Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:640;Page:10156] 
7.  
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Has he received any reports suggesting that a childcare tax deduction is a much fairer and more flexible way of delivering assistance to parents than 20 hours’ free early childhood education? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I have seen the claim from the National Party that its childcare tax deduction approach which Paula Bennett re-announced this weekend is better than 20 hours free. I disagree with that claim. Under a deduction approach families where one parent stays at home miss out entirely and beneficiary families miss out entirely. The deduction would be paid in a lump sum at the end of the year through the Inland Revenue Department so it would not help families to balance their books from week to week and of course the childcare focus of the National Party is at odds with the need to fund quality early childhood education. 
Maryan Street 
: How much do families benefit from 20 hours free compared with a tax deduction? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Let me give two examples. Let us take a family that pays $144 a week for three 8-hour days. That family will save $3600 a year with 20 hours free. National’s policy would halve those savings so that family would pay nearly $2000 a year more than it would under 20 hours free. A family with a mum at home that currently pays a donation of $15 to a kindergarten would save $600 a year with 20 hours free. With National that family would have to find that $600 itself; it would get no deduction because mum would stay at home and not go out to paid employment. Families know also that under 20 hours free the State is guaranteeing to pay for 20 hours of quality early childhood education and that under National they are getting something for childcare. 
Katherine Rich 
: Why would any party sign up to a policy called 20 hours free when it is blatantly not free; and does it not demonstrate a loss of focus on his part that he is concentrating on what other parties might do and he cannot answer basic questions such as how many centres have opted in at this point even though he has the forms from the Ministry of Education? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No it does not show a lack of focus. It shows that finally as the National Party has to show what it would actually do its policies are shown to be to the disadvantage of children and families in this country. I repeat: if we take a family that currently pays $144 a week for 8 hours 3 days a week there is a saving of $3600 under this policy and the National Party would cut that by $2000. That is the focus that is the difference and that is why I am looking forward to campaigning on this policy against National’s policy. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Would it not have saved a great deal of angst if the policy had been referred to from the outset as a hugely increased subsidy that will significantly reduce parental costs for 20 hours a week rather than to try to claim it would make childcare free over the same period for all parents? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I say to the member that underlying this policy is the funding of early childhood education. That is a very important point. The whole focus of this sector has been on the funding of early childhood education. The State is saying it is guaranteeing that payment because it understands that early childhood education is good for young New Zealanders. That is why we support it that is why the sector supports it and that is why Paula Bennett is so angry—because she has lost the battle.