Xu-Nan LawrenceDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. This particular part is of great interest to me as the Green Party spokesperson for education and I do have a whole series of questions on this particular part. But I would like to start with a broader question around this and I appreciate that this would have been something that we were able to tease out in select committee which is: what sort of modelling—and I appreciate what the Minister is trying to do in terms of alleviating some of the financial burden this places on families. So the question is: what modelling has the Minister or the authorities done that suggests that the additional money isn't simply going to be absorbed by in particular for-profit early childhood education companies?So the reason I ask this is in the data—for example in the Consumers Price Index childcare index from January 2005 to June 2022 it stated that as part of a new introduction although it alleviates the cost immediately the sector—particularly the for-profit sector of early childhood education (ECE)—will soon catch up to that cost. Privatisation of ECE is a hungry beast and the for-profit companies of ECE will absorb some of these costs as we have seen in the past.Another report also shows when you analyse it that—in the OECD report which analyses more than 25 countries it says that with tax rates and benefits it is estimated that a New Zealand household with two preschoolers and two parents working full-time at an average wage spent 37 percent of their net income on childcare. That is triple the OECD average of 13 percent. Again when we are looking at policies like this what mechanisms and what modelling has there been that suggest that the sector isn't simply going to catch up and absorb that cost?I'd also like to draw attention to the regulatory impact statement (RIS) for FamilyBoost. What is quite concerning when we're looking at paragraph 14 of the RIS—and this is something that has also been reported extensively—is the fact that there is simply a lack of fees data when it comes to early childhood education providers. We do not keep that kind of data. One of the biggest limitations and barriers in this for both the Ministry of Education as well as Inland Revenue is around the fact there is a lack of fee transparency that we're seeing in this sector. So again to the Minister: what additional modelling and information and evidence has been produced since the release and the printing of the regulatory impact statement to reassure families to reassure parents with multiple young children?We already heard from my colleague Julie Anne Genter in terms of the compliance burden and the administrative burden this will create on parents of young children. I'm sure for those on the other side of the Chamber—with Dan having become a new father—this is something that he will be very interested in as well. What sort of modelling has been provided that suggests that this money simply isn't going to be reabsorbed by the sector and that it provides not just administrative burden but genuine relief to that?With that I would like to point to another section of the operation—and this is the refund model. We're looking at options two and three on pages 16 to 17 of the regulatory impact statement for FamilyBoost paragraph 58. It says The impacts of the non-monetised costs and benefits have been determined through Inland Revenue's previous [operation] … [and] assumptions made on the cost for parents and the ECE sector." But what is concerning is the table itself says that the total monetised costs in terms of the benefits are "To be confirmed" and the non-monetised benefit of this is "Low".So again if the Minister wouldn't mind shedding some light on the overall picture of FamilyBoost and exactly how much benefit is going to provided because the data and evidence we have here is not clear."