Bennett Paula: General Debate 
Bennett Paula: General Debate 
[Volume:640;Page:10039] 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 I stand in this debate to deal with some of the facts and to put them on the record when it comes to certainty of income for those centres that are opting in to the 20 free hours policy. Today I asked a question about school donations and how if someone does not pay his or her school donation it does not mean much and it does not have many consequences. However if someone does not pay his or her donation to an early childhood centre it is very clear that there is a good chance that a teacher may lose his or her job. 
Let us clarify that a little more because I am quite happy to back this up. If as the Prime Minister states and as the Minister states they are funding for the minimum standard legal requirements and we have a centre that say receives funding for eight teachers but has decided to have an extra teacher it will be going above the minimum. The centre says: “We are going to ask for an optional charge or a donation from our parents to pay for that ninth teacher.” If parents do not pay the charge that teacher cannot be paid. It is as simple as that. 
This Labour Government needs to front up and be honest with parents and it certainly needs to be honest with centres. It should front up and let centres know that under the 20 free hours policy they will not have a certainty of income. Certainty of income is what they are asking for. They know how much it costs to run their businesses and they cannot get compulsory top-ups to run their businesses on a week-by-week basis. They are relying on a donation they are relying on an optional subsidy and that will not work. 
Parents want the subsidy. We make no bones about that. Who would not want a bit of extra money each week in their own pocket that they are not having to pay for childcare or childhood education? It does not take rocket science to know that. Members can ask a question in the House to try to make me look a little silly by saying that parents want their childcare subsidised. That is not rocket science. However it is not 20 hours free and that is what the Labour Government promised New Zealand parents. 
This Labour Government clearly promised parents 20 hours free and they will not be getting 20 hours free. Parents are now asking: “What price will I have to pay for 20 hours free?”. Parents are saying: “What price do I have to pay for 20 hours free? Is the cost going to be the quality of the education that my children get? Is the cost of this going to be that my centre ends up having to close down?”. 
UK centres have recently been closing. New childcare legislation was introduced in the UK in April 2006 and we have just had a report from a UK centre that said: “Underfunding the ban on top-up fees and masses of regulation prompted me to make the decision to close.” It is happening in the UK. This Government needs to take a lesson from it and not see our sector going in the same direction. 
Parents are saying: “Well if I pay my optional extra or a donation am I going to be subsidising another parent next to me who does not pay?”. The payment is not compulsory. How fair is it that some parents will pay the optional extra or a donation but others will not? Why should those parents subsidise each other? 
This Labour Government promised parents 20 hours free for all 3 and 4-year-olds and it is not delivering it. That is a travesty and it will come back to bite the Government. Parents are asking: “At what cost will I have to pay for 20 hours free? Will that cost be that I pay more for my under-threes? Will that cost mean that other parents perhaps who have under-3-year-olds are going to pay more for their 2-year-olds so that I can get 20 hours subsidised from this Government?”. That ain’t going to be a cost that they will be prepared to bear for long. 
Will there be a place for part-time education and care as centres move away from sessional care and into full-time care because that is the only way they can make this subsidy work? This Labour Government professes to care about those people who are disadvantaged and those people who are underclassed. This policy does not work for those people.