late in the election cycle, that the Ministry of Education announced the new persons responsible requirements for centre-based ECEs? What was the driver behind these regulatory changes? Changes to persons responsible were part of a suite of changes proposed as far back as 29 July 2020. For eagle-eyed observers, the significance of that date is that it was under the previous Government elected in 2017 (the coalition between Labour, New Zealand First and the Green Party). They agreed to commence a ‘comprehensive review of the early learning regulatory system’. Then Associate Education Minister, Hon Tracey Martin’s, briefing contained a choice point that I think set out quite clearly why this review started: ‘The structure of the early learning sector has changed since the Regulations took effect in 2008. Previously, the sector was comprised primarily of community-based services. However, over the past decade, there has been a surge in private for-profit services.’ This is bureaucrat-code for tightening regulation to strangle the regulated: get rid of services or at least slow the surge. The briefing goes on to state the Government’s commitment to a world class early learning system that delivers ‘quality settings for our tamariki’, and that this requires the system to be clear and fit-for-purpose. ‘Quality settings’ is policy jargon at best, but at worst, the term is an example of unrealistic expectations. ‘Quality settings’ conjures up a metaphor of machines with dials that officials in Wellington can actually move to suit their regulatory preferences. That’s not reality. Whereas, in actual fact, changes to the regulations only influence behaviours over a time period, and it is the level of accountability that accompanies changes that actually matters, together with support to help educate people so they know what to do to comply. In the full proposal Cabinet agreed to ten regulatory changes with consultation on those draft regulations to occur over the election period in 2020 (refer Cabinet paper: SWC-20-MIN-0116). Cabinet had already agreed to its changes at that point so the function of subsequent consultation was purely about smoothing the delivery process. It was already very clear what must change – though less so why, or to what extent the new regulations would help manage risk. While it is true those regulations could have been fine-tuned, the changes seemed to be about trying to squeeze out one more policy before time ran out for New Zealand First. Controversially these regulatory changes also included an increase to the minimum temperature requirement in centres – from 16 degrees to 18 degrees, with no assessment of the potential impact on heating systems in centres. Perhaps it was the political history here that drove Labour to attempt to deliver these remaining regulatory changes so late in 2023. Did Labour want to improve their options of being able to form a coalition with New Zealand First after the election? In a scenario where Labour had won more votes and had been in a position to form a coalition with New Zealand First, it might have been helpful, I argue, if they could have shown that they had delivered the policy that was committed to in 2020. Looking at the original decision, Labour’s motivation becomes clearer. Attendance at the Cabinet committee where the decision was made in 2020 included the Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters, but with neither Education Minister Chris Hipkins, nor Associate Education Minister Tracey Martin present. My assumption is that the Deputy PM (Peters) would have introduced the paper relying on the note provided by Martin, and that the PM (Ardern) would have led for Labour on whether the proposal proceeded or not. Hipkins authored the paper but that’s largely just a form requirement because the decisions required must be made legally by him as the Education Minister. December 2023 { 9 }
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NDc2Mzg=