Those of you who follow our ECC Facebook Page will have seen our recent video discussing the contents of a letter we sent to David Seymour regarding the pay parity moratorium.
ECC asked for changes to the pay parity scheme. We don't want to see the current moratorium get extended next year.
This is not about the new funding system; it is an immediate pressing problem that will get even worse if there is another insufficient Cost Adjustment for ECE in next year's budget.
We considered the increasing gap between funding adjustments and inflation bit also the salary progression cost-pressure that has no increasing funding associated to it.
We asked the Minister to give ECE employers the discretion to either continue following the Pay Parity Scheme (where their situation remains financially viable) or to enable employers to pay salary progression at a lower rate that is instead connected to the Government's Cost Adjustment.
In 2026, the Cost Adjustment was 1.5%. Inflation was 3%.
Salary progression costs can be over 7% - for example the step increase from Step 9 to 10 is an increase of $6,260 from $85,915 to $92,175. As teachers' salaries increase, government funding stays the same. Government funding is also losing value due to insufficient Cost Adjustments over many years.
ECC heard back from the Minister on 29 September, and he has advised there will be no changes to the pay parity scheme before the general election on 7 November. This is disappointing, because the moratorium was created by the current government.
ECC will be staying on the case, pressing our request with the incoming government in December this year, whatever the election result. We want to be transparent about this because while we are clear about the problem, government might be able to devise a better solution than the one we've suggested.
If ECE centres cannot continue to operate financially viably paying their regulated wages, then they are at risk of failure - teachers lose their jobs if that happens.
You can watch our original video on our letter to Minister Seymor: here
