 full-time equivalent children. That is made up of hours and days. It is quite complex, but we estimate it is about 8,200.
John BoscawenI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was quite specific. My colleague asked the Minister what the participation rate was—in other words, the percentage of people participating. She did not her ask her about the absolute numbers. The Minister quoted an increase of 8,200 fulltime-equivalents, but the question was about the participation rate.
Hon Simon PowerGiven the primary question’s width as it was set down, I think the Minister, in having the quantitative numbers at her fingertips, did extremely well to be able to answer the supplementary question, when it followed such a broad primary question.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
If the member wanted to know the percentage participation changes, she should have asked about that.
Mr SPEAKERI think both members have made perfectly fair points. I believe that given the primary question, the Minister’s answer was reasonable when asked about the increase.
Why does the Government call this spending “a good investment”, when the previous increase in spending from $428 million to $1.17 billion between 2004 and 2009 saw participation rates increase by less than 1 percent?
Yes, that is exactly what happened under the previous Government. It trebled the funding, and the number of children turning up at preschool increased by less than 1 percent. We have tried over the last couple of Budgets to actually put into the early childhood sector some more targeted funding, to lift the participation of those groups that were missing out. But we have not been satisfied with that, and that is why I appointed the Taskforce on Early Childhood Education, which reported last week and has made suggestions about substantial changes to the funding system that would allow much better targeting of that funding.
Louise UpstonThis Government is investing another $555 million over the next 4 years. This year’s increase represents 11.5 percent more than was funded in early childhood education last year. I think that is an enormous contribution, and it shows this Government’s determination to make sure all New Zealand kids get a good start.
Why does the Government call this spending a good investment, when the previous increase in spending, from $428 million to $1.17 billion, resulted in enrolment rates among Māori children actually falling?
As I said to the member before, we agree that the enormous increase in the funding of early childhood education did not result in many of the target groups that we know will benefit the most from good early childhood services actually being able to participate. That is why we appointed the task force, and that is why we are seriously looking at the recommendations of that task force. We have made some changes in the last two Budgets to enable us to better target those hard-to-reach communities.
I seek leave to table a table from Stalled, which is a state of the nation report from the Salvation Army, showing Māori participation rates in early childhood education.
Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. [ Interruption] I beg your pardon; there is objection. I apologise. There is objection.
Sue MoroneyWill she commit to continuing to fund 20 hours’ early childhood education, including all existing subsidies and fee controls, as she did prior to the last election, or will it be gone before mat time under a future National-ACT Government?
Because we made it available to parent-led services like kōhanga and playcentre, which the previous Government refused to include in the 20 hours policy. We have no plans to make changes to the 20 hours policy at this stage. However, our election policy will be announced as part of the election campaign.
What proportion of GDP is spent on early childhood education as a result of Budget 2011, and how does that proportion compare with the 1 percent of GDP that Unicef recommends be spent on early childhood education?
I understand that New Zealand spends about 0.78 percent of Government spending on early childhood education, which is comparable to the OECD average of 0.7 percent. The 1 percent recommendation was set by Unicef in 2008, and it is a pretty arbitrary sort of benchmark. However, the interesting thing is that to reach 1 percent would actually cost another half a billion dollars. I do not know about that member, but this Government does not have money trees sitting in its garden. I ask that member, if that is her party’s policy, to take it to the election.