National leader Christopher Luxon at the party's conference in Auckland. Photo / Alex Burton
National leader Christopher Luxon at the party's conference in Auckland. Photo / Alex Burton
EDITORIAL
Opposition Leader Christopher Luxon has been under pressure to put some meat on the bones of what voters could expect from a National government if it wins October’s election.
There’s been little for people to chew on in the way of policy announcements. Broad rhetoric on what’s been goingwrong, minus details of what could be done instead, has simmered in the pot.
A scheme to bring back boot camps for some young offenders was a memorable morsel offered last year.
However, National is now starting to throw a few ingredients in, offering the public, media and opponents the chance to taste and critique.
On Sunday, Luxon outlined a $249 million childcare tax rebate scheme and spoke more generally about other aims. This follows an attempt to add some National seasoning to the Three Waters debate.
Illustration / Guy Body
With early childcare, Luxon is competing with Labour on the ruling party’s traditional territory, and voters can directly compare the two approaches.
Labour has a childcare subsidy scheme costing $189m for four years for families earning under $109,000. For now, National is offering voters more on childcare.
Luxon estimated that 130,000 families would be helped with a 25 per cent rebate of expenses for childcare costs per household of up to $3900 per year. It would be available to families earning up to $180,000 annually. A full $75-a-week rebate would be available to those earning up to $140,000.
It covers licenced early childhood education providers, including kindergartens, kōhanga reo, education and care centres, and licenced home-based care.
Luxon cast the policy as an attempt to “specifically target lower and middle-income families, to make their lives a bit easier”.
A noticeable aspect of National’s take is that the scheme has a high ceiling with a $180,000 income limit. A couple on $90,000 each could get help - people who can more easily afford childcare than most New Zealanders.
The amount received is less for those above the $140,000 threshold. Luxon highlighted “a teacher and a plumber earning $125,000 between them”. But is $180,000 an appropriate cut-off and how was the figure arrived at?
Luxon said: “Kiwis are doing it tough right now because of Labour’s cost-of-living crisis. It is particularly hard for young families to make ends meet when they’re facing rising rents and mortgage rates, skyrocketing grocery bills, and paying for childcare”.
With the exception of childcare, those problems also apply to a lot of New Zealanders not eligible for any cost-of-living relief under this scheme. Raising kids means more bills, but other households may also be supporting people at extra cost.
The scheme could also be vulnerable to prompting increased demand and childcare operators putting up prices, particularly in areas where places for kids are limited. Luxon said that a competitive market would keep prices low.
National hopes to pay for the policy by making savings on the use of consultants with the expectation that public servants would take up the slack. That sounds more like populist point-scoring than something studied and costed. But the soundbite politics of childcare versus consultants works.
The party has at least cooked up a competitive plan for the election on an issue that a sizeable number of voters would be interested in, and it may prompt fresh ideas from Labour as a counter.
