12. Question No. 12—EducationNICOLA WILLIS (National) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 12—Education12. NICOLA WILLIS (National) to the Minister of Education: Will he guarantee that his proposed changes for home-based early childhood education will not reduce children's participation in early childhood education limit labour market participation or increase costs for parents?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): The purpose of today's changes is to ensure that parents can be confident in the quality of education provided for their children. One consequence is that once they are fully implemented it could be that some of the least educationally robust services may no longer be counted as formal early childhood education (ECE). This may technically reduce ECE participation even though the same children could continue to be in the same arrangements with the same carers; just no longer receiving a Government subsidy for it. As I noted earlier we'll be working with the sector on the timing and other details of the changes. They do represent a substantial shift and it's important that we minimise disruption for parents whānau and children.Nicola Willis: How will these proposals promote access to high-quality early childhood education when his own Cabinet paper says the changes may result in families being pushed into informal care arrangements where the Government's levers to improve policy are limited."?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Because the Government will no longer be subsidising substandard early childhood education.Nicola Willis: Does the Minister understand that right now parents choose home-based educators because they already believe they provide high-quality care and education for their children and if so why is he telling parents they are wrong?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I'm not telling parents that they are wrong. In fact the Government's been very clear. We see huge value in home-based early childhood education. We do respect and acknowledge the very close relationship between the home-based educator and the child which is very important for the child's development. What we do not want to see is Government subsidies—significant Government subsidies—continuing to go into a sector where the quality controls simply have not been there. In fact dare I say it some of the money that's been going into the sector has not been particularly well accounted for. To give the member a typical example in home-based early childhood education most parents will be paying between $6 and $7 per hour for their child's care in home-based ECE. That will then be attracting if the child's under the age of two between $7 and $8 an hour in additional Government subsidy though the person who is caring for the child may be receiving as little as $1 per hour of that subsidy. Money is not going to the place that it is intended to go to.Nicola Willis: Can he confirm that he received advice that his policy may reduce the availability of home-based education preventing some women from being able to work such as shift workers who may struggle to find affordable early childhood education with the flexibility they need?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The labour market implications of the shift in policy are one of the reasons we've not set a specific deadline for the qualification requirements to be implemented. We will have a deadline in due course but we want to step through that very carefully to ensure that the sector and those who are doing the home-based educating have time to keep up.Jan Tinetti: What impact will the changes to home-based early childhood education have on the 98 percent participation target for early childhood education which was one of the Better Public Services goals?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I indicated previously these changes might technically reduce early childhood education participation as previously measured because some of the least educationally robust services might carry on but will no longer receive taxpayer funding and no longer be counted as formal early childhood education. According to the 98 percent target this would be seen as a bad thing even if the same children were in the same arrangements with the same carers and even if taxpayers had not been getting a good educational return from the taxpayer investment. This is a classic case in point of the risks of trying to reduce our aims in public policy to a simplistic numeric target."