Another point to note is that the regulation system review was not included in the Early Learning Action Plan. Its absence from that plan, that the sector was consulted on, is also more than a little conspicuous. It shows support for the regulation changes was political, rather than developed with the ECE sector at all. Interestingly, Martin’s note (METIS 1236086 refers) reveals that Parliament’s Regulations Review Committee had questioned the early learning regulations and recommended ‘completely re-writing the regulations to improve accessibility for users’. It is not clear in the Cabinet paper whether the final tranche in the regulatory review would go that far. ECC is supportive of proper regulatory overhaul. If you think about regulations as ways of influencing behaviours and managing risk, then it’s a really significant issue if the rules they contain are inaccessible to the users. The users of the rules must be early learning centre operators and the people they employ – for the benefit of children and adults involved in services, while parents trust the system and officials administer it. However, I think what we can see now, with the benefit of hindsight, is that the 2020 regulations changes were less about getting better regulation and were rather, more a case of using regulation to expand the ‘nanny state’. Regulation academics consider that the nanny state is the opposite of good regulation where ‘the management of risk should primarily be in the hands of empowered individuals’ and ‘that the state should not interfere unduly to remove that risk’ (p61, Arie Freiberg, Regulation in Australia). Arguably the measurement of success of these early learning regulatory system changes by NZ First would have been the extent they made it harder to operate a centre, with no corresponding improvement required in terms of the risks to children. The real problem with that type of approach is it results in fewer or reduced services, resulting in higher childcare fees (less supply) and less choice (less diversity). Losing choices and reducing access and the diversity of services is not good for families and children. How the changes will actually improve service quality still remains unclear. However, ECC now has evidence to confirm our suspicions that the new regulation will reduce services. We surveyed our members in September 2023, and received data from 181 centres, including submissions from larger ECE group employers. In this regard, ECC’s chief concern is the qualification requirement that means that provisionally registered teachers will no longer be able to be considered as persons responsible. We asked centre leaders whether they would be able to operate under the persons responsible changes. We asked them, ‘If the change happened now what would the impact be?’ and ‘What would happen if they were given only one year to get prepared?’ (as is proposed). With a teacher shortage we were conscious that only one year to prepare for the changes was likely insufficient. Our survey showed that: ● If the persons responsible changes had been introduced in September 2023 it would have resulted in: � 50% of centre operations being at high risk (staffing would be so tight centres could become non-compliant with the changes, due to everyday occurrences like staff sickness) � 8% of centres would need to limit service hours based on their available qualified staff � 4% of centres would not be able to operate at all ● What does this mean? Based on that sample and with 2,700 services in New Zealand, those numbers would see over 1600 centres operationally impacted and over 100 of these would close altogether. ● Of the 1600 centres that would struggle to comply in September 2023, just 14% indicated they would be able to comply if given the current amount of time allowed (until August 2024). ECC became alert to serious errors in the Ministry’s regulatory impact statement that underpinned this regulatory change. When we checked the Ministry’s analysis we found that the data attributed to the Teaching Council about 99% of current ECE trained teachers having category 1 or 2 practising certificates must surely be flawed. Subsequently the Teaching Council confirmed this to ECC, they also wrote to the Ministry with updated data. We now know that Teaching Council data does not reveal what centres the provisionally registered teachers are in (distribution) but it does reveal there are twenty-times more than what the Ministry believed (it’s 20%, not 1%). ECC raised serious concerns with the Ministry about their mistake. A copy of our submission is available if you want to read more on this topic. It is a good example the way ECC helps support all ECE centres (https://bit.ly/40QR4AX). The obvious solution is to give services significantly more time to be able to comply. This would strike a good balance between still getting the change delivered, without leading to such a significant impact on existing ECE centres. ECC will be raising this with the incoming Government. December 2023 { 10 }
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NDc2Mzg=