spinofflive
Wicker baskets holding various personal items are hung in rows on a wall, each labeled with a name tag. Below, colorful children's backpacks are hanging on hooks. The words "THE BULLETIN" appear in orange on the right side.
A family paying $100 a week in childcare could get an extra $15 back each week under the changes to the Family Boost rebate. (Photo: Supplied)

The BulletinJuly 8, 2025

More money for childcare – but parents remain tied up in red tape

Wicker baskets holding various personal items are hung in rows on a wall, each labeled with a name tag. Below, colorful children's backpacks are hanging on hooks. The words "THE BULLETIN" appear in orange on the right side.
A family paying $100 a week in childcare could get an extra $15 back each week under the changes to the Family Boost rebate. (Photo: Supplied)

A revamp of Family Boost is offering higher rebates and expanded eligibility, but experts say the ECE affordability crisis needs more than quick fixes, writes Catherine McGregor in today’s extract from The Bulletin.

To receive The Bulletin in full each weekday, sign up here.

Family Boost gets a top-up

The government’s Family Boost rebate for early childhood education has been expanded, with finance minister Nicola Willis announcing that families can now claim back 40% of their ECE fees, up from 25%. At the same time, the income cap for eligibility has risen sharply, from $180,000 to $229,000 a year, meaning thousands more families now qualify. Willis says this tweak is designed to ensure unspent money in the scheme’s pot actually reaches families, after figures revealed surprisingly low uptake: around 60,000 families have claimed Family Boost so far, well short of the original estimates of 130,000 additional households supported.

The changes mean a family paying $100 a week in childcare fees could now get an extra $15 back each week, but the bigger question is whether this extra support will be easy enough to access to make a difference.

Red tape still ties parents in knots

For many families, the real barrier to Family Boost hasn’t been the income limit but the paperwork. As Vernon Small wrote in the Sunday Star Times in April (paywalled), the rebate was pitched as an easy “money in the bank” promise but has turned out to be an exercise in bureaucracy: families must keep invoices, submit them to IRD, and wait for the refund. It’s hardly the “back pocket boost” National advertised during the election.

Writing in The Spinoff in 2023, Aisling Gallagher explained how countries like Australia have abandoned similar rebate models precisely because they burden parents with extra admin while delivering little on affordability. Although Willis has promised to look at direct refunds – paying rebates straight to providers – no fix has been confirmed. Until then, the burden remains on parents to chase money they’re entitled to, which many simply don’t have time or capacity to do.

Who really benefits?

Another sticking point, Gallagher argues, is that rebates can backfire if providers simply raise fees. In New Zealand’s mostly privatised ECE market, any extra cash for parents risks being swallowed by price hikes. It seems the government believes that fees can be kept in check by parents’ ability to “talk with their feet” and choose a cheaper option, but that’s unrealistic, says Gallagher: “Childcare markets do not work under textbook supply and demand imperatives.” Without stronger controls on prices – or more ambitious investment along the lines of Australia’s recent billion-dollar boost – the rebate risks acting more as a subsidy for the sector than real relief for parents.

Family Boost does at least give IRD better access to fee data, allowing officials to track “service provider behaviour around fee charging immediately following subsidy increases”, according to the government. But many providers say they have little choice but to raise prices, with or without the Family Boost rebate. As Cate Macintosh reports in The Press (paywalled) small independent operators were already stretched thin by rising teacher pay, inflation and patchy government funding. With the budget’s meagre 0.5% funding increase failing to keep pace with costs, some centres are cancelling free hours or hiking fees just to survive.

An overhaul of rules – but will it ease costs?

Some hope rests on recent regulatory changes, which saw associate education minister David Seymour pushing through an overhaul of the tangle of ECE rules. As we discussed back in April, the rule changes primarily involve merging or removing outdated licensing criteria, with the aim of lowering operating costs for centres and, in theory, preventing endless fee hikes.

But with ECE in New Zealand more unaffordable than anywhere else in the developed world, according to the education ministry’s own 2022 figures, many argue these tweaks won’t go far enough. For parents still paying up to a third of their income for childcare, the promise of affordable, accessible ECE remains just that: a promise.

More from The Spinoff:

Keep going!
NZ’s political pendulum has become a ‘wrecking ball’, says Andrea Vance, smashing through “’he written and unwritten codes that once held together democracy’. (Photo of Donald Trump: Getty Images / The Spinoff)
NZ’s political pendulum has become a ‘wrecking ball’, says Andrea Vance, smashing through “’he written and unwritten codes that once held together democracy’. (Photo of Donald Trump: Getty Images / The Spinoff)

The BulletinJuly 7, 2025

Is NZ politics having a MAGA moment?

NZ’s political pendulum has become a ‘wrecking ball’, says Andrea Vance, smashing through “’he written and unwritten codes that once held together democracy’. (Photo of Donald Trump: Getty Images / The Spinoff)
NZ’s political pendulum has become a ‘wrecking ball’, says Andrea Vance, smashing through “’he written and unwritten codes that once held together democracy’. (Photo of Donald Trump: Getty Images / The Spinoff)

American-style conflict and populism are taking root in parliament, and critics say respect for the democratic process is being eroded as a result, writes Catherine McGregor in today’s extract from The Bulletin.

To receive The Bulletin in full each weekday, sign up here.

Welcome to the era of ‘wrecking ball’ politics

Andrea Vance is never one to mince words, and she was on form again this weekend in the Sunday Star Times (paywalled). NZ’s political pendulum is now a “wrecking ball”, she wrote, smashing through “the written and unwritten codes that once held together democracy”. Where once governments at least paid lip-service to the MMP ideals of consensus building and thoughtful, long-term change, “now governing is a zero-sum game. Legislation is drafted to provoke, not to last.”

It’s an argument that Massey political scientist Richard Shaw echoed – albeit with a little less fire than Vance – in the Conversation last month (republished in The Spinoff). He warned the coalition’s approach was veering towards “government by decree”, its unprecedented use of parliamentary urgency allowing it to “[wield] its majority to avoid parliamentary and public scrutiny of contentious policies”. With so many controversial new laws on the books, the next Labour government is certain to undo many of them. And so on, and so on. The sheer pace of repeals, reversals and rushed lawmaking has created what Vance calls a “cycle of legislative whiplash” – a wasteful churn that chips away at the public’s trust in stable governance.

Small parties, big influence

MMP was supposed to encourage moderation; now it risks amplifying the extremes, writes Shaw, who notes that the most unpopular recent legislation – like the Treaty principles bill and tax breaks for tobacco – was pushed into parliament by the coalition’s junior partners. “Rightly or wrongly, this has created a perception of weakness on the part of the National Party and the prime minister,” Shaw adds.

In the NZ Herald (Premium paywalled), right-leaning columnist Bruce Cotterill argues that the minor parties on the opposite side are the real threat. Instead of focusing on “mainstream” issues of the day, “we are constantly distracted by the needs of, or the deeds of, those who are representing the minorities”, he writes, pointing to Te Pāti Māori’s “increasingly extremist and separatist” agenda and the Greens’ spate of MP-related scandals. “These two parties alone hold 20 seats in the nation’s Parliament. Can we really believe that over 16% of voters support their current antics?”

Parties lean into online conflict 

Outrage and social media clicks are starting to shape the tone of politics as much online as in the parliamentary debating chamber. As Glenn McConnell reports in Stuff, NZ First and Act have turbocharged their presence on YouTube, leaning into American-style populism. Titles scream about David Seymour and Winston Peters “DESTROYING”, “DEMOLISHING” and “ROASTING” their opponents – including their enemies in the media.

This type of “us versus the elite” politics has been around for a while, says political scientist Luke Oldfield, but now it’s been repackaged for the “New Zealand Joe Rogan vote”. The right-leaning parties’ social media teams are drawing inspiration from mega popular US Youtuber Ben Shapiro and his ilk, Oldfield says, creating videos designed to bait the algorithm and draw in disenchanted young men who’d otherwise tune out.

‘A revolving-door approach to representation’

Another warning about declining parliamentary standards comes from former United Future leader Peter Dunne in Newsroom. The sudden resignation of NZ First’s Tanya Unkovich is the latest reminder that list MPs can vanish mid-term with zero electoral consequence, replaced overnight by the next name on the party list, he says. “Already, in the current 54th Parliament, 7 list MPs – 5 of them from the Labour Party – have resigned … two MPs have died, and one has been expelled.”

This “almost revolving-door approach to representation”, Dunne warns, only deepens cynicism about parliament’s dignity and purpose. After all, “It is hard to respect an institution when some of its members by their own disregard for it show so little respect of their own.”