Do People Earning $200,000 Need Help With Childcare?
A revamp to the Family Boost programme means those with household incomes up to $229,100 a year are now eligible for support with their childcare fees.
The available rebate is also increasing to 40 percent of fees paid, or a maximum of $1560 a quarter.
The change applies to fees paid in the September quarter, and from then on.
But Craig Renney, policy director of the Council of Trade Unions and an economist who was previously a senior economic adviser to then-Finance Minister Grant Robertson, said there were "choices" being made.
He said those on the highest incomes, in the top 10 percent according to the Stats NZ Household Expenditure Survey, were benefiting the most from the change.
"If your household earns $60,000 a year, you can get up to an extra $2340 annually in new support. If your household earns three times that, $180,000 - you will get an extra $3440 annually. That's 47 percent more. For exactly the same thing - having children in early childhood education."
The difference was because the higher earners were previously not eligible at all.
Renney said data also showed higher-earning households tended to spend more on early childhood education anyway, which meant they would have larger fees to claim rebates on.
Most were already spending the money without the government's assistance, he said.
It could have been better used to help make early childhood education more affordable or accessible to low or middle-income earners, he said.
"Instead of having a 40 percent cap across the piece that could be claimed, you could have said for very low income households we'll make it 50, 60 or 100 percent.
"Because this is a rebate scheme, those on low incomes don't have the money to be able to afford it in the first place to then get the rebate.
"I'm not saying these families don't need the money but I'm saying if you were making choices about where to spend, for a government that's focused on value for money - you may get better outcomes for your dollar if you were actually spending it on expanding ECE provision in low-income communities."
Asked whether the adjustment would affect the number of families who could receive the full $250-a-fortnight relief that National campaigned on before the last election, as a combination of the Family Boost package and tax cuts, Finance Minister Nicola Willis said that data was not available.
"The National Party campaigned on a tax relief plan that included multiple elements - shifting tax brackets to compensate for inflation, expanding tax credits to reach more modest income earners, increasing Working for Families tax credits and introducing the FamilyBoost childcare tax credit.
"We delivered on these policies in our first Budget. We made clear that the impact of these policies would vary according to family circumstances and encouraged people to use our tax calculator so they could find out what it would mean for them."
She said the $250 example was a family with a household income of $120,000 split across two earners spending at least $300 a week on childcare.
"We did not model how many families would match that scenario.
"Inland Revenue is not geared up to calculate how many people would have matched that scenario in the past 12 months or will match it in the coming years. This is because some elements of the tax plan are calculated on an individual basis while others, including FamilyBoost, are calculated according to household income. Inland Revenue does not routinely collect information on household incomes."
She said about 60,000 families had received the full FamilyBoost payment they were entitled to.
With the scheme expansion, she said, about 16,000 more families would probably benefit.
"The amount of rebate they receive will vary according to the fees they pay and the income they earn each quarter. The maximum a family can now receive from FamilyBoost is $240, an increase on the $150 that National campaigned on.
"To receive that amount, a family would have to be spending at least $300 a week on childcare and have a combined family income of less than $140,000 a year. Inland Revenue does not calculate how many families find themselves in that circumstance."
Rebate most flawed part - advocate
Child Poverty Action Group spokesperson Isaac Gunson said his organisation's position was that the rebate was the most flawed part of the Family Boost programme because it relied on families having the money in the first place to pay the fee then wait to claim it back.
"The direct fee refund model, which IRD is looking into, is where we see the real solution being. Placing the responsibility on the profit-driven providers to claim the money back lifts the burden off low-income families who need the support the most.
"While larger rebates would deepen the support available to low income families, it doesn't really address the accessibility of the support, whereas a direct fee refund model would solve the issue the rebate presents to many families: they don't have the money and can't wait that long to see any of that money come back in."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
5 hours ago
- Scoop
Why Has A Bill To Relax Foreign Investment Rules Had So Little Scrutiny?
While public attention has been focused on the domestic fast-track consenting process for infrastructure and mining, Associate Minister of Finance David Seymour has been pushing through another fast-track process – this time for foreign investment in New Zealand. But it has had almost no public scrutiny. If the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill becomes law, it could have far-reaching consequences. Public submissions on the bill close on July 23. A product of the ACT-National coalition agreement, the bill commits to amend the Overseas Investment Act 2005 'to limit ministerial decision making to national security concerns and make such decision making more timely'. There are valid concerns that piecemeal reforms to the current act have made it complex and unwieldy. But the new bill is equally convoluted and would significantly reduce effective scrutiny of foreign investments – especially in forestry. A three-step test Step one of a three-step process set out in the bill gives the regulator – the Overseas Investment Office which sits within Land Information NZ – 15 days to decide whether a proposed investment would be a risk to New Zealand's 'national interest'. If they don't perceive a risk, or that initial assessment is not completed in time, the application is automatically approved. Transactions involving fisheries quotas and various land categories, or any other applications the regulator identifies, will require a 'national interest' assessment under stage two. These would be assessed against a 'ministerial letter' that sets out the government's general policy and preferred approach to conducting the assessment, including any conditions on approvals. Other mandatory factors to be considered in the second stage include the act's new 'purpose' to increase economic opportunity through 'timely consent' of less sensitive investments. The new test would allow scrutiny of the character and capability of the investor to be omitted altogether. If the regulator considers the national interest test is not met, or the transaction is 'contrary to the national interest', the minister of finance then makes a decision based on their assessment of those factors. Inadequate regulatory process Seymour has blamed the current screening regime for low volumes of foreign investment. But Treasury's 2024 regulatory impact statement on the proposed changes to international investment screening acknowledges many other factors that influence investor decisions. Moreover, the Treasury statement acknowledges public views that foreign investment rules should 'manage a wide range of risks' and 'that there is inherent non-economic value in retaining domestic ownership of certain assets'. Treasury officials also recognised a range of other public concerns, including profits going offshore, loss of jobs, and foreign control of iconic businesses. The regulatory impact statement did not cover these factors because it was required to consider only the coalition commitment. The Treasury panel reported 'notable limitations' on the bill's quality assurance process. A fuller review was 'infeasible' because it could not be completed in the time required, and would be broader than necessary to meet the coalition commitment to amend the act in the prescribed way. The requirement to implement the bill in this parliamentary term meant the options officials could consider, even within the scope of the coalition agreement, were further limited. Time constraints meant 'users and key stakeholders have not been consulted', according to the Treasury statement. Environmental and other risks would have to be managed through other regulations. There is no reference to te Tiriti o Waitangi or mana whenua engagement. No 'benefit to NZ' test While the bill largely retains a version of the current screening regime for residential and farm land, it removes existing forestry activities from that definition (but not new forestry on non-forest land). It also removes extraction of water for bottling, or other bulk extraction for human consumption, from special vetting. Where sensitive land (such as islands, coastal areas, conservation and wahi tapu land) is not residential or farm land, it would be removed from special screening rules currently applied for land. Repeal of the ' special forestry test ' – which in practice has seen most applications approved, albeit with conditions – means most forestry investments could be fast-tracked. There would no longer be a need to consider investors' track records or apply a 'benefit to New Zealand' test. Regulators may or may not be empowered to impose conditions such as replanting or cleaning up slash. The official documents don't explain the rationale for this. But it looks like a win for Regional Development Minister Shane Jones, and was perhaps the price of NZ First's support. It has potentially serious implications for forestry communities affected by climate-related disasters, however. Further weakening scrutiny and investment conditions risks intensifying the already devastating impacts of international forestry companies. Taxpayers and ratepayers pick up the costs while the companies can minimise their taxes and send profits offshore. Locked in forever? Finally, these changes could be locked in through New Zealand's free trade agreements. Several such agreements say New Zealand's investment regime cannot become more restrictive than the 2005 act and its regulations. A ' ratchet clause ' would lock in any further liberalisation through this bill, from which there is no going back. However, another annex in those free trade agreements could be interpreted as allowing some flexibility to alter the screening rules and criteria in the future. None of the official documents address this crucial question. As an academic expert in this area I am uncertain about the risk. But the lack of clarity underlines the problems exemplified in this bill. It is another example of coalition agreements bypassing democratic scrutiny and informed decision making. More public debate and broad analysis is needed on the bill and its implications.
RNZ News
6 hours ago
- RNZ News
New Waikato medical school gets government green light
The government has green-lit a new medical school at the University of Waikato, ending months of delays due to coalition wrangling. It was a National election promise, and it has finally got the go ahead, with the government announcing it will front up around $80 million while the University pays $150 million for the project. It will add 120 doctor training places each year, starting in 2028. The announcement also came as inflation edges to a 12-month high, and the Minister in charge of Pharmac released a new letter of expectations. Political reporter Lillian Hanly spoke to Melissa Chan-Green. To embed this content on your own webpage, cut and paste the following: See terms of use.
RNZ News
8 hours ago
- RNZ News
New medical school at University of Waikato gets government go ahead
The government has green-lit a new medical school at the University of Waikato, ending months of delays due to coalition wrangling. But the announcement on Monday also heralded several significant shifts from National's original campaign promise. In a statement, Health Minister Simeon Brown said Cabinet had approved $82.85 million in government funding toward the project, with the university chipping in more than $150m. The numbers differ from National's policy heading into the 2023 election. Then, it pledged $280m for a third medical school at Waikato University, with the university to raise a further $100m. The school would also open in 2028, a year later than National had promised, but still with an initial roll of 120 students. Brown said that would be a "significant boost" to the homegrown medical workforce and came on top of the 100 extra training places being added this term at Auckland and Otago universities. "Today's decision will enable the University of Waikato to begin construction on new teaching facilities later this year and start planning for clinical placements, while giving more students the opportunity to study medicine in New Zealand," Brown said. "It's an innovative model that supports our focus on strengthening primary care, making it easier for people to see their doctor - helping Kiwis stay well and out of hospital." Universities Minister Shane Reti said the decision was a major milestone and real boost for tertiary education in Waikato. "By expanding access to medical training, we're creating new opportunities for students from across the region and beyond, while also helping to future-proof the local workforce." The proposal was controversial from the outset. Both Auckland and Otago universities argued they could train more students at a lower cost. ACT also raised concerns. During coalition talks, it secured a commitment that the project would not go ahead without a detailed cost-benefit analysis. In August last year, ACT leader David Seymour said he was "dissatisfied" with the initial evaluation and cited Treasury advice that the proposal did not offer value for money. In a statement on Monday, the ACT Party said it had saved the taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars, with Semour saying it was "down to Waikato University agreeing to contribute a higher proportion of the medical school's costs". "ACT's rigorous questioning helped ensure a more efficient investment meaning Kiwis get better outcomes for less," he said. "ACT insisted that a full cost-benefit analysis be done before signing off on such a large investment. We demanded better planning, transparency, and accountability. We raised concerns about the initial analysis failing to consider other options to address the issue. As a result, officials and Waikato University revised their assumptions, refined the proposal, and delivered a plan that achieves the goal of more doctors trained for rural communities at a significantly lower cost to taxpayers. "ACT has always said we must save money where it counts so we can invest where it matters. This improved investment is a great example, with more money left in your back pocket and a solution found." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
