The Office Of ECE's Response To The Green Party's ECE Policy Announcement
Although the Greens policy removes the ability for private enterprise to use ECE as a money making endeavour, its not foolproof. The policy still leaves room for community organisations running ECE centres to divert public funding to other …
'The Greens describe their ECE policy as 'bold'. It certainly is. It could even be described as 'whacky', because it's so different to the status quo.
'But that doesn't mean it's crazy. In fact, it deserves consideration and might well have merit.
'Essentially, the Greens are proposing to turn the way the ECE sector is structured and funded on its head.
'The Greens have homed in on two of the most critical problems facing the sector: instability and cost.
'The dominance of the sector by private for-profit providers means that, being businesses, most ECEs could close overnight if they decided to, leaving whānau in the lurch. This is not an issue in the community-based part of the sector.
'Without fee capping, as the Greens are proposing at $10 per day initially, the prices ECE services charge are, and will remain, at their discretion.
'The OECE has spent many years advocating for transparency in ECE services' financial accounts, so parents can see where money is going and assess whether fee hikes are justified. Opening up the books can also help ensure all families can access high quality early childhood education and care, whatever their household income or ability to pay is.
'We also recognise that ECE is a 'public good'.
'Although the Greens' policy removes the ability for private enterprise to use ECE as a money making endeavour, it's not foolproof. The policy still leaves room for community organisations running ECE centres to divert public funding to other purposes of their charity or organisation.
'If an external body is managing the finances of centres, through 'networks' as the Greens have proposed, individual centres won't have control over their own spending.
'Many current providers might also refuse to become not-for-profits, which could lead to a lack of capacity and a lack of available places for tamariki to meet whānau demand.
'There are multiple ways the policy could unravel; whether it's successful will depend on how it's implemented.'
Other comments from the OECE:
In the documentation they've released alongside their policy, the Greens have left some important questions unanswered, such as:
Whether the number of teachers at each not-for-profit centre will be capped according to the existing minimum ratios or whether teacher headcounts, and the corresponding salaries, will be determined per centre using a different metric
How non-teacher led parts of the sector (EG: Playcentre) will be funded. The Greens have confirmed to the OECE that they're committed to funding parent-led services like Playcentre, but how to do this hasn't been costed yet.
How this approach would work for home-based services.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
5 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Almighty debt fight in Parliament, as Nicola Willis accuses Chris Hipkins and Chlöe Swarbrick of fiscal vandalism
'That is Fitch telling us that borrowing a lot more, as Opposition parties are proposing, would lead to a credit downgrade. 'That would increase the cost of government debt and also have a flow-on effect to the cost of household and business borrowing, as New Zealand would be seen as a more risky country to lend to,' Willis said. Labour has not released a fiscal plan, which would detail how much taxing, spending, and borrowing the party plans if it wins the next election. Hipkins has previously spoken about the need to borrow to invest in infrastructure. On Tuesday, he said, when asked by the Herald, that his party's fiscal plan would chart a path back to surplus. The Green Party has released a fiscal plan that includes $99.1 billion in additional revenue made up of about $89b in new taxation and the rest in climate taxes. The plan also includes additional borrowing for capital investment and a higher deficit in the last year of the forecast period. Finance Minister Nicola Willis during her standup at the Prime Minister's usual spot, hit out at Labour and the Greens. Photo / Mark Mitchell Under their plan, net debt would be about $44b higher at the end of the forecast period, a sum equivalent to just under 10% of GDP. Fitch's commentary, calling for a return to surplus and a reduction in debt levels to keep the current credit rating, is inconsistent with the Greens' plan, which ends up with more debt and a larger deficit. However, Swarbrick said Fitch's broader social and growth analysis might be more aligned with the Greens'. In general, Fitch noted that both National and Labour Governments had brought the books back into balance after an economic shock. The agency, warned, however, that recent experience had seen surpluses delayed and this could be a problem. 'Evidence of a weakening in the culture of fiscal responsibility would affect creditworthiness,' the commentary said. Willis said Hipkins had laid his 'stake in the ground' and that Labour was 'prepared to walk away' from a 'culture of fiscal responsibility'. 'Every New Zealander will pay the price if a Labour-Greens Government puts our fiscal reputation at risk,' Willis said. 'Team of vandals' - Willis Willis said Hipkins had departed from the 'orthodoxy' of previous Labour finance ministers like Michael Cullen. 'This is an altogether different path in which he seems to be walking a lot closer to Chlöe Swarbrick and her team of vandals, who want to gaslight New Zealanders into believing that if we just spent more and borrow more, everything would be better,' Willis said. 'Michael Cullen would never allow for the fiscally reckless approach that Chris Hipkins has been signalling,' Willis said. Hipkins, heading into his own caucus meeting, said Willis's attack had more to do with the Government wanting to divert attention from a sluggish economy. He said it was 'important that the Government balances its budget'. 'I notice that Nicola Willis has yet to do that. She'll be on to her third budget next year and there's not a surplus in sight,' Hipkins said. Hipkins promised that Labour would set its own fiscal rules in its pre-election fiscal plan, but he confirmed that these would include a return to surplus. 'We do need to get the books back into surplus. No government should be aiming to indefinitely run deficits,' Hipkins said. When asked whether one of the rules would be returning to surplus at some time, he said: 'Get the books back into surplus – yes.' Fiscal plans, which function like a draft budget for a political party, are not typically released until much closer to an election. Labour says its tax policy is coming later this year. Labour's last Budget included a primary fiscal rule 'returning the operating balance before gains and losses (OBEGAL) to a surplus and aiming for small surpluses thereafter'. 'This is vintage National Party, when they're in a hole, and they're in a very big hole at the moment, start throwing mud at the Labour Party, but the reality is their hole is getting deeper, they need to work out how to get themselves out of a hole without worrying about other political parties.' New Zealand's AA+ rating with Fitch dates back to 2022. Photo / Mark Mitchell Swarbrick hit back at Willis saying that 'when these made-up economic metrics, the likes of GDP, are superseding our focus on the wellbeing of people and planet, we've kind of lost the plot'. Swarbrick said that ratings agencies actually took a 'more sophisticated approach' in assessing the Government's finances than the Treasury. Swarbrick said, 'Luxon and Willis' decisions have seen productivity growth flatline, skilled workers deserting the country and deteriorating infrastructure placed under ever more pressure. 'Ironically, financial markets have a clearer grasp of fiscal responsibility than the Minister of Finance. They reward countries that successfully build economic resilience and punish those weakened by the chronic underinvestment favoured by Willis,' she said. Pointing to Fitch's concerns about the housing market and unemployment, Swarbrick said, 'The Government's decisions to withdraw public investment, in turn generating higher household debt and simultaneously increasing unemployment, is very bad for financial stability and debt-servicing.' New Zealand is one of just 12 countries to have a AA+ or AAA rating from Fitch. The current rating was obtained in 2022, under the last Labour Government and Finance Minister Grant Robertson. New Zealand had been downgraded to AA after the financial crisis and the Christchurch Earthquake In its commentary on that decision, and subsequent reviews, Fitch has stressed that forecasts show a 'fiscal consolidation', in which the Government runs a surplus and debt declines as a percentage of the GDP. National misses election surplus promise, Labour won't say it would have cut spending had it won election At the 2023 election, both National and Labour ran on fiscal plans that showed a surplus in 2027. National promised to reduce the amount of new spending each year by a cumulative $3.3b, meaning its 2027 surplus and subsequent surpluses were slightly larger than Labour's. Beginning in 2022, the Treasury began slashing its economic growth and tax revenue forecasts. This continued in the months after the election, when new forecasts showed the surplus shrinking, and has persisted to 2025. The result of this has been lower revenue than expected, pushing the forecast surplus out into the future. This has meant that despite Willis reducing spending growth, on balance, by far more than her fiscal plan promised in 2023, the deficit and overall borrowing levels are far higher. The Treasury reckons this year's deficit will be $15.6 billion, more than 10 times larger than the $1b deficit National promised on the campaign trial. Labour promised an even larger deficit of $1.5b. Given changes to GDP and revenue projections, that deficit would have increased too. On current forecasts, a surplus, by the traditional measure, is not forecast until the early 2030s. National and Labour are scrapping over how to fix the mess. Willis, noting the Government's large deficit, refuses to spend even more on stimulus, which some hope would speed an economic recovery, ultimately restoring the books in the process. Hipkins, on the other hand, refused to say he would have cut spending to keep to his fiscal promises, had he won the election. Willis rebuffed calls for more spending to stimulate the economy, saying that this spending would be 'the end of interest rate reductions'. 'Treasury has affirmed the best way to stimulate an economy in a downturn is through monetary policy ... I am concerned that without dropping interest rates we won't see the revival we all wish to see in the construction sector, our business sector, all of the private industries that rely on being able to borrow to generate the growth that New Zealanders want to see,' Willis said. Meanwhile Hipkins, would not say whether he would have dropped his spending and borrowing commitments had he won the election. Labour's 2023 plan included just over $3b more borrowing than National's. Hipkins did not definitively say he would have made cuts in light of the deteriorating finances. 'What I indicated before the election would have been our priorities, which was looking at how you get more effective spending. 'Take health, more money on preventative healthcare, like free prescriptions and making doctors' visits more accessible has the potential to save money, because you end up with fewer people in emergency departments,' he said. Asked whether Labour would have cut its cloth had it won in 2023, Hipkins said, 'We need to accept Nicola Willis has made this worse. Increasing unemployment is at least in part because of the decisions that this Government has taken. 'If I look at areas where I wouldn't have wanted to spend extra money, I wouldn't have wanted to spend extra money on Jobseeker benefits. I would have rather kept Kiwis in work.'
Otago Daily Times
19 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Is Hamas winning? It is not losing
There are two wars going on in Gaza and Israel is winning neither right now, Ian Fletcher and Ian Baharie write. There are two distinct conflicts around Gaza, and Israel is winning neither at present. In New Zealand the focus has been on "recognition" of Palestine as a state, and on the sanctions question raised by the Greens. It is worth standing back and testing what we know and what we hope for. Israel thinks that if you win every battle, you win the war. Hamas believes that losing every battle (romantically, as martyrs) will win them the war. They can't both be right. The Palestinians in Gaza are the meat in this ugly grinder. The result may be — for many — a surprise defeat for Israel both in Gaza and in the equally brutal but less bloody war for public opinion. There are two questions on everyone's mind: can there be a ceasefire, and can there be a settlement? A ceasefire is to allow aid to reach Gaza's civilians. A settlement is commonly thought to bring about a "two state" solution. We think both sides are aware that neither of these makes any sense. There are two wars here. There is the physical war in Gaza, pitting Israeli armour and surveillance tech against urban guerrillas with a determined, violent and tightly run organisation. Both sides are willing to sacrifice civilians. The other is the information war, for global public opinion. Hamas is winning. The October 7, 2023 atrocities are all but forgotten in the outrage over Israeli blockade and bombardment. Let's look at the the two sides. Hamas is an extreme Islamist organisation, close to the (banned) Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. It's committed to an Islamic state, and the destruction of Israel. It's tightly run, with good security. A hundred years ago we'd label it "Leninist" in its methods, and disregard for its own civilian population. Hamas hides among the people, and despite Israel's successes is still able to offer meaningful military resistance. The Israelis have more technology at their disposal but have still not mastered the tunnels Hamas has built under Gaza. Hence, in part, Israel's inability to recover all the hostages, alive or dead (along with some great Hamas security). Remember, Gaza is just a bit bigger than the Taieri Plain. In the North Island it fits comfortably into the Masterton to Featherston plain. Hamas recruits from the civilian population. The small scale of Gaza means that Hamas fighters can live underground but still be close to their families, and yet they are recognisably guerrilla fighters. The IDF in contrast is a conscript people's army. Mobilisation has a human as well as an economic cost, which is why IDF commanders are so against static occupation warfare. Israel can dominate much of the land war, and in the air, cyber, space and off the coast, but Hamas still has funds and has aced the information war. Israel is losing the battle for public opinion, disastrously. They are not fighting only Hamas there, but all their enemies, including the enemies of Jewry as well as of Israel. Indeed, military victory in Gaza may be one of the most important factors behind defeat in "Gaza", the imaginary land where public opinion roams. Israel has resorted to ineffective, fact-based information campaigns. These rarely work once opinion has turned against them. Truth is only one among many factors in information campaigning, and often not the most important. This is not beyond remedy, but the direction of travel is ominous. How do the two sides win? We start with Israel. In the longer term, learn the lessons. Vietnam (a very similar story) produced the Powell Doctrine: only fight with clear objectives, use overwhelming force to achieve them and stop. Israel's 1982 campaign in Lebanon produced a lot of the same thinking in the IDF. Israel's successful recent campaigns against Hezbullah and Iran have shown they know how to win. But Gaza seems different because of the hostages and the staying power of Hamas. It isn't different; the Israelis have just forgotten the lessons they have applied elsewhere. The achievable objective should have been to eliminate anyone who had any role in the October 7 attacks; isolate Hamas from support in the region and beyond; and build a post-Hamas consensus in Gaza. Israel's declared objective of the total destruction of Gaza is a strategic blunder because it can't be done. So how does Hamas win? Let's remember Hamas' war aims on October 7. First, stop the Abraham Accords (that made peace between Israel and the UAE and Bahrain) extending to Saudi recognition of Israel. Second, bring back enough hostages to trade for Hamas prisoners in Israeli custody. Third, and building on the first two, maintain and enhance the core Hamas role as the centrepiece of armed resistance to Israel, the movement's main appeal to the Palestinian population. At the very least, so far so good. Yes, the movement has been decapitated, but other leaders have emerged. Some Palestinians seem to blame Hamas for the destruction which Israel has visited on Gaza, but numbers are soft, unsurprisingly given the brutality with which Hamas manages dissent. What does success for Hamas look like now? First, by surviving as thousands of Palestinians die. Thanks to Hamas' exceptional information management, it doesn't matter much how they die — Israel will be blamed. The erosion of support for Israel in the Muslim-dominated electorates of Europe and in the US is a massive strategic victory. Don't underestimate this: the UK's Labour government holds 25 House of Commons seats thanks to the Muslim vote. In France, Muslim voters will be a major voice in the next presidential election. Arguably, recognising a Palestinian state is entirely about placating this voice. Second, Hamas survives by reconstituting its ranks from Gaza's only real asset, its surfeit of people. There may be 700,000 men of military age in Gaza, and virtually no economy to employ them. Hamas doesn't have to offer much, especially when "martyrdom" might be the most lucrative career choice available. A prisoner swap for the hostages would be a bonus. The new recruits don't have to be of high quality when dying a martyr's death is an actual strategy. The third component of success is the hardest to achieve. Hamas has historically done very well out of the asymmetric value of hostages — over 1000 prisoners were released in return for one Israeli, Gilad Shalit. But this war has challenged the assumption that Israel will do anything to get its people back. Netanyahu seems to have changed that to a commitment to punish anyone associated with the kidnap of Israelis. Brutal as it may be, his refusal to prioritise negotiation for the release of the 20 living hostages over military objectives sends a clear message to future generations of would-be kidnappers. What will happen next? Israel needs a way out. A ceasefire seems like it's made to be broken, by both sides. Our judgement is that Hamas won't want a ceasefire that lasts long enough to be effective and let world opinion (notoriously fickle) move on. Israel won't want one at all because nothing will convince Hamas to surrender, and taking the pressure off will let Hamas regroup and rearm. So, the war continues until something else happens. Temporary halts in fighting may come and go; the basic logic for war remains. What about a settlement? The two-state solution exists mainly in the minds of foreigners. It's a means of evading, not facing inconvenient truths. Just look at the intellectual gymnastics of our own government (and the Australians and others). The Palestinian state was meant to include the West Bank and Gaza. Our government and others say that recognition has to exclude Hamas, and only include the Palestinian Authority. Confined to shrinking parts of the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority is corrupt, gerontocratic, undemocratic, authoritarian and ineffective. It won't change. Recent announcements of more settlements mean the physical case for statehood is eroded daily. The intermingling of settlements (Israeli and Palestinian) means any clear territorial definition is impossible anyway. And Gaza? Well, Hamas is the Palestinian government in Gaza. There is no other. That's what you're proposing to recognise. What might happen? There are two realistic outcomes, and New Zealand can do nothing about either. Either Israel gives up its war aims and agrees to let Hamas survive. Or the madcap Donald Trump idea of moving the Palestinians out gets traction. Madcap, yes. Impossible? No. The first is more likely. The relevant analogy is Vietnam. We're old enough to remember, but for those of you fortunate enough to be younger, let's explain briefly. Sixty years ago, the Vietcong (based in North Vietnam) were fighting an insurgent, guerrilla war against South Vietnam and the US. They fought a hit-and-run campaign, mostly. When they did come out and fight (like the 1968 Tet Offensive), the US was able to beat them. So, they stayed hidden in the jungle and among the people and dragged out the fighting. The US lost the war for public opinion (especially at home in the US), and then lost the will to fight, and left. The Vietcong won. The parallels with Gaza are real (right down to the use of tunnels). Israel is being painted as the genocidal warmonger. Its economy and society are paying a heavy price. The IDF has opposed further occupation as it will cost pointless blood and treasure and play into the Hamas narrative. Israel's politics (already fractured) mean the government teeters daily on the brink of collapse and the inevitable recrimination. And if US public opinion shifts against Israel (unlikely soon, but very likely over time), then Israel will certainly have to stop. Stopping will tacitly agree to Hamas' survival. Hamas wins this round. The other less likely alternative is mass depopulation of Gaza, by bribery or by force, or both. This would separate Hamas and many Palestinians from their proximity to Israel, and from the carefully nurtured belief that one day they will all return to their pre-1948 homes. The result might even be a Palestinian state. There are reports of land being considered in Jordan and Somaliland. Neither place is very appealing. But maybe better than what they have now. The first outcome is more likely; don't discount the second. — Ian Fletcher is a former director of the GCSB, and has worked in the UK, Europe and the Middle East; Ian Baharie is an Arabic-speaking former British diplomat who has served in Jerusalem and Gaza.
1News
3 days ago
- 1News
Could a four-day week be the future of work for more businesses?
A four-day working week might sound like a dream, but for some businesses, it's already a reality - and the pressure to make it the norm seems to be growing on the other side of the Tasman. Now, Australia's biggest union body is calling for the model to become the norm, reigniting debate across the ditch and prompting comparisons to New Zealand's early trials. The Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) is leading the charge, saying a shorter work week without a pay cut can lead to higher productivity and a better quality of life. 'You get better performance. Workers are healthier. They've got a better life balance,' said ACTU president Michelle O'Neil. ADVERTISEMENT But the proposal hasn't landed well with everyone. Business groups are pushing back, questioning whether reduced hours are realistic without corresponding gains in productivity. 'Do you want a pay rise or do you want reduced working hours? They have to be based on the achievement of real productivity gains,' argued Andrew McKellar, CEO of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Some Australian politicians, including the Greens, are backing the move - citing international and local examples where shorter weeks have delivered results. 'The trials that are underway in Australia and around the world tell us that you can be more productive with a shorter working week,' said Greens Senator Barbara Pocock. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is open to the discussion, but says it's not yet government policy. 'There's other measures that will feed into next year's budget… there's other things that could be for a future term of government,' he said. Australian PM Anthony Albanese is declining to commit to the idea. (Source: 1News) ADVERTISEMENT And while the concept is gaining momentum, not everyone is convinced the timing is right. 'The smaller the economy, the more the Australian people will feel poor,' said Ted O'Brien, Australia's Shadow Treasurer. Some in NZ ahead of the curve Here in Aotearoa, the idea is far from new. In 2018, Perpetual Guardian made headlines as one of the first companies in the world to trial and later adopted a four-day working week. The results showed improved productivity, better staff wellbeing and higher engagement. Since then, other New Zealand companies have experimented with different variations of flexible work. Mana Communications, a small PR agency, introduced a nine-day fortnight in 2020 and says the benefits have been tangible. 'It just gives you a day where you can do your shopping, do your laundry, do your life admin and still have a full weekend,' said managing director Caleb Hulme-Moir. ADVERTISEMENT 'I was able to do a course that I've always wanted to do on our Mondays off, something that I didn't have time for previously,' added account executive Leilani Wright. Both say they believe more businesses on both sides of the Tasman should give it a go. 'Absolutely think more businesses in Australia and New Zealand should take up this idea,' said Hulme-Moir. 'I think if we can do it, anyone can do it and just start with a nine-day fortnight and see the productivity grow,' added Wright. As Australia's unions ramp up the pressure, and trials continue to show positive outcomes, attention is once again turning to New Zealand's workplace future and whether more companies here might soon make the switch. The future of work might just start with an extra day off.
