Bennett Paula: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Bennett Paula: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:637;Page:7450] 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise today to speak to the House. Actually today is a special day for me; it is my daughter’s birthday. It is a moment of reflection at some level and I was thinking that she is an adult well and truly now at 20-years-old. I was thinking about that and about how it has not all been smooth sailing—as it never is for a parent. There were those nights when I lay awake worried about her future and the occasions when I over-reacted and panicked as a parent in times of normal illnesses. Also there were some of those teenage moments that test every bit of patience parents have. But I am incredibly proud of the woman my daughter is today. 
That got me thinking about things and I thought you know the Prime Minister just does not get it. She will be trying to follow in John Key’s footsteps today and convince some of the people in Owairaka that she does understand but she does not and she simply cannot. She used to at least try to. She did not always get it but she at least tried to get it. In the old days we saw her at least making a bit of an effort to try to get it. Now she is tired and her Government is tired. Her statement of intent just proved the Government is tired. There are no new ideas and the only thing Government members know how to do is to stand up and attack and to attack John Key. “Criticise John Key” seems to have been the key message over the last few days. I can understand why the Government is worried about him. I have stood next to this man in the last few weeks as we have visited places like Barnardos McGehan Close and west and South Auckland—and he gets it; and it is not false it is not forced and it ain’t rhetoric. 
Today was another example of a Government in pieces and a Government that does not get it. Its members know they simply cannot deliver on their promises. Let us talk about the fact that there will not be 20 free hours of early childhood education for thousands of 3 and 4-year-olds and the Minister knew it before he announced the policy. Where do we start on this one? Through the Official Information Act we have Ministry of Education papers proving that the Minister knew that even if everything went perfectly with the Government’s promise of 20 free hours and even if all early childhood centres were bought in there would still not be enough places for the 92000 eligible children. 
Colin King 
: Simple! 
PAULA BENNETT 
: It is simple. 
Colin King 
: It was a hoax. 
PAULA BENNETT 
: It was a hoax. Even if everything went according to plan there would not be enough places. So the Minister cannot offer 20 free hours for all 3 and 4-year-olds on 1 July as promised; he simply does not have enough places. 
Then we get to the interesting stuff. The ministry’s forecast predicted that centres covering 47 percent of the country had little or no capacity. So as the Minister went out on a promise—a promise of 20 free hours to all 3 and 4-year-olds—he knew that his own ministry’s forecasts his own papers were saying the ministry would be unable to deliver. Its own documents predicted that 14 percent of centres in New Zealand would not offer 20 free hours. That is what the ministry predicted. 
But it gets worse and now we are starting to deal with the realities. The Early Childhood Council’s survey has found that few centres intend to offer the 20 free hours. They are worried about the quality of the service they will deliver if they are to accept this low offer that they simply cannot deliver on. Thirty-one percent of centres said they definitely would not be offering the service. The Minister stood in the House today and said that there would be 20 free hours for all 3 and 4-year-olds. Yet again he is perpetuating a myth and imposing a cruel hoax on those parents who are relying on those free hours and needing them. Forty-six percent of early childhood centres are still undecided and only 22 percent answered yes to the question of whether they will be offering free early childhood education in their centres. This one really got me. A centre in Whakatane was quoted in the paper the other day as asking which centres in their right mind would say yes to a scheme when they have to take money out of their own pockets just to make it run. 
John Key was right to raise South Auckland as an area of particular concern. Fewer than a quarter of the early childhood centres in Manukau City said they would take up 20 free hours whereas three-quarters of them have not said they would. This is an area that we can look at and perhaps think that this is where the most need is for those 3 and 4-year-olds. Without a doubt there are more families struggling there than there are in many other places in the country. This is the place that will not be able to offer this service and deliver on a very ill-thought-out promise. The people are struggling. But then perhaps the Prime Minister has not visited there lately. She might be a bit worried about bumping into Taito Phillip Field. She does not want to come across that sort of problem. 
I want to talk a little now about why those centres are not taking up this offer because it would be a great one for the Minister and the Government to run that they are not taking it up because of money in their own pocket and everything else. But all we hear from the people in those centres is that they cannot maintain the quality of service with the amount that the Government is offering. For them it is about the quality they can deliver to those 3 and 4-year-olds. They are saying that the rates will not even cover costs let alone allow for an upgrade in equipment a pay rise for staff or anything else. It will not even cover costs and as such quality has to decline. 
Then there is the administration of the system—but they turn round and say it will be a nightmare with the huge costs associated in just administering it and making sure they can deliver it in that way. It is quite interesting to read about it in the papers as well because the ministry and the Minister have no idea how they will monitor the $140 million they are putting into the scheme. The ministry went to the Minister and said: “We’ve looked at all of this and we’ve absolutely no idea how we can monitor where that $140 million is going how it is going to be spent and what we can do.” What did the Minister say? The Minister must have said: “Let’s wing it and hope that nothing much happens and no one notices because at the end of the day we’ve made it up this far. We’ve made it up as we’ve gone along and this is a great promise to put out there. We knew it would get us a few votes. We don’t actually need to deliver too well on it. It’s free and free sounds good so that will get us some votes if we can even do it.” The Minister has said he knew we could not do it. Then there was the question of how the $140 million going into the sector could be monitored. With the centres saying: “Well we’re really worried about the quality.” he says: “Nah don’t worry about it. Make it up as you go along and we’ll just wing it.” Parents will say no to winging it. They deserve better and their children deserve better. So there are no monitors no measures and the Minister does not seem to be taking any responsibility. 
Then there is the doozy—the one that Mr Key raised today—the optional charges the volunteer payments. The Minister is desperate to simplify this issue but it is not about a zoo visit. Some of it is not about whether the children go for a visit to the zoo and whether the centres can do more. It is about actually delivering on the quality they currently have. Centres are saying they cannot deliver on the rate that is being offered and that they would need some sort of top-up payment from parents to make it work. The centres are saying: “However there’s not enough security of income to be relying on a volunteer payment so as such we will not be taking up the scheme or we will be cutting our services.” 
One centre rang the other day and the woman I spoke to was just so distressed. She had been working in the industry for so long. She said: “I have worked it out that I would need to let three teachers go. If I am to accept this offer I am going to have to let three teachers go and I am concerned about the effect that that will have on the quality of service that I offer to 3 and 4-year-olds and under.” If they cannot do volunteer payments and they will not take up optional charges what else might the centres do? The Minister suggested that they charge 1 and 2-year-olds more. They could make up for what they were not getting for the 3 and 4-year-olds by charging the 1 and 2-year-olds more. So one mum turns up in her car and puts her 1-year-old on her hip to walk around to the centre and another one turns up with a 3-year-old. They look at each other and that mother with the 1-year-old knows she is subsidising the one with the 3-year-old just so that the Minister can try to cover the shortfall. There is no doubt about it and there are papers available under the Official Information Act stating that the Minister did that. It is all about quality so accepting the offer is just not going to happen. 
To recap quickly we have volunteer payments that are not going to happen high compliance costs a drop in quality of care and a Minister who cannot deliver on a promise.