New definitions of “free”
The “20 free hours” early childhood policy is a perfect example of why people are cynical. Labour keeps claiming that parents can get 20 free hours. A National MP pointed out that if McDonalds used “free” in the way Labour does, they would claim to be have free hamburgers, but a $3 charge for the cardboard box. Absolutely.
The latest novel interpretation of free is to have an early childhood centre require parents to enrol for a minimum of seven hours a day, as the “free” hours are for a maximum of six per day. And to use that seventh hour to charge a fee to make up for the funding shortfall for the other six hours.
If the Government told the truth and said that the 20 hours are not free, but heavily subsidised, they would probably get plaudits for that. Because the subsidy will help many parents. But their insistence on continuing with Orwellian definitions means that their credibility just gets hammered. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
June 20th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Totally agreed. Labour party strategists seem to be completely ostrich like. It seems there is a pathological aversion to admitting mistakes, changing policy to adapt and moving on. Long may it continue
June 20th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
It is a truely hopeless policy. I do wish however, that Labour would be more honest with its use of the word “free” and perhaps use the phrase “paid for by some one else”.
June 21st, 2007 at 5:06 am
Weasle labour words ,FREE,yer right, Labour. THE TRUTH and kids ,good combination??? , David can we have a (blow by blow)pun, account of the first posicution when the smacking bill comes in today. There will be a test posicution. what i cant get my head around that families will be financialy deviststed because a (mother)???in parliment wants to leave her mark, bradfords got no idea how this is going to pan out. (ps im a parent)but my kids have fleed our country and are in London
June 21st, 2007 at 5:24 am
THE act starts tomorrow,sorry.more nails in the labour coffin.
June 21st, 2007 at 6:25 am
Free means Free – so when my almost 3 yr old qualifies in Oct I will be advising the daycare centre to send the any bill to Helen personally.
June 21st, 2007 at 6:33 am
“If the Government told the truth” yeah right David, these gormless mutton brains from Labour will form the platform for many future University students who want a classic case study to illustrate a government guilty of widespread incompetence and corruption .And, it is incontestable that many labour polticians would be behind bars for criminal activity if we had a justice system that wasn’t run by supreme lemon face -wooden teeth – sick psycho mad eyed snake called Helen Klark .
June 21st, 2007 at 6:48 am
The free service includes some very stringent regulations on room temperatures (16 degrees c) and the number of children per toilet (15) and much else. One can eaasily saee there will be a two tier system when a child gets a basic service (including room temperature) but the premium service with top-up fees will see children being offered warmer rooms, more toilets, better writing materials, more staff per child. These children would sit alongside other children getting the basic service. I find this opportunity for discrimination aborrorant. Let us dump this and have tax rebates for woking parents and children being rasied on welfare can have opportunities for their patents to provide voluntary assistance in part payemnt for fees.
June 21st, 2007 at 7:47 am
I posted the following on another blog yesterday – rather than try and commit my thoughts to paper again, I’ll repeat it here:
“As I have posted before, this policy has been flawed right from the beginning. Labour decided during the 2005 campaign that 20Free was a great idea, with no thought as to how it could be made to happen. As an ECE provider, I congratulate the Ministry of Education for the efforts they have made to bring order out of the chaos handed to them by their political masters. We have had a terrific relationship with Ministry officials as we try to effect an Optional Charges policy which will meet the spirit and intent of the Government’s policy. Without optional charges, it would be economic suicide for us as a small provider to offer a programme that would:
1) not allow us to reimburse our care providers at pre-20Free levels
2) face a drop of up to 40% in revenue for 3 and 4 year-olds
3) lose business due to not being able to opt in as a consequence of the above.
We’re close to opting in now (probably 1 August). We surveyed our parents, and received 100% support of our proposals to introduce a small (less than $1/hour tops) optional charge. Our parents will be better off, their childrens’ caregivers will not face a drop in income, we can continue to provide quality ECE – a classic win-win-win situation.
If only the Government had been honest and upfront and admitted that 20Free was in reality 20Highly Subsidised, it would have saved everyone, themselves included, a whole lot of grief. But no, they know best. And in doing so, they continue to expose themselves to the risk of electoral oblivion!”
We are NOT an ABC or Kiddicorp-type corporate business. We are a small business employing less than 10 people, reliant on funding from the Ministry of Education to be able to provide a quality ECE service. The Government has clung relentlessly to the “Free” mantra, which is patently untrue, given the provisions in the policy for optional charges. Maharey, Clark et al have proved again that they are large on political rhetoric, but light on substance – ironic, as that is exactly what they accuse John Key of. As Winston out it yesterday, “the H word”!!
June 21st, 2007 at 8:53 am
If any business operated in the manner that ECE providers are being forced to operate by this government, would they not be in breach of the Commerce Act? Free means free. It is illegal to charge for a service which has been advertised and offered as free.
I would advise providers of Early Childhood education to tread very carefully. They may well expose themselves to large fines, (incidently imposed by a government organisation!)
June 21st, 2007 at 9:25 am
You know, what’s missing in all this debate is what National would do. Anyone know National’s position on free childcare? Will National try to implement it better, or is this attack laying the groundwork to scrap it? It’d be nice to have some actual, you know, policies…
June 21st, 2007 at 9:35 am
Slightlyrighty said “I would advise providers of Early Childhood education to tread very carefully. They may well expose themselves to large fines, (incidently imposed by a government organisation!) ”
Agree totally – which is why we are making sure that the MoE dots all the “i’s” and crossing all the “t’s” – and to date they have been exceedingly helpful! They have a far more heightened sense of reality than their masters in the Beehive!!!
June 21st, 2007 at 9:45 am
Tane Wilton
sssshhhhh not now, the adults are talking some serious stuff here.
Level 9 talking points are unwanted distractions. Your time will come son, but in the meantime read, mark, learn and inwardly digest evidence of perfidy by Government the likes of which have never been seen in living memory.
June 21st, 2007 at 10:01 am
Tane Wilson:
You know, what’s missing in all this debate is what National would do. It’d be nice to have some actual, you know, policies…
What’s really missing in this debate is a responsible Minister (in any sense) who appears capable of giving an actual, you know, straight answer to a kinda, sorta straight question that bears any relationship to objective reality.
But I dokeep forgetting, Tane, that to some people the incumbent Government isn’t actually, like, you know, really responsible for anything that goes pear-shaped on their watch.
June 21st, 2007 at 10:14 am
Craig, I’m not arguing whether the scheme has been implemented properly. I know what Labour’s policy on free childcare is – what’s National’s?
June 21st, 2007 at 10:38 am
Tane; as someone once respectfully suggested to me “If you want to change the thread…start your own”
It’s not even a discussion on whether the policy has been implemented properly or not its about when free is free (IE at no cost)perhaps, as you know what Labour’s policy on free childcare is you could enlighten us?
June 21st, 2007 at 10:40 am
High School is free, as are primary and intermediate..
what that means is not that parents never pay anything for their kids’ education, what it means it that the Education department provides funds for schools to deliver a set level of educational and related services…
now, quite a few schools want to deliver extra experiences beyond that level for their kids, when they do so they can ask the parents for fees for these extras – school trips etc and are free to say the pupils can’t go if they don’t pay but they must still provide the agreed on standard of service, which is still free.
That is exactly what the 20 hours free will do – a staadard of service delivery and a price for that service has been determined and if pre-schools want to go above and beyond that, they will be entitled to ask parents to cover the extra cost, parents may refuse and still get the standard 20 hours free.
June 21st, 2007 at 10:51 am
National announced its policy of a tax rebate system for working parents. Labour went into high gear and announced this in a panic using the catch cry “20 hours free”. Remember that left wing chums. The Labour Party policy is bullshit and the chickens are coming home to roost.
June 21st, 2007 at 10:58 am
is that current national policy tim? i don’t hear national talking about that as an alternative in this debate.
June 21st, 2007 at 10:59 am
I don’t understand Labour now. They don’t seem to realise the old saying about fooling some of the people some of the time. If they said it was a childcare subsidy nobody could complain. Helen seems to have lost it since the days of teflon Helen. Perhaps Labour can’t deal with downturns in their fortunes. Anyway as a supporter of the Right I am not complaining. The more misjudgement among Labour the better.
Sam Dixon is technically right. However Labour have created an expectation of free childcare.
June 21st, 2007 at 11:00 am
is that current national policy tim? i don’t hear national talking about that as an alternative in this debate.
June 21st, 2007 at 11:30 am
Sorry Sam ,I believe you are wrong a few counts.
Schools charge fees (voluntary donations!yeah right) to cover the day to day cost of running the schools ie. to make up the shortfall in govt funding required to meet their operating costs. Every school my kids have attended runs this way. Try not paying them and watch the letters that get sent home. They then charge again, individually, for school trips, sports participation etc which is fine.
NZ largest supplier of pre-school education in NZ has publicly stated that it will require parents to pay .50c per hour for the twenty “free” hours paid for by the government. Again, they have to do this to cover basic costs and stay in operation.
This is what the debate is about, when is free really free? Not in this case.
Your notion that education is free is dream world. At least in the areas of AKL I have lived in.
June 21st, 2007 at 11:42 am
Tane: I know you’re desperate to know what National’s policies are – Labour haven’t got a clue what’s going on, and it’s obvious that they’re floundering. The only way Labour will come up with any good ideas is whatever they can steal from elsewhere – hence your antsy anxiousness about National policy. Sit tight son, keep your mouth shut & your eyes open, wait and be patient…and you may just learn something.
I’ll give you a hint though – National policy will be far superior to the incompetent cock-ups of the current Labour crooks.
June 21st, 2007 at 11:47 am
Aint the Socialists just wonderful Talk about over promise and under deliver I mean every good business person knows the secret to success is to Under Promise and Over Deliver. Again the Socialists show their total lack of marketing skills.
And the next time a pollie talks about something being “Free” and Im in arms range of them I will deposit my fist on the end of their hooter. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FREE Read my lips Some bastard usually myself and the other longer suffers pay the arseholes who always want free stuff.Get off your lazy arses and go work and graft.
June 21st, 2007 at 11:54 am
Sam Dixon – you would have been very impressed too with how the oh-so-clever Bill Clinton rebuffed those sordid “accusations” made (“I did not have sexual relations with that woman…etc” – remind me again, which word did he attempt the semantic gymnastics with, to try and desperately cover up his lie?).
If you can remind me, I’ll give you a “free” $1000 – OK?
June 21st, 2007 at 12:04 pm
It really is hopeless trying to educate people who haven’t even read the official policy material.
- standard education is free – I know at school you get asked for ‘fees’ each year, it has been well proven, there have been court cases over it, that these ‘fees’ are voluntary and that not paying these will not result in your child not getting the standard education services – of course they will miss out on everything else.
- So, you guys back more money for 20 hours free is that it? Should we, the taxpayers, just agree to give private providers anything they demand for their service? I thought we wnated value for moeny from our government, isn’t the way to do that to specify a standard of service and agree adequate funding for that?
June 21st, 2007 at 12:14 pm
So basically its the same old ruse of bribing one group of leeches with the money of some other clueless clots who can’t work out why its getting harder to make ends meet.Everyone’s trying to delude themselves that what they are getting is “free” because some other fool is paying for it….as they are for something someone else is getting via the parasitic states tax and spend dogma…
business as usual,back to sleep.
June 21st, 2007 at 12:21 pm
You miss the point totally Sam in your enthusiasm to make a simple matter seem complex.
The posters here are incensed and outraged that the pollies cannot be honest enough to describe the policy for what it is. I see no-one attacking the policy per se, just the out and out crap that is being served up to the public trying to portray it for something that it patently is not.
Evidence is mounting that it will not be “FREE” in any sense of the word as used by most New Zealanders. There will be a COST – often disguised to get around soem apparent restrictions designed by a bunch of Pontius Pilates who are trying desperately to keep their hands clean.
Hence the strident call – Tell it how it is. Call it subsidised, call it what you want but don’t expect me to be stupid enough to believe you when you call it FREE
June 21st, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Sit tight son, keep your mouth shut & your eyes open, wait and be patient…and you may just learn something.
I’ll give you a hint though – National policy will be far superior to the incompetent cock-ups of the current Labour crooks.
And behind all the patronising crap you still don’t have an answer for me. See, what National actually plans to do is incredibly relevant to potential voters, who have a right to know what the alternative is.
It’s downright dishonest to attack the government for not making childcare free enough when they plan to scrap free childcare altogether once in power. Don’t you think?
Now where was it I was reading about National hiding its real policies from the public in order to make itself more electable… seems to me nothing has changed.
June 21st, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Sit tight son, keep your mouth shut & your eyes open, wait and be patient…and you may just learn something.
I’ll give you a hint though – National policy will be far superior to the incompetent cock-ups of the current Labour crooks.
And behind all the patronising crap you still don’t have an answer for me. See, what National actually plans to do is incredibly relevant to potential voters, who have a right to know what the alternative is.
It’s downright dishonest to attack the government for not making childcare free enough when they plan to scrap free childcare altogether once in power. Don’t you think?
Now where was it I was reading about National hiding its real policies from the public in order to make itself more electable… seems to me nothing has changed.
June 21st, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Sam Dixon said….”Should we, the taxpayers, just agree to give private providers anything they demand for their service? ”
Sam, I am one of those “private providers” you are talking about. At the funding levels that the Government has offered ECE services, we were looking at up to a 40% DECREASE in funding. However, we were still expected to meet minimum standards (which, incidentially, we far exceed!). I defy you to try and operate a business at the same level of service with a 40% drop in income – it’s not good economics.
June 21st, 2007 at 12:44 pm
To sum up this debate we would say:
Labour’s policy: A = Not A (20 free is not 20 free)
National’s policy: X (unknown)
Tane would have us believe that (A = Not A) > X
Most people would see immediately that there is a bit of an issue with that, and it has nothing to do with National’s policy. No matter what National’s policy is, you can’t compare it against a policy that has zero integrity.
June 21st, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Well said somebody .
June 21st, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Oh Sam, I really do appreciate your constant efforts to educate dumb fucks like myself.
I guess the difference is that I live in the real world and you live in la la land.
The issue we are debating is honesty, not early childhood education costs. The government is being dishonest, you know it, we know it.
The stupid thing is they don’t need to be dishonest. Its a good policy and in effect is a 90%+ subsidy.
June 21st, 2007 at 1:09 pm
CraigM said…..”The stupid thing is they don’t need to be dishonest. Its a good policy and in effect is a 90%+ subsidy. ”
Well said Craig. As I said earlier, if the policy was 20HighlySubsidised, Labour would be on to a winner. However it is now poor policy, having been conceived on the hoof (or the hustings!), and the more Clark, Maharey & Co have to bluff and bluster to defend it, the more redundant they look!
June 21st, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Tane, you seem to be assuming that everybody attacking the 20″free”hours charade is National member/supporter etc. Not so.
I have Labour-voting family members who are in the childcare sector who tell me it’s a balls-up too. Smarmy-Maharey and Cullen sold it to the great unwashed as “FREE” – thats what all the parents naively expected it to mean. You can’t blame them for grizzling when it really means “subsidised”, and the childcare centre operators & staff are caught in the middle.
June 21st, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Which part of “free” do you dumb-arses not understand?
June 21st, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Why is anybody surprised that Labour have been caught out with another lie? Honesty has not exactly been their strong suit to date.
June 21st, 2007 at 1:35 pm
“High School is free, as are primary and intermediate..
what that means is not that parents never pay anything for their kids’ education, what it means it that the Education department provides funds for schools to deliver a set level of educational and related services… ”
It’s not about early childhood education. It about childcare (baby sitting).
I don’t mind funding education but I object to funding babysitting for someone elses kids. Particularly as the noisiest advocates all seem to be of the very well heeled brigade.
Pre school education, which is extremely important is likely to be destroyed in the process.
Up the funding for proper pre-school education, not babysitting. Extra fees won’t be needed then for “little gifts” and “treats”. No doubt better gifts equals higher voluntary fees equals we keep the riff raff out.
Hold on a moment which party is advocating this wild scheme?
June 21st, 2007 at 1:37 pm
This is Labour’s baby.
They have created this mess, and, if National choose to sit back, waiting to see what happens, then that is their perogative.
There is an old saying that if you are going to build a tower, then first work out the cost and see if you can afford it. Because, if you start & fail to finish then you will look an ass.
Labour failed to do the maths. They are too stubborn to say that they got it wrong, and call it like it is. This is foolish, because, if they said “sorry, we screwed up, but we can do a pretty good subsidy instead” then people would likely be forgiving.
The amazing thing is that this group of politicians have either fooled everyone for 2 terms into thinking they are fairly competent, whilst being a bunch of bunglers, or they have suddenly lost the plot completely.
June 21st, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Peter S the Socialists have always been a bunch of bunglers The only poeple who couldnt see this and still cant see it are their dumb arse supporters who buy their lies hook line and sinker.The great thing is that their bungles are getting even bigger and more obvious and so the light bulb is starting to go on even in the dumbest brains
June 21st, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Tane thinks that an Opposition should not be allowed to criticise the Government for not even delivering on its own promise. What should they do – clap and applaud Helen on demand?
National will announce its policy in due time. But seeing how Labour pinched its charitable donations policy, definitely don’t want to be announcing too early.
Voters will I am sure have many months to consider National’s major policy programme. Releasing too much of it now only helps Helen. And let’s face it Tane has absolutely no desire to know what National’s policy is. Only to rubbish it.
June 21st, 2007 at 2:15 pm
gd,
You may well be right.
There have been a number of political commentators that have raved about Dlark’s political astuteness over the last decade.
Many have bought into that opinion.
Clark coped pretty wellover her first couple of terms, but I wonder if that was because she was working under very benign economic conditions, with a very tame press. She seldom had more than one “crisis” at a time to deal with, which probably helped construct the teflon image.
The problem is that she was also a control freak, and gave her ministers little leeway to use their initiative.
Now that the wheels are falling off in multiple areas Clark is showing a singular lack of ability to cope in adverse conditions. She is completely unable to exercise the control that she was able to in benign conditions, and her ministers are showing that they are unable to cope without direct oversight (not sure if this is because they have never been given the leeway & don’t know how or if they are just not up to the task at all).
I don’t really think that the government has suddenly become inept, I just think that they had never been tested, and now that they are being tested they are being shown wanting.
I’m also begining to wonder if Bradford is on National’s payroll. The smacking bill mortally wounded Labour, but this lowering of the voting age, coupled with state political indoctrination in schools could well be the coup de grace.
June 21st, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Peter S having spent 35 years in management one gets a reasonably good idea as to the abilities of others Right from the start when she was elected leader in 1993 she portrayed all the hall marks of the command control never delegate type.History shows that this type also build up a considerable body of suppressed hostility against them over a period of time and the longer the greater the reaction when they fall.Clark has demonstrated some of the worst elements of bad managers exhibiting a hectoring bullying persona ironic when you consider all the hand wringing and condemation for the same fault that have been thrown at private sector management in particular Kettle Pot Black springs to mind.Clark also exibits some rather disturbing psycological traits but of course those expert in that area would been able to define these beeter than I. Suffice to say that when the tower crumbles it will be spectacular to observe.
June 21st, 2007 at 2:47 pm
I quess no one should be suprised Liarbour jumps up and down and claims 20 free hours are indeed free. They tryed the same trick by claiming $800,000 was indeed lawfully theirs, the rest is history.
June 21st, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Yes National must be careful on policy release as the brainless labour scum will steal any intelligent ideas just like the blue teams good ideas that appeared word for word in budget ,even though the liarbour lunkheads smarmy maharey , kustic kullen and smellon said it was “tory charity, tax cuts for rich and it won’t work “!! These dumb labour/green freaks are only fit for prison and that’s me showing some Charity .
June 21st, 2007 at 3:26 pm
“You know, what’s missing in all this debate is what National would do. Anyone know National’s position on free childcare? Will National try to implement it better, or is this attack laying the groundwork to scrap it? It’d be nice to have some actual, you know, policies…
Posted by Tane Wilton” |
You mean Tane that Labout told us all their policies before the last three elections. Don’t think all of it was out there for us to see. All the social engineering was pretty well hidden.
But then again we were given the pledge card, or was that a wet bus ticket, that outlined in detail everything they had on the agenda.
The Supreme Court was one I missed.
June 21st, 2007 at 3:37 pm
That Bradford mental bitch wants voting age lowered to 16 – f##k this country – welcome to the most f##ked up country in the South Pacific – free child care robots will be next – time for action people as enough is enough !!
June 21st, 2007 at 3:38 pm
cubit9f
Helen did tell us before the last election that they couldn’t support the smacking bill as it was against “human nature”.
They also gave us the “Chewing gum” budget (now you see it now you don’t).
It would appear that the likes of Tane would prefer to be mislead.
June 21st, 2007 at 3:41 pm
I won’t be mislead this is war !!
June 21st, 2007 at 3:47 pm
gd,
I agreed with your excellent summary, but the following bit is especially true.
“Suffice to say that when the tower crumbles it will be spectacular to observe.”
I’d go a little further and say that when the tower does crumble it will not only be spectacular but there will be little left, and the damage to the foundations (rest of the Labour party) will be so significant that repair will be difficult and lengthy at best.
Had Labour lost the last election Clark and Cullen would have walked away with quite favourable reputations & public perception of their time in office. They made the mistake of winning an election too many, and their whole legacy will be judged by the disgrace that is their third term.
June 21st, 2007 at 4:09 pm
CraigM -
You don’t me I don’t knwo you – but you’ve got some balls to assert that when we disagree its becuase you live in the real world and I live in lala land – espeically as its me who’s done the actual, real world, research into the policy we’re discussing.
One last time, all together, 20 hours of preschool education to the set standards will be free from particpating providers from July 1, for service beyond that providers are entitled to charge a fee.
And, I agree, Labour has made a pig’s ear of this – surely a few million more could have placated those providers who are making a fuss.
But its still free – and thats a dman sight better than what Natioanls’ policy at the last election (tax deductiblity up to $1800 on childcare – so if you were rich enough to be spending $6000 a year on childcare you made away like bandits but nohting for those who didn’t have that kind of money), which Naitonal has now dropped. When asked in Select Committee what her alternative to 20Free is, since she sees so much wrong with it and opposes it generally (or does she just want it better funded? the answer changes day by day) Paula Bennett replies she does not have a policy.
Spokesperson for the main Opposition party opposes government policy on fringe issues, has no policy of her own = disgrace.
June 21st, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Sam Dixon – “And, I agree, Labour has made a pig’s ear of this”
National don’t have to say a word as labour’s self destruction is so obvious . The ship of fools are going down real fast Sam ? Good isn’t it .
June 21st, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Fly-Away-NZ was fined $6000 in Auckland District Court yesterday. Convicted of promoting “free” flight deals to Australia, (but the purchaser had to pay inflated prices for accommodation). This is apparently a breach of the Fair Trading Act.
Does the same not apply to 20 hours “free” childcare, as long as the child is signed up for more than the 20 “free” hours at an additional special charge?
June 21st, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Sam; Regrettably this labour Governments legacy will be based on a foundation of hyperbole and spin.
A Kiwi song from the sixties seems strangely prophetic
“Why not come dance along with me
You’ll see what’s not was meant to be
We’ll fly through space without a care
and free our brothers from despair
And now we’re Spinning, spinning, spinning
Spinning, spinning through this magic land
getting back to the beginning of the end
that we once had
we’re seeing how tomorrow
like sparkling waves of sand
being washed by waves of laughter
guided by the master’s hand”
June 21st, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Joe Blogs – the Fair Trading Act does not apply to the Labour Party…OK?
In fact, none of the laws of the land apply to the Labour Party. Those laws are only there for the plebs – you know, the suckers who vote for the Labour Party.
June 21st, 2007 at 8:16 pm
gd, you articulate it so well ,HC ,is so hands on,so dominating,a very shallow person a control freak, you dont need years in managment to se that ,The path behind her is littered by the,people who have put her on the top of the crumbling tower of babel, fall baby, fall
June 21st, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Free means state welfare.
June 21st, 2007 at 8:52 pm
This is supposedly Labour’s “flagship” policy from the last election. Instead, it has become an albatross around their collective necks. The irony, as has been pointed out earlier, is that almost all parents whose children qualify for 20 Free Hours will be better off. Unfortunately for Labour, they have painted themselves into a corner, and instead of the populus heaping praise on them, they seem to be the subject of universal scorn (with the possible exception of those who defend the indefensible!). This would have to be the own goal to match all own goals!
June 21st, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Again no post from selma/helen/sonic, OOH i get it,selma,sonic,and helen and peter are at a function put on by the plo(peoples liberation army) at the chinese embassey,Helen loves a good ruthless dictatorship that is the biggest polluter in the world and selma loves helen,therefore no post i suppose
June 21st, 2007 at 9:25 pm
This is topic which is so transparently an act of Labour deception that very little else needs to be said. I say sit back and let the feeling of being had permeate throughout NZ. I think it will be one of the last things going through a lot of peoples minds when they vote. Great Stuff
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:30 pm
The Ministry of Education admitted to the Education and Science Select Committee that the average cost of providing early childhood education was $6.09 per hour in their 2006 survey of costs.
How then do they expect ECE centres to continue to provide their current level of quality and service to families after the introduction of Free ECE on 1 July 2007, when the Ministry are offering centres Free funding rates of between $1.15 to $4.48 to cover their costs?
Free ECE is not Free. It only remains free in the theoretical mind of the Minister of Education and a few of his public servant employees. In the real world where parents live, someone has to pay for the shortfall. That will either be the parents of 3 and 4 year olds who attend more than 20 hours per week, or the parents of younger age children.
Free ECE is a very generous taxpayer-funded subsidy, and should be renamed such. Only then can all ECE centres confidently opt into the scheme and pass on the additional funding to their families in a transparent and honest way.
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:48 pm
This is all sounding so Muldoonian – price freezes, brainless policy made on the hoof, unclear policy rules, optional charges, shifting costs from those who receive the service to those who do not, ‘Buy six hours get the 7th for three times the price!’ deals for parents, etc.’
Sam Dixon. Parents are already subsidised through funding that goes directly to centres for each hour a child attends (up to a max number per week), plus those on low incomes get a top up to help pay their fees. So even w/o the ’20 free for ye but not necessarily for me’ policy (sister to the government’s ‘Working for Other People’s Families’ policy), parents wld be getting a significant subsidy – spending on ECE w/o thi sis in th hundreds of millions.
This policy was stupid to start with. I believe the government’s policy in its 2002 strategy paper was to increase participation among groups not participating in early childhood education. Given we already had 90%+ of kids in some form of ECE (or thereabouts), why did we need to subsidise 100% of families (inc the rich) to get This is all sounding so Muldoonian – price freezes, brainless policy made on the hoof, unclear policy rules, optional charges, shifting costs from those who receive the service to those who do not, ‘Buy six hours get the 7th for three times the price!’ deals for parents, etc.’
Sam Dixon. Parents are already subsidised through funding that goes directly to centres for each hour a child attends (up to a max number per week), plus those on low incomes get a top up to help pay their fees. So even w/o the ’20 free for ye but not necessarily for me’ policy (sister to the government’s ‘Working for Other People’s Families’ policy), parents wld be getting a significant subsidy – spending on ECE w/o thi sis in th hundreds of millions.
This policy was stupid to start with. I believe the government’s policy in its 2002 strategy paper was to increase participation among groups not participating in early childhood education. Given we already had 90%+ of kids in some form of ECE (or thereabouts), why did we need to subsidise 100% of families (inc the rich) to get <10% to participate?
The pre 20 free policy has been successful in helping the sector grow, and the bulk of that growth has been among not for profit and the ‘dreaded’ for profit ECE centres who dare to make a living providing a service that people want. This policy threatens to stuff it up over time.
The sector shld have been left on its own and any additional money shld have gone into helping those parents who really needed it. While that may have been good for parents and for the sector, it did not meet the short term political imperative that drives politicians. This is also flagrant example of middle class capture – along with other policy Think Big idiocies like the ‘free’ interest policy on student loans.
The word ‘free’ shld immediately set off alarm bells since nothing actually is free, as this has shown (and any advertising of 20 free should draw a complaint to the Advertising Standards Board since it clearly is not true).
Even if the policy gets 90% of centres to sign up, it will be a farce because it was only achieved through subterfuge.
The Orwellian doublethink required to justify the policy is incredible – free becomes ‘free for a fee’ (I think those were Duncan Garner’s words on TV3). Even the Minister’s argument that you pay for service above the regulated standard was added after the fact and even it does not hold water. Free kindergartens will not be providing anything above the regulated standard (eg child:teacher ratios), yet at least one – the Akl Kindie Assoc – will be charging an optional charge. If the policy is supposed to be that you can only use optional charges for providing a service beyond what is regulated, then why are they allowed to do so (though I wholeheartedly support them having the right to do it – why should they suffer for a stupid policy)? Pretzel logic.
Let’s just hope the government’s stubborn insistence on going ahead with its flawed policy simply to save face over its ’20 free’ political slogan (when it patently is not free) does not cause long-term damage to the sector.
June 23rd, 2007 at 12:28 pm
In order to highlight the problems and injustices surrounding the failed delivery of 20 hours free ECE, a group of Auckland parents started a petition which was presented to Parliament on Tuesday 19 June. The petition was signed by nearly 3,500 people in just over a month. We could have kept on going, but our point has been made and we hope that the Education Select Committee will now address our concerns.
We do not have any political agenda except to ensure that the Government is held accountable in this regard. We will therefore continue to lobby the Government to
a) ensure that the 20 hours free funding is available to all eligible 3/4 year olds and not just some at the expense of all; and
b) that 20 hours FREE (in the traditional sense of the word) ECE is provided for those children as was promised in August 2005.
COPY OF LETTER SENT TO EDUCATION AND SCIENCE SELECT COMMITTEE
Dear Mr Donnelly (and members of the Education and Science Select Committee),
Please find attached 3375 signatures for a petition requesting that the Government honour its promise of 20 hours free education for all 3 and 4 year olds from July 2007. The signatures represent parents who were excited about receiving 20 hours free childhood education for 3 and 4 year olds and are becoming increasingly disappointed as they see that it will not be delivered to ALL 3 and 4 year olds from 1 July 2007 and it will NOT BE FREE. We would like to make an oral submission in support of the petition and would be prepared to make ourselves available at a time convenient to the Committee either in person or via video conference link if that is possible.
Many parents are feeling frustrated as they try to plan and budget for their childrens’ pre-school education. Unfortunately there are few examples around the country of families actually receiving the 20 hours of childhood education for FREE. Most are either not getting it at all, are having to pay optional charges without knowing how long the provider will continue to opt in to the scheme, or they are paying more in other areas (with increased charges for their under threes or for additional hours after the 6 hour daily or 20 hour weekly limit). We are also aware of examples where families have been told that their centre will be offering the 20 hours but will only continue to educate children if their family agrees to switch from part-time to full-time hours.
The reality is that the Government has simply increased its funding for the early childhood education sector or another way of putting it, has provided further subsidies for parents of 3 and 4 years olds. This is clearly not what was promised and we are concerned that even if providers do end up offering the 20 free hours that the financial benefit to families will be severely compromised by centres recouping their costs from parents in others ways.
It is no use blaming the providers (and in particular the private sector) for not offering the scheme. The Government knew that they were dependent on the centres in delivering their promise and now must make it happen. After all, the promise was made to the parents (with the power to vote) not the early childhood providers.
We want you to understand why parents feel so let down about this broken promise. Besides the obvious financial savings, which could automatically make a huge difference to families, many parents we have spoken to have told us that the delivery of 20 free hours of early childhood education for their 3 and 4 year olds would have led to other significant changes in their lives. The four most common outcomes mentioned are: -
- - – The opportunity to continue or return to a career. The 20 free hours would improve the financial money-go-round situation faced by many working parents;
- - – The opportunity to take some time away from work and spend more time with the family while the children are so young (especially after the birth of a second or third child). Some parents work simply to afford early childhood education for their child. This is especially likely in areas where public kindergartens are not available until children are as old as 4 and private alternatives must be used.
- - – The opportunity to afford to have another baby. Many families can only afford the expense of early childhood education for one child at a time, but the 20 hours free funding could have enabled families to plan another child because 20 hours’ free childcare for the first child would be provided under the scheme.
- - – To increase the opportunity to access early childhood education when it was not previously available to a family due to financial constraints.
The potential impact on families around New Zealand of this promise was therefore significant and many people are relying on its successful implementation. It is our belief that the 20 hours free policy should have resulted in families having greater choice and flexibility to provide quality early childhood education to their 3 and 4 year olds yet the way that the scheme has been presented has, for many, only caused disappointment, confusion and uncertainty.
We also want to explain why we have asked for additional funding. As busy parents we don’t understand the various funding models behind the early childhood sector but with the Government promising 20 free hours and the centres saying they can’t afford to deliver that without compromising on the quality of care, the solution seemed obvious – increase the funding. Locally, we know of sessional centres who say that even if they did participate in the scheme, that the funding would only cover $3- $4 per 3 hour session, when families currently pay around $20. This has naturally made us concerned that in some cases the funding rates are inadequate. In fact, we are not so concerned about how the Government remedies the situation as long as all 3 and 4 year olds can access the 20 free hours as promised and that this happens as close to 1 July 2007 as possible.
Finally we should like to emphasise our expectation that “free” really means without payment. The reality is that most of the centres who have indicated they will opt in (including many not-for-profit organisations like the Auckland Kindergarten Association) will be requesting payment on top of the “free” hours. If even the public kindergartens can’t offer the scheme without requesting additional money from parents, it goes without saying that for-profit providers are likely to be substantially under-funded and will have to request payments from families. We note the concerns of the providers about enforcing payments as set out in the recent parent brochure produced by the Early Childhood Council (which are now appearing in the centres that our children attend). Although we are reminded by the Education Minister in the Ministry’s brochure that if families don’t want to pay the optional charges they don’t have to, the reality is not that simple. If one family refuses to pay an optional charge, this could jeopardise the future participation of their child’s centre in the scheme, because centres say they are only participating on a trial basis and will withdraw if they do not successfully recover all of their costs. This results in a moral dilemma for families, as they will not want to be the ones to force their centre to pull out. Parents can’t just remove a child from one centre and walk into another. Waiting lists can be more than a year long and alternative centres may not exist in the area. Of course, this is all hypothetical, because none of our centres are participating in any event.
We now would urge the Education and Science Select Committee to do whatever is necessary to remedy this situation and enable ALL our 3 and 4 year olds to have the best start possible. You may be interested in our blog (http://20hoursfree.blogspot.com) which includes postings from parents around the country explaining why the scheme is not working for them.
Yours sincerely
Amy Malcolm
(on behalf of 20 hours free. Please)