If I’m going to stand up here and talk about how wonderful I believe Auckland to be, you’ll have a hard time getting me to stop. West Auckland’s my stomping ground as you know, and I’m staunchly proud of my Westies.

So if I’m going to focus on the topic of how to build a ‘World Class Auckland’ I’d better stick to something more closely related to my portfolio areas.

I want to focus on the social well-being of Auckland.

First, let’s cut through the jargon and talk about what "social wellbeing" actually means.

One of the best ways I’ve heard it described is "the things people value in their life that contribute to them reaching their potential. It’s a shorthand way of referring to the conditions in society – health, education, productive work and so on – that allow people to flourish."

When you think a bit about that definition, you start to understand just how critical social wellbeing is to the success of a city.

If you have poor social outcomes, you can hold back the potential of not just individuals or even their families – but whole communities. If you’re not getting people to reach their potential, then by default, you’re not getting a CITY to reach its potential either.

What the Government is proposing focuses on getting Auckland to reach its potential as a world class city.

Now as an Auckland-based MP I’m a convert to the cause. I’m biased. I live here because I love it. But I believe what’s proposed will propel Auckland further along that ‘World Class’ road.

It’s about having a vision for Auckland and working doggedly toward that. So what is that vision?

- Boosting Auckland as the economic turbine the country;

- Attracting people from all corners of the globe – and getting them to stay here;

- Housing vibrant and diverse communities

- Being a hub for creativity

- Making sure it’s a place where people feel welcome and safe

Just how we achieve this is what the Government’s working on. We’ve proposed some changes, which will be talked through by my colleagues.

Those changes canvass a number of areas – economic, planning, transport and of course – social outcomes.

Those social outcomes are vitally important. What we do in the social area, I believe, will make a major contribution to the success of Auckland as an international city.

It will touch on the life of not only those already resident in Auckland, but those thinking of moving there or those just passing through. And in turn, what others do in areas such as transport, economic development and land use will also impact on social outcomes and how people work and play here.

One of things I believe is also critical to any discussion on Auckland’s future is to make sure decision-making continues to support social issues.

The Government’s proposal for Auckland involves having one Council, which we believe will scrap some of the duplication that happens at the moment. We want to get the system right so there’s effective, efficient and tidy decision-making for Auckland.

So underneath that overarching body of a single Council to set the direction for the Queen City, we want 20 to 30 Local Boards which will play a key role in their communities.

Unlike the previous Government, we’re not interested in telling people how to live their lives. We back people to know what’s best for them.

Likewise, we believe Local Boards will know what’s best for the people living in their own communities.

This is a diverse city – it’s one of the things that makes Auckland so great. Our neighbourhoods are different from one suburb to the next. A "one size fits all" approach to Local Boards simply won’t fly. We need to make sure the communities within those Boards can address their own unique local issues.

In setting up these boards, we need to make sure there’s effective community representation – so local views are represented in broader decision making at Council level.

You’re going to see that desire for stronger community representation coming through in other central government decisions. For example, I recently announced a Community Response Fund to help critical social service groups help combat significant demand increases or financial hardship due to the recession. We’re going to have Regional Panels advise on those funding decisions, because we know ultimately that only local communities will have a true picture of what’s needed for their own residents.

Both council and central government have critical roles and responsibilities to deliver on those social outcomes for the people of Auckland.

Both contribute to the $12 billion dollars that’s spent on social outcomes in Auckland every year. I’m going to repeat that number, because it’s a mind boggling amount. $12 billion dollars.

If nothing else, it underscores just how vital social issues are to the people of Auckland. I’m sure you’ll agree, we want to make sure we get bang for our buck. All 12 billion of them.

So how to do that exactly?

Cabinet has agreed to set up an Auckland Social Policy Forum. The idea is to have central and local government working together to make sure the work done in the region to support social wellbeing moves in the same direction.

The Forum members will include the Mayor of Auckland, myself as the Minister for Social Development and that key representation from Local Boards.

The Forum will have its work cut out for it – here’s a taste:

I believe the Forum will provide a very real way for communities, Council and central government to identify important social issues for Auckland and figure out the way to best respond to them.

We all have a responsibility when it comes to ensuring the people of Auckland are flourishing. And that’s across the board – again it involves communities, Council and central government. But it stands to reason the best outcomes can only be achieved by aligning the work instead of working in isolation from one another. We’re all in the waka together - let’s start paddling in the same direction.

The vision for Auckland is dependant on so many different factors – and you’ll have a better sense of that after this morning’s session. The social wellbeing of this city is one of those critical factors.

The groundwork laid by setting up Local Boards and the Auckland Social Policy Forum will ensure everyone can and does, play their part in making Auckland a world class city.

Posted by Staff in Speech at 16:29

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today.

I am pleased to be able to talk to you about the specifics of National’s policy on Early Childhood Education, which was announced this morning.

Our policy backs parents.  Our policy recognises that parents, by and large, will make the right decisions for their children.  

We believe a child should grow up in a family environment with love, understanding and happiness.  And that parents – not the State - have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of their children.

National believes early childhood care and education should back parents – not be a substitute for parents who do not have the means, time or where withal for their children.

20 Hours ECE

National will keep the 20 hours scheme for three and four year-olds, but we will be honest about the fact that for many parents the fee-controls and subsidies have not resulted in a ‘free’ service. 

As you know, National has been quite critical of the 20 hours “free” policy.  We have argued, right from day one, that this policy wouldn’t result in free childcare for many many parents.  And the truth is that it hasn’t lived up to its catchy label. 

We stand by that criticism.  That’s why we’re dropping the word free.  Our policy will be “20 hours ECE”. 

Let me also be upfront and say that National has worked hard to find alternative mechanisms for delivering the cheaper childcare that the 20 hours scheme has given parents.  We’ve talked to experts in the sector, centre operators, teachers and thousands of parents about how to do things better. 

The feedback has been fairly consistent.  All of these groups have argued that families are currently struggling and have come to rely on the subsidy offered under 20 hours and that centres have adjusted all their funding systems accordingly.  There’s been considerable upheaval already and there is no major appetite for extensive new changes. 

National’s goal is to deliver cheaper childcare to parents, while maintaining quality. 

So National will drop the word free from “20 hours ECE”.   But in doing this we will keep all the existing subsidies and fee controls.  Let me repeat that, because I think it’s pretty important.  We won’t cut the subsidy and we won’t drop the fee controls.  

We will also introduce more flexibility for parents.  We will do this in a number of ways.

1. National will remove the 6 hours a day limit.

Currently parents can only use their 20 hours a week entitlement for a maximum of 6 hours a day.   This arbitrary limit is simply unfair.   It ignores the reality of the lives of many working parents, it limits parents’ choices and it undermines their decision-making abilities.

National respects the choices of parents.  So, under National, if a parent wishes to use their 20 hours for eight or ten hours a day then we will let them make that choice.  We don’t think for example, that they should be financially disadvantaged because they work full-time two days a week and look after their children for the rest.

2. National will include Play Centre and Köhanga Reo in 20 hours ECE. 

Right now children in parent-led services such as Play Centre and Kohanga Reo miss out on 20 hours ECE.  This is not right and is not fair.

For some in remote rural areas there are no other ECE services available.   Others  choose Kohanga or Play Centre because they like the whänau involvement.  

National recognises that parent and whänau-led services are a quality Early Childhood Education option.  We trust parents to make the best decision for their children.  So we will back parents and families choices by including Kohanga and Play Centre in the 20 hours policy, for those services that voluntarily opt in.

3. National will provide 20 hours ECE to five year olds

Not all 5 year olds are ready to start school on the day they turn five.   For some that’s because it is the end of the year and they would prefer to wait for a new year.  For others, they may just prefer a little more time at pre-school.

National recognises this and that’s why we will provide 20 hours ECE to five year olds.

4. Investigate more frequent payment periods

Currently 20 hours funding is paid out 3 times a year and some services struggle with cash flow.   We have heard of some smaller and community-run centres that are having particular difficulty. 

National will investigate providing funding at more frequent intervals.

We don’t think 20 Hours ECE is the only issue in early childhood education.   I’d like to touch on a few other issues today.

Adult/child ratios for under 2 year olds

Currently, for every five children under the age of two, an ECE centre must provide one adult to care for those children.  By 2012 all teacher-led services will be  required to have 100% qualified teachers fulfilling that carer role. 

National believes that the current ratio of 1:5 is too high.  We do not think one person will always be enough to ensure that all five babies can be guaranteed the high level of attention they may need.     We will, over time, phase in a reduced staff to child ratio of 1:4.  

I must say that over the years of visiting services that look after under 2 year olds I am yet to see a service that works at 1:5 -  so we do not believe that the change in ratio will have much effect on the sector.

National will also change the requirement that by 2012 centres must provide 100% teacher-led care for under two year olds. 

As it stands, this requirement sends the message that only qualified registered teachers have the ability to look after children as young as six or 18 months. 

Whilst acknowledging the knowledge and experience of teachers, National believes that some of those looking after our babies do not need a teaching qualification.  

There are other skills and qualities that are just as important for somebody taking care of very young children.  These include experience and a natural rapport with children.   Providing these adults meet certain minimum standards we believe they should be able to care for under twos.

So National will replace the 100% teacher-led requirement for under twos with a 50% teacher-led requirement.

Teacher Shortages

Another critical issue affecting the sector is that of teacher shortages. 

The shortages are evident across all of New Zealand and although in some areas there are small improvements they are not improving fast enough.

National recognises that there is no quick fix, but we believe there are some commonsense solutions.

Currently United Kingdom or Australian qualified early childhood teachers find it very difficult to have their qualifications recognised in New Zealand.   There is also a discrepancy in the length of time that primary teachers need to retrain to become ECE qualified.  

It just doesn’t make sense that we make it difficult for these professionals to teach under fives in New Zealand.   If they already know how to teach and how those little brains are wired then the only thing missing is learning Te Whäriki and in some cases NZ culture.

National will investigate developing an intensive 40 hours a week, 6 week course for bringing recognised overseas trained early childhood and primary up to NZ-qualified early childhood education teaching standard. 

We will also work to better recognise Montessori and Steiner qualified teachers.

And we will work to develop a module that that recognises and builds on play centre qualifications, to encourage those parents to go on and get fully qualified.

Reducing regulations

There is a lot of burdensome bureaucracy and regulation in the Early Childhood Education Sector.

It is time for commonsense to prevail and for there to be recognition that parents know what is best for their children.

National will over time remove needless regulations.  This will include removing the need for more than one licence if there are more than 50 children in a centre.  It will include investigation of the level of regulation around limited-attendance centres.  It will also include identifying any other regulations that just lead to increased paperwork and costs for services.   Unnecessary rules and bureaucracy will stop under National.

Participation

Finally, National is concerned that there are small but very significant number of children that do not participate in any form of early childhood care and education.

The reasons for this are complex.

In some cases it’s because parents don’t want their child in early childhood education.  In other cases, it is because there are long waiting lists and no places available.   For others it is because they do not have the type of service they want available locally, for example Pacific people often want to attend a Pacific centre. 

All of these reasons aside, the fact is that many parents don’t involve their children in early childhood care and education because they are unwilling or unable to access it.  Their reasons for non-involvement can include an undervaluing of education, ignorance about their children’s entitlements, or because of health, social or criminal problems. 

Fixing those problems is not going to happen solely through our early childhood care and education policy – it will take a combined approach.

National will work in partnership with community groups, private centres, home-based providers and local government to develop local solutions that best meet the early childhood needs of the local community.

We recognise that simply building a centre and hoping that they come will not work.  National will continue to support programmes from the NGO sector that work. Locals know what works locally.

I could talk about early childhood policy for hours but time is up – if we don’t get it right for this age group then we are simply setting them on an up hill battle for life. Thank you all for the work that you do for our young people.

Posted by Staff in Speech at 11:45

“What remains to be done to ensure NZ has the best possible early childhood education.”

How far we have come over the last 15 years. How responsive the sector has been to the pressure and changes we have had in society. The mixture of private, community, state, home-based, köhanga reo and playcentre contributes to a vibrant and very diverse sector. National supports choice and acknowledges that this is not a “one size fits all” arrangement for our children. Needs can be different depending on the age of the child, the ethnicity, the religious beliefs, the area that they live in and the working and social setting that their parents and/or caregivers are in. These all play a major part in what sort of early childhood care and education arrangements will suit which children.

May I please just clarify a couple of things to begin with. Throughout this speech I shall refer to parents, I mean anyone who is the main carer of the child and only refer to them as parents for ease of flow through this speech. I shall also jump around between referring to early childhood education and early childhood care – let me be quite clear that I mean both. We simply cannot have one without the other. I acknowledge the push towards more formal education for our under fives and respect the training and qualification gains for our teachers that have been made in the sector throughout the past 12 years. I believe that there is a real commitment within the sector to have formally qualified teachers, helped along of course by the incentivised funding bands, and National will continue to commit to the training of teachers in the sector. But we have dropped the word care and it seems this has been deliberate by the Labour government. In fact early last year during the ongoing debate that I had with then Minister Steve Maharey over 20 hours free, he corrected me publicly at least 3 times for using the word care.  It doesn’t mean it is not there – I see it every week as I visit centres around the country – the care of our children is evident when I speak to the teachers and witness first hand how they interact with the children. But as we push further and further toward a more formalised education system for our under fives, lets take stock and be very careful that we do not see it as the answer to all of our problems.

That children perform better at school if they have been in some form of early childhood education is actually a pretty sweeping statement. For those children that are most at risk of under performing later in life or during their formal school years I would say the answer is a definitive yes. That most children will benefit from some form of quality early childhood education is also a given, but lets be careful not to forget the vital ingredient when it comes to our under fives.

Parental engagement, parental choice, parents having the skills and abilities and the time to engage and interact with their under fives is in my mind the most important thing we can do for our children. Everything else we do, through both blatant intervention and through more subtle (but often more dangerous) social changes should simply be to back up the role of the parent. I am a fan of research and devour everything I can on the early childhood sector – as with most research there is conflicting data and lets be honest in this day and age we can find a piece of research to swing our argument in just about any direction we want to. But there is one that I challenge you that would be hard to dispute. And that is that parental engagement and involvement is the most important factor when it comes to the well being of our under fives.   National supports the role of parents, we support diversity in the sector, we do not believe the state only knows best and we will have policies across the board that reflect this. 

Right – back to the question “what remains to be done to ensure NZ has the best possible early childhood education?” This question of course will never be answered. Society’s needs of the sector will continue to evolve and our challenge will be to continue to change with them, something will always remain to be done. I have marvelled at the speed that the sector responded over recent years, our challenge is to ensure we do not continue to over regulate the sector, that we let commonsense prevail and we iron out some of the senseless rules that apply.

A classic example is the need for a second licence once you get over 50 children in a centre. The double up on reporting, paperwork, ERO etc is just ridiculous. We don’t want 100 kids running around in a huge room running over each other – but there are sensible ways to ensure that space is used well without insisting on a second licence. The situation over a year ago of the Minister insisting that a centre split itself in two and double up on all resources and play equipment just made no sense. It is the classic case of bureaucrats doing what is best on paper but not in practice, and if it is the rules that are wrong then they need to be changed. It is not viable in this day and age, particularly in the cities, to have centres that cater for less than 50 children. We will make sure that the safety of the children is paramount but will put in measures that do not insist on 2 licences.

We can do better from a government point of view of making your jobs easier instead of more difficult. We make no bones about saying that, like you, we want all of your resources where possible to go directly to the children and not on administrators and paperwork shuffling. Instead of directing form filling and asking for more and more information, we will insist that  the ministry looks at cutting back on bureaucracy and asks itself “is this really necessary” before making more work for centres and services.

It is constantly raised with me the question of why 6 hours a day as the limit for 20 hours a week? When a parent may choose to work 2 full days and spend the other 5 fulltime with their 3 year old, why are they financially penalised under 20 hours free? Why can’t they use the 20 hours over 2 days or even 2 and a half? I’m sure that they can come up with “that piece of research” that states that 6 hours a day is optimal for children’s learning – well again I reiterate that different children will benefit from different times and types of service etc – but all will benefit from time with their parents and it should be our role to support that – not make it more difficult.

What are we going to do about teacher shortages? How will we acknowledge the qualifications of UK and Australian trained ECE teachers? They take our very well and able teachers at the drop of a hat – we seem to try and make it more difficult for them. And does 12 months re training for qualified primary teachers to become ECE seem sensible?

Lastly I want to end on participation. We are yet to see any evidence that 20 hours has increased participation. I know anecdotaly that some children are attending for longer and  as such in lower socio economic communities this is seeing real progress for children who perhaps need it most. But the recent report from the Manukau City Council clearly states that “enrolment in early childhood education in Manukau has not increased over the last three years”. In there own education report  on the Free ECE update in February this year the Ministry states “ most services reported little increase in participation of new families and some reported less opportunity for new families to participate”.

The Labour Government constantly bandy around participation rates – I want to ask what participation means. Is it an hour a week? Once a child is enroled and attends for a couple of weeks but never returns again are they counted? The answer is yes.

Why aren’t we counting the real number? When answers around the number of children participating in 20 hours free are compared with the 92,000 3 and 4 year olds that were in some form of ECE prior to the introduction of 20 hours free – why aren’t we counting the real number, as at 2006 census we had 114,700 3 and 4 year olds, that’s over 22,000 3 and 4 year olds that do not get even considered in the participation rates of 20 hours free.

What remains to be done to ensure NZ has the best possible early childhood education? How about recognising the number of  lost children? How about counting it like it really is and accepting that an hour here, or registering there but not attending is not participation. This one size fits all approach to early childhood education was never going to answer the difficult questions. We have some very real challenges ahead of us. Just building a centre and hoping that will change attitudes is not the answer either.  But it is conferences like these, it is organisations like the early childhood council that advocate and challenge our thinking that will help us come up with solutions.

I love my job because it means that I get to see children most days and get to work with people like yourselves. What a privilege. You may be looking after our future generation, but what you do now is what is of the utmost importance because they are not just our adults of the future, but our children of today and there is truly no one, as far as I am concerned, who is as important. So thank you. Thanks for giving a damn and doing the work you do and thanks for having me here today.

Posted by Staff in Speech at 09:52