- Home
- Getting Started
- Exemptions
- Resources
- YouTube with Craig
- TEACH
- Events
- Bookshop
- Web Specials
- Coming Events
- About
- Contact
- International
- Titus 2
- Workshop PowerPoints
- Post earthquake schooling options
- Beneficiaries
- Affidavite in support of Home Education
- Make A Submission
- Making an Oral Submission to the Select Committee
- Submission Form
- List Of Members Of Parliament September 2012
- Submissions
- Submission: Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill
- Submission made online
- Against forced child care from age 3
- Don’t want our rights to raise our children taken from us
- Children’s best interests would NOT be served by compulsory attendance at E.C. E. facilities
- One size does not fit all.
- The bill actively discriminates against beneficiaries
- Blatant discrimination of those receiving a benefit
- Young children do best in all aspects of life in the care of their family
- Healthy people build healthy communities. Healthy family attachments build healthy people.
- From a single Mother
- ECE doesn’t seem to suit every child
- It is institutional misogyny
- I strongly disagree that children so young (3 years) need to be in Early Childhood Centre
- From a Solicitor and Notary Public and mother of four children
- Importance of establishing secure attachment relationships during infancy in order to optimise brain development
- I feel my own family will suffer majorly if this Bill was to pass.
- I am a 20 year old single male
- For many children ‘later’ is better than ‘earlier’ when it comes to institutional education
- Three year olds are far too young to be away from their parents
- This is unfair and discriminatory
- The Bill is discriminatory and marginalises beneficiaries
- Motherless and Fatherless children of NZ forced to have the only parent they have taken away!
- An enforced separation of parent and child at the hands of government in exchange for financial assistance is both cruel and contrary to the nature of our free society
- Every child and every family is different!
- This legislation targets good parents – not the bad ones
- The government is saying that because I’m a solo parent I’m unable to make the right decisions for my children
- This is the worst kind of government interference into how people choose to raise their families
- It is offensive that the job my mother has done and so many other single parents do, is so under-valued
- ECE is not beneficial and is not and can not be a substitute for a caring, loving home environment
- Trust good parents to make good decisions
- I am a mother, not a babysitter and I absolutely oppose this bill
- Trafficking, extortion, kidnapping, slavery and deception
- This is invasive legislation discriminating against excellent parents and removing their freedom to raise their children in a secure loving environment and not going to achieve better lives for neglected children
- This proposed bill will show the New Zealand Government to be punitive and untrustworthy
- Children do not belong to the state
- From Romania: Please learn from the mistakes others did in history! Thank you!
- Children need to be with their family, and nurtured, they must not be treated as tools to force parents to comply with this bill.
- I also believe it enforces the detachment of children from their parents at an age which can be detrimental for many
- The bill falsely presumes that all beneficiaries’ children are at risk
- A child’s right is to be with their parents. To be loved and nurtured and protected.
- Family Integrity’s submission
- In it’s breadth it overshoots and impinges on the basic rights of dedicated and thinking parents such as myself
- Please do the right thing and don’t sully New Zealand’s reputation: vote down this bill
- It is a well researched, known and documented fact that it is parental involvement that makes the difference in regards to educational outcomes, not the institutional education of a child
- Keep our mana intact, don’t steal our children
- Reject compulsory ECE
- From a small Home Education Support Group
- This National government would be well advised and warned to examine carefully the agendas of those who have promoted, lobbied for and recommended the actions in this bill in order to maintain peace, good relations, civility and lawful behaviour in our communities
- Introducing this bill will not achieve a healthy end result for the wonderful country we live in
- Staying in the home saves everyone money including the government money in not having to fund ECE’s
- New Zealand jails are full of people who went to school not people who were home-educated
- Submission from the USA — Author of “Raising Real Men: Surviving, Teaching and Appreciating Boys”
- To be a beneficiary in Christchurch with an added ‘bonus’ of this reform will utterly destroy some
- Those Who Would Give Away Their Children for Money, Deserve Neither Children NOR Money
- I believe the Welfare Reform Bill to be invalid not only for human rights breaches but also as a Maori for the breach of Article 2 of the Treaty and the breach of the UNDRIP which was endorsed by government in 2010.
- Home-educated children do HALF of all the BAD CITIZEN things and DOUBLE all of the GOOD CITIZEN things
- Stephen’s submission
- We are people, Real People
- Home Education Foundation’s submission
- I worked at an Early Childhood Center before our little ones were born, we would never send our children to an Early Childhood Education Center
- The negative impact of early education is well documented and well ignored by government
- What a step backwards this bill is!
- If you are deprived of love and affection as a child then key areas of your brain which are responsible for your personality don’t get wired up correctly
- Children, again are the victims – and I call that child abuse
- A good government does not come into people’s homes and tell them how to raise their children
- I see this Bill as an abuse on young children and their parents
- Samuel Blight’s submission
- Submission from Poland
- Tarnya’s submission
- This is a poor attempt at trying to tackle New Zealand’s benefit problems!
- Is this law about the mighty dollar or about social engineering?
- Are 100% of beneficiaries to be treated as though they need to be kept away from their children
- Barbara Smith’s submission
- We need your help
- Letter to Human Rights Commission
- Right of Parents to Choose Education
- MP Electorate office for Peaceful Protest
- Sample letter to Select Committee members
Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)
Stumble It!
I spent an unfortunate several hours actually listening carefully to Monckton’s arguments and comparing them with John Abraham’s arguments, and checking the foundations of both. I watched the whole series of presentations, back and forth, and my, was it a waste of time. Monckton persistently avoided answering Abraham’s main points, focusing only on details where there seemed to be any possibility of establishing uncertainty — and he did a bad job of even that. But he certainly talked a lot, and if one had not heard the opposite side of the argument, one might have come to the conclusion that all that talk actually amounted to something.
I’m not keen to leap into believing in the catastrophe that Abraham is suggesting awaits us (along with the majority of scientists in any field related or even unrelated to climate). But I have a science background, and I have pursued the evidence for and against, and it would seem intellectual high treason to deny the overwhelmingly strong case the evidence paints.
Also, I can recognise an oil-sponsored corporate lackey (and I’m talking about Monckton, _not_ Al Gore) when I see one (or rather, when I check out his affiliations and background).
It seems the phrase “climate realist” has been abused here, perhaps along the lines of “Jewish Holocaust realist”: where “realist” actually means “apologist denier”. To all those who took the bait of believing that catastrophic climate change is a lie fed to us by big corporations, ask yourself: what would they hope to gain by frightening us away from business as usual? Surely the fact that the majority of these scientists are NOT supported by corporations, while the deniers mostly have clear affiliations with oil companies, would tend to paint the opposite picture?
The experts are pretty much all saying that this is one of the most important issues to face humanity, that it could have enormous consequences for humans and all life on the planet. Before we dismiss them, and especially before we campaign to have them discredited, I think it behooves us to educate ourselves on both sides of the argument, use our critical judgement very carefully, and make sure we’re not just sucking eggs.
As a past home-schooler, one of my most highly valued attainments is the ability to think for myself.
In reply to Ben Whitmore August 2, 2011 at 2:25 pm.
Ben,
In ‘the overwhelmingly strong case the evidence paints’ could you please cite the paper or papers that convinced you, that we have
a) unnatural, runaway, dangerous global warming
b) human carbon dioxide emissions are the major cause
Chris