Moroney Sue: Budget Debate 
Moroney Sue: Budget Debate 
[Volume:664;Page:11673] 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 Following on from Nathan Guy the National member who has just resumed his seat I say I was very surprised that he did not speak about the $1.2 million cut to the health services in Otaki. He was telling us that the people of Otaki are thankful for the Budget. But the people of Levin are not; they are protesting about the $1.2 million cut to their health centre. 
Hon Nathan Guy 
: No no you’re not right. 
SUE MORONEY 
: I know that that is the member’s home town and apparently he is now saying he has that issue all sorted out. But we will wait and see whether that is the case because the people of Levin will be voting on that issue next year. 
But I will get back to Budget 2010 which was a Budget of price increases and broken promises. Not only was there the broken promise from John Key who had said he would not increase GST—and in Budget 2010 GST has been increased—but also there was the broken promise from the entire National caucus. The National candidates went out on the hustings and promised that they would keep early childhood education intact in the way that Labour had left it. But they went further than that: they promised that they would keep the 20 hours’ free early childhood education and they said they would keep all of the existing subsidies for early childhood education. Well the National members have broken their promises. When the Budget was delivered they broke yet another promise to all of the families who had believed them. Those families now feel betrayed because they took the National members at their word and believed them when they said a National Government would keep all the existing subsidies. Those families now find that $295 million has been cut from the early childhood education budget and that affects 93000 children and their families. 
Early childhood education used to be a high priority and certainly it was for the previous Labour Government. When National first came into office it said early childhood education was a high priority for National too. So what happened between then and May 2010 that has resulted in early childhood education becoming such low-value spending that it has suffered cuts in the Budget? The Minister of Finance Bill English said only low-value spending would be cut in this Budget. Early childhood education was cut so how did it slip from being an important investment under the previous Labour Government to becoming a cost under the National Government and a cost that had to be cut? That is what has become of the education of our youngest children yet that is the time when we can make the best improvement in their lives. Labour saw early childhood education as an investment and it still sees it in that way. One of the best investments that any Government can make is to invest in early childhood education. This Government can now talk about early childhood education only as being a cost and a cost that must be cut. 
So 93000 children and their families are affected by this funding cut and the cost will be an average of about $25 per child per week because this Government wants to put that money into the pockets of wealthy New Zealanders for a tax cut that they quite frankly do not need. The Government is taking that $25 per child per week out of the pockets of ordinary hard-working New Zealand families and putting that money into the pockets of the very very wealthy who do not need to be given a tax cut and will spend it offshore. 
That cut affects 93000 children nationwide and that is pretty hard to get one’s head around so I will break it down. What does it mean in some of our provincial centres? I look at my home city of Hamilton and know that 3700 children and their families will be affected by this severe Budget cut to early childhood education. In my city alone 3700 children attend 78 early childhood education services that employ 80 to 100 percent qualified staff. Then there are more children affected by the cut because the centres that employ between 50 and 79 percent qualified staff will also be affected. So the number of affected children is even larger than the number that the Minister of Education has admitted to. 
Many of those services have staff in training right now who are about to become qualified between now and February when these cuts take effect. Why is that? Members opposite look a bit confused about this. Many of those centres have staff in training now because the previous Labour Government set a target that 80 percent of the staff in the early childhood education sector should be qualified by 2010. So the centres have worked extremely hard and have invested time money planning and effort into getting people into training. The individuals concerned have invested their hard work their own time and money and now they come to 2010 and find when they are about to qualify that the National Government has pulled the rug from underneath them. National has cut the funding to the sector but there was no consultation about that and no warning was given of it. Suddenly come Budget day 2010 the sector found out that it does not have the funds to pay the wages of those qualified staff. 
The Government would have us believe that it will put that money into improving the participation rates for Maori and Pasifika children. Well that is not so. I have here a letter from the Living and Learning Foundation which runs a new early childhood education centre in Mangere. The centre was officially opened by the Prime Minister John Key just last year but this year the Government has cut the centre’s funding to the tune of $95000 per annum. There are 113 children who go to that centre and 98 percent of them are Maori or Pasifika. [ 
Interruption 
] I know that Tau Henare thinks it is funny that the centre’s funding has been cut but 98 percent of the children who attend that centre are Maori or Pasifika. I quote from the letter from Michelle Pratt and the members opposite may want to listen to this: “In order to recover the sums of money that will be lost to us as a direct result of the Government’s Budget we are going to have to increase our fees by a minimum of $20 to $25 per child per week. This will not leave any profit and we will be forced to trim further service to families. Most families have more than one child at the centre some even three or four.” 
How are families possibly going to afford this? This cut puts a cost on families who have three or four children—[ 
Interruption 
] Katrina Shanks seems to be having difficulty doing the sums. Some children— 
Jo Goodhew 
: Three or four children in early childhood education? 
SUE MORONEY 
: I do not know; has anyone heard of twins? I do not know. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: I’ve got twins. 
SUE MORONEY 
: There you go! Maurice Williamson has twins. Some of these families have three or four children attending an early childhood education centre. Government members are looking very confused but I can tell them that decision will cost a family in that position $100 more per week. And that is before GST is increased. 
I have an example from the community kindergarten owned by the Otumoetai Plunket branch and it tells me that it will lose $34000. The examples go on. I have another one from the North Shore but the member for that electorate is not present. 
I am concerned that the Prime Minister has said having 100 percent qualified staff at a centre was a matter of personal choice and if parents really wanted that then they would just go ahead and pay for it. We all know what that will mean. We will end up with three grades of early childhood education in this country. Families who come from a wealthy neighbourhood will have centres with 100 percent qualified staff those who come from a middle-income neighbourhood will be able to afford centres with only 80 percent qualified staff and those who come from South Auckland will have a playgroup. That is the Government’s plan. The children from that area will have a playgroup. The Minister of Education has already washed her hands of responsibility for the funding cut. She says that if centres have to increase their fees then that is not her responsibility; it is a business decision. But it arises from her funding cut. 
In my remaining minute I want to talk about the overall response to this Budget. I have received a letter that will resonate with most New Zealanders. It comes from Wiremu Bayliss of Hamilton who writes: “Prior to the recession Sunny and I were on track to own our own home a first time for us in nearly 5 years of marriage. At the time we were both working full time earning good salaries. Considering our overall financial position we were able to service the loan as well as other expenses with enough for savings at the end. We now believe that failing a substantial Lotto win we will never own our own home in the next 10 years and it could”— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The member’s time has expired.