Why do we accept that it is best to separate children from their parents as early and for as long as possible?
In 2007 the Labour government of Helen Clark introduced 20 hours per week of "free" early childhood education (ECE) at all teacher-led services, i.e. excluding parent-led services such as Playcentre.
At the time, the National Party promised to replace this with tax rebates for all types of childcare. In the end, nothing came of this policy and Labour's 20 hours free ECE continued through three terms of National under John Key.
Of course, "free" really just means that someone else pays. Just why someone else should pay is unclear. If, for example, a family chooses to have one parent stay home to look after young children, why should that family's taxes pay for other children to attend ECE while both parents work and reap the financial reward?
Parents are the most invested in their children's lives. Children thrive when parents spend time with them. New Zealand's own Playcentre movement is founded on the idea that parents are the first and best educators of their children and is responsible for developing key educational philosophies now adopted through the national ECE curriculum and all New Zealand ECE centres.
The Labour government decided that the increased income from having both parents working didn't motivate enough families to place their young children in the care of strangers and it had to provide additional financial incentives for them to do so. And National endorses this. Why? Is it all about the mighty dollar and maximising the country's workforce? Or is it really driven by the marxist idea that children should be educated and brought up by the State, ensuring that they embrace marxist ideals instead of the values of their parents? It can't be to improve educational outcomes—there is little sign that our failing school system is being turned around and improving literacy and numeracy rates, and current Prime Minister Chris Hipkins' greatest achievement as Education Minister was simply to abolish the previous government's "National Standards" which measured primary students' achievement in reading, writing and maths.
In addition to the 20 hours policy, we have paid maternity leave entitlements, which incentivise mothers to go back to work each time they have a child, ensuring eligibility for the next child. This policy imposes an additional financial disadvantage on those who make the financial sacrifice to stay home and look after children during their critical early years.
Both of these policies promote the idea that children belong in the care of professionals. They make it harder for families who think the best thing for their children is to bring them up themselves. Ultimately, they promote the idea that children belong to the State.
Now it is 2023 and apparently the animosity voters are feeling towards Labour after six years of extreme mismanagement is not enough for National to be confident of a win under Christopher Luxon. They have resorted to blatant vote-buying policies, resurrecting 2007's childcare tax rebate policy under the name "FamilyBoost", only this time there is no plan to drop the 20 hours free ECE.
Let's be clear, this is an anti-family policy. In the end it will not be a "boost". It will only make it harder for families to bring up their own children, separating children from their parents even more, and subjecting them further to government approved indoctrination. And because it is just new spending, no longer tied to cutting the 20 hours policy, this time we can probably expect it to actually happen.