Modernising Early Childhood Education Funding
Associate Education Minister David Seymour has today announced an Early Childhood Education (ECE) Funding Review to ensure the funding system is simple, fair, and gets value for money.
Mr Seymour has established an ECE Funding Review Ministerial Advisory Group (MAG), chaired by Linda Meade to carry out this review. It will report on it's findings this time next year.
'No money is being taken away and any findings by the MAG will be at least financially neutral,' Mr Seymour says.
'ECE funding should be used effectively to keep costs for families down. Vote Education spends approximately $2.7 billion on ECE. We need to make sure this funding is going as far as it can and prioritising the right things.
'The MAG members bring a range of early learning and business expertise which will be key to the review.'
The group will be chaired by Linda Meade who has a mixture of economics and real experience in the sector. She is the perfect chair for this review.
'The ECE funding system should provide the best return on investment for taxpayers. This means providing families with accessible and affordable services which facilitate parents returning to the work force and give kids a great start in life,' Mr Seymour says.
'There is huge demand for ECEs from families across New Zealand, however numbers show supply isn't keeping up. That is why we are committed to making changes which will allow the industry to expand and provide more high-quality services for families and their children.
'The funding system is too complicated. It confuses families, providers struggle to forecast financial sustainability, and parents take time off work when they can't access care.
'We want to be certain that taxpayer money is being used effectively. For example, we don't know if the 'one size fits all' funding approach in ECE works for parents who don't have traditional working arrangements or consistent patterns of child attendance. These parents are often the most disadvantaged.
'The review will be wide ranging, though some things are excluded. The policy benefits of 20 Hours ECE will and FamilyBoost will be preserved. Please find the review terms of reference attached.
'The review will compliment other work we are doing in the ECE sector. Changes made by the ECE Sector Review to modernise and simplify ECE are also underway. By the end of next year ECE providers will also be governed by a regulatory system which ensures regulations are focused on what matters, child safety.
'In the meantime, recent amendments to the pay parity opt-in scheme aim to provide some cost relief to ECE services.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
an hour ago
- Otago Daily Times
Exploring diligently throughout Question Time
When I get back from leave, I am going to have to find out if the HR department is in cahoots with the government. The two occasions I took a break last year coincided with one of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon's two visits to Dunedin, and the other with Health Minister Simeon Brown's trip to town. So naturally as soon as I headed out the door last week Mr Brown was back in Dunedin again for another hospital announcement — one slightly more palatable than the last one. I still have some way to go to beat my much-respected former boss Audrey Young: her holidays had such a spooky habit of coinciding with party leaders being rolled that it came to be known as "the curse of Audrey" — but it's still a little frustrating. So having missed all the fun, let's go back in time to Parliament's last sitting week, and Wednesday's Question Time, which may have set a record. Of the 12 questions, a quarter were asked by southern MPs ... although maybe only a third of those elicited anything which might have been of any interest to their constituents. First up was Act New Zealand Southland list MP Todd Stephenson, who got to ask the acting Prime Minister — who, coincidentally, just happened to be his party leader David Seymour — the hardy perennial of whether he stood by all his government's statements and actions? Spoiler alert: yes, he did ... particularly the NZ Infrastructure Commission's freshly announced National Infrastructure Plan. Mr Stephenson followed up by asking about access to new medicines — which the man who is also an associate health minister with responsibility for drug-buying agency Pharmac was more than happy to talk about — and then GPs (ditto). It was going so well, but Mr Stephenson then incurred the Speaker's wrath by asking his leader to comment on comments made once upon a time by the little-remembered Labour MP Charles Chauvel about the Regulatory Standards Bill. "No, that's not something you [Mr Seymour] can make any comment on whatsoever. So sit down and have another go at the question," the Speaker harumphed. Fair play to Mr Stephenson; he found a cunning way around the Speaker's edict by asking if the acting PM agreed with any statements that he had recently seen in relation to the Regulatory Standards Bill. "Well, I do, as a matter of fact," Mr Seymour replied with glee, before embarking on the sort of answer which makes Gerry Brownlee turn puce. Q10, from National Waitaki MP Miles Anderson, was much more benign, as he asked Agriculture Minister Todd McClay about the government's plan to ban full farm-to-forestry conversions — as covered in last week's Southern Say. No alarms and no surprises here, as Mr McClay gave a suitably apocalyptic answer to Mr Anderson's question: "What is the impact on rural communities of whole farm-to-forest conversions?" Q11, from Labour Taieri MP Ingrid Leary to Associate Housing Minister Tama Potaka on proposed changes to the Retirement Villages Act, was when things got really interesting. She wanted to know if the draft legislation would include "provisions for repayments but not mandate them". This is a topic close to Ms Leary's heart (she has a member's Bill in the ballot on just this subject), not to mention thousands of retirement village residents and their families affected by the issue. Most villages operate under an occupation rights (ORA) agreement system, whereby residents buy the right to live in what might well be their final home, but not ownership of it. That sum is then held until the ORA ends. An ORA does not come cheap — in the realm of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Which is high, true, but which may also be fair enough in some circumstances: villages are expensive to build and costly to run. But an ORA comes with associated bonds and fees, and gruesome tales abound of residents, or their families, being obliged to pay fees after moving to a higher-care unit or dying. Also problematic is the process of getting out of an ORA. The village will usually claim a portion of the ORA as an "exit fee" and then resell the ORA. However, that right may well have accumulated a considerable capital gain in the intervening period — something that the former ORA owner cannot benefit from. Many, and Ms Leary is one, think this effectively means villages are enjoying an interest-free loan from their residents — albeit that they receive a secure and comfortable lifestyle and residence for their golden years. Consumer has been running a campaign for years on the issue of what it sees as unfair retirement village contracts; Mosgiel's Brian Peat, president of the Retirement Village Residents' Association, has also been hot on the topic for a number of years. Mr Potaka has bad news for Ms Leary, saying that the Northern Advocate article on which she has based her question had been incorrect Undeterred, she then asked if Mr Potaka would commit now to mandating fair repayment times and terms. "There are a number of matters that we are considering as part of a broader reform of this matter, including dispute resolution protections, and a wide range of consumer protections and various matters, including those that the member referred to, will be considered and are still under active consideration," Mr Potaka replied reassuringly ... but not reassuringly enough for Ms Leary, who pointedly followed up with: "What other sectors are there where people have no control over when someone pays them back their own money?" That was quite a broad and open question, Mr Potaka replied, but he could say that the government was "responsibly reviewing" a wide variety of matters, including consumer protections for elderly folks living in retirement villages. Would that include, perhaps supporting a law change which would require operators to give residents their money back within three months, Ms Leary wondered, knowing full well that such a Bill existed. "If the member is asking me to jump in front of Cabinet and make decisions by way of a question and answer session, I will not be doing that," Mr Potaka said. "What I will be doing is diligently and professionally undertaking my responsibility as associate minister of housing to explore these issues and bring these matters through the policy decisions and, ultimately, to this fine chamber." But whether that exploration makes anyone happy is a question for another day.
Scoop
a day ago
- Scoop
Regulatory Standards Bill Could Be Barrier For Māori Housing
The Ministry of Housing and Urban Development has warned that the Regulatory Standards Bill could stymie progress in enabling papakāinga, or Māori housing, documents show. A ministry official also flagged concerns the legislation could make it harder for ministers to do their jobs, and warned the reach of the proposed law - and the minister-appointed board - seemed "disproportionate to the authority of Parliament". Regulations Minister David Seymour rejected the criticism, saying the ministry should be "leading the charge to cut through this bureaucracy so more homes can be built". The Regulatory Standards Bill is non-binding on Parliament but proposes a set of principles MPs and officials would have to consider when designing regulation. It also would set up a board, appointed by the minister, to examine current and future laws' consistency with those principles, as well as requiring regular reviews of all regulations. In its feedback, the housing ministry raised concern about the potential for individual property rights to be elevated over and above collective rights. "...the lack of provision for collective rights/rangatiratanga and the indicated shift towards Individual rights, in a way that is not currently in New Zealand's constitution, could impact the way we can develop policy and legislation with significant negative impacts on Māori housing outcomes," it said. The ministry said one of the proposed principles - dealing with taxes, fees, and levies - could hinder progress on Māori-led housing projects. "If this principle is imposed over regulation, we are concerned it could be misaligned with the current approaches to whenua Māori, lead to greater fragmentation of land/whenua Maōri, be a barrier to pooling resources for collective good and further entrench the negative housing outcomes that currently exist." The government in May announced plans to make it easier to consent papakāinga. However, funding for the Whai Kāinga, Whai Oranga housing fund has also been cut. In a statement to RNZ, a spokesperson for Seymour said if the Regulation Standards Bill had been in place years ago, it could have prevented "much of the pointless red tape" that slows down building and consenting. "New Zealand faces a serious housing crisis. Anyone who has tried to build a home knows the delays and costs caused by red tape," the spokesperson said. "I'd have thought the Ministry for Housing would be leading the charge to cut through this bureaucracy so more homes can be built." An FAQ document prepared by Seymour's office also rejected the idea that the bill would favour individual rights over collective ones, saying it preserved the status quo "that collective Parliamentary law can trump all individual rights to personal autonomy and possessions". The document did not specify, however, how individual property rights would be considered compared to collective property rights by officials operating under the new regime. The housing ministry also warned that requiring reviews of all secondary legislation in reviews - without exemption - would add to the government's workload. To that, Seymour was unapologetic: "We're aware the public service doesn't like this law. Yes, it makes more work for them, justifying laws that interfere in people's lives. Here's the thing: If the public service think being required to justify their laws is a faff, imagine what it's like for the public they have to serve who are obliged to follow them." The ministry also made the case that the Treaty of Waitangi "should be featured as a relevant consideration" among the principles. But the FAQ, from Seymour's office, said the Treaty was excluded because the bill was focused on the quality of regulations, not Treaty obligations. "As with compliance with international obligations, legal obligations under Treaty settlements are a given. A central part of the RSB is to protect existing legal rights from unprincipled appropriation," it said. The ministry also said the ability for the proposed Regulatory Standards Board - appointed by the Regulations Minister, currently Seymour - to carry out reviews of regulations ahead of agencies' own regular reviews of legislation "would not be the most effective use of the board's time". Seymour has previously defended the extra cost and workload, saying the cost was about 2 percent of the policy work currently done across the government. "If it costs $20 million just to check the regulations, imagine the cost to all the poor buggers out there who have to comply with all this crap," he said. Concerns raised by official over 'disproportionate' powers In preparation for providing feedback on the Cabinet paper in October, an MHUD official warned that giving the Regulation Minister power to set the terms of regulatory reviews could interfere with the work of other ministers. "The power of the Minister of Regulation to initiate regulatory review and set terms of reference gives considerable power and will affect the ability of a portfolio minister to advance their work," the official said. "There should be elements of mutual agreement, or consultation required, or some detail about the threshold for the Minister to initiate a review (eg requiring an Order in Council)." The official also questioned whether a board chosen by the minister should have so much influence, saying it seemed "disproportionate compared to the authority of Parliament". They pointed out there was already a process - through the Regulatory Review Committee and the Legislation Act - that allowed MPs to examine regulations if concerns were raised. In response, Seymour's spokesperson said the bureaucrats "may want to familiarise themselves" with a set of rules, known as Legislative Guidelines, which departments are already required to follow, including the principles of property rights, individual liberty, and the rule of law. "The only difference is that under the Regulatory Standards Bill, these principles would become Parliamentary law, not just Cabinet guidance that some departments clearly ignore."
Otago Daily Times
a day ago
- Otago Daily Times
Govt and construction giant reach agreement on hospital build
Australian construction giant CPB is set to build the new Dunedin hospital inpatient building after years of fraught negotiations and government dithering. The inpatient building was originally tabled as necessary in a business case to the government in June 2017, but since then there have been rising costs and changes in ministers and project bosses. Now, a "letter of intent" has been agreed between Health New Zealand Te Whatu Ora (HNZ) and CPB, meaning the firm should be awarded the contract to deliver the building on the former Cadbury site. A letter of intent can also mean a firm can work on a project prior to the contract being signed. There are already diggers back on site — working on the building's foundations — and billboards proclaiming CPB's involvement went up around the perimeter yesterday. The action on-site means that at least one ministerial promise has come true. In January, after the latest round of delays and a public march by thousands last year, health minister Simeon Brown promised work would resume mid-year. Dunedin Mayor Jules Radich said the build should have happened in 2018, but described the activity on-site as "very exciting after such a long delay ... hopefully, it means a rapid resumption of work — the sooner the better." CPB had expected to sign a contract at the start of 2023, after it had already spent 18 months delivering an Early Contractor Engagement contract (ECE) for the project. The ECE, signed in August 2021, had required it to plan the build and pull together a team of subcontractors. For the past two years, the firms have been waiting for a minister to approve the project and CPB has been involved in government discussions about contract details. CPB has a history of delivering government projects that have resulted in challenges down the track, including rising costs, delays and legal wrangles. Projects have included the North Island's Transmission Gully motorway, the Christchurch Hospital acute services building and the Christchurch Parakiore sports centre, which CPB had claimed was costing more than three times as much to build as originally contracted. In April last year, the ODT unearthed a government briefing about the new Dunedin hospital, from treasury officials to finance minister Nicola Willis, saying HNZ was "reconsidering whether to continue" with CPB on the inpatient build, despite being the preferred contractor. Since the Treasury note, there have been further delays, including redesigns aimed at achieving savings and even a review of whether the build should go ahead. The work on site is led by construction firm Ceres, which holds the contract for some of the building's substructure. It is highly likely that Ceres will finish its part of the contract then hand over to CPB for completion of the main build. Although there was a recent tender for a part of the substructure, sources say they do not anticipate a third main contractor will lead any part of the substructure's build. However, Mr Brown said the contract for the substructure works had not yet been awarded.
