More experiences before the Select Committee

 I have just done my oral submission for the ECE bill via teleconference. I am a bit annoyed I wasn’t better prepared. I mainly focused on the educating side of the bill, but I now realize the main card they are playing to bring in this bill is the child neglect and abuse. At the end of my submission they asked me something like : “There are many children who are not so lucky to have such good and caring parents like yourself. Don’t you think the government should try and protect them ?” I managed to give them a reasonable answer, but if I had known this was going to be their main card, I could and would have done a better job. Maybe if you know others that still have to do their oral submission, you could warn them and get them better prepared for it.
I hope this may be of any help.
I talked about this:
There are vulnerable children among beneficiary families and
there are vulnerable children among non-beneficiary families.
There are non-vulnerable children among  beneficiaries and
there are non-vulnerable children among non-bendficiaries.
This Bill is not going to help all vulnerable children and it is unexceptable for all other children
AND another experience
I was just before lunch – so although polite enough I felt rushed through my statement – although my husband did say I slowed down terrible – chalk that to nerves.
 As much as I have had years experience of presenting in my life before children – I found myself exceptionally nervous.
There was only time for 2 questions
Paul Goldsmith – who was standing in for someone else – asked something along the lines of “seeing as I was going on about rights did I think it was the right of my neighbour to work hard and pay taxes so I could be with my children – we all would like to spend more time with our children”
this I felt attacked by, and just stated no if a job is there it should be done, but again re-iterated how unemployment is a reality at this present time.
Alfred Ngaro also asked me what about children at risk – I cant remember how I answered that.
In essence, nerves got the better of me and I wished I’d handled it a lot better – however its all experience and my intention is to send an email to each person present thanking them for their time, explaining I was slow because of  nerves and attaching what I was going to read out in full. Whilst at the same time answer Mr Goldsmiths question
“After much thought, Yes he is correct, I was going on about rights –  but in essence this amendment is stating that my right as a mother to raise MY children as I believe is taken away from me if my husband becomes unemployed or made redundant ( a reality in today’s environment) , and this right is removed from single mothers because the child’s father chooses to avoid responsibility, and this I disagree with”
and to answer his question  is it the right of my neighbor to pay taxes for my benefit, it is my understanding that in 1938 New Zealand rejected an insurance concept towards social welfare and instead chose to accept the care and welfare of citizens as a national responsibility and that is what was behind the creation of the Social Services Act 1938 and this is what New Zealand as a country still stands for today, not everyone looks out just for themselves, but New Zealand is a country that chooses to accept the care and welfare of its citizens as a national responsibility.
More comments from FaceBook:
A question someone was asked this morning: I was also asked if these problems would be solved by providing more options in daycare. “Yes,” I replied. “The obvious option missing from this proposal is HOME. For some kids, it’s no good tinkering with daycare – they just need to be at home.” Excellent answer

  • Parents are our children’s first teachers. Although being a trained preschool teacher myself, our babies potential for learning is at home in my view. Both my children have been in some form of ECCE at some point and time in their lives. Home I believe is where its at, if parents have the knowledge and the creativity to inspire their children’s learning go for it I say, the benefits are amazing….
  •  This is what the person said: I added some information which was not in my written submission. I had thought a lot about this, because my time was so limited, so what I added was commentary I had had from friends who actually did use daycare for their children. These parents were also against compulsory daycare for beneficiaries. I gave some of their reasons:

    * The only reason they put their children into daycare was to earn extra money which they hoped benefited their children.

    * They always retained the belief that they would remove their child if
    s/he was miserable – something beneficiaries won’t be able to do.

    * They chose the daycare, sometimes driving miles (not an option for
    beneficiaries with no car), and they chose the hours, often working as
    little as possible to minimise the hours in daycare.

    So I think that people even with very different feelings on daycare from those of the people on this list, oppose compulsory daycare. I am hoping this was an important point to make to the committee – it’s not just the diehard homeschoolers who oppose this.


  • CraigandBarbara Smith Some have asked for the answers we gave to the questions so here they are from another FB page.
  • OK answers for the questions were. There is no need for any monitoring of preschoolers. Their days should be filled with play and interactions with their mother. — the family that gave their submission before me
  • Second question – this is how I answered it on another FB page: With the 2nd question I have heard people who send their children to school and also work say why should those on a benefit be able to stay home and home school their children when we have to work to get our money. Again it is the same question. And easy to answer.
  • I had already told the Select Committee that Home schoolers are saving the Government money. Each child NOT in school saves the Government between $9,000 to about $12,000 and up to $160,000 if special needs a year and ECE is $10,000 a year. So with a family of 4 children – 3 in school and 1 in ECE and taking a modest school fee of $7,000 that family would be saving the Government $31,000 in school and ECE fees if they home school them and what is the benefit – a mere $15,000 plus the supervisory allowance of under $2,000. The Govt is saving heaps of money when a beneficiary home schools.
  • So when the MP asked that question others on the panel reminded him that home schoolers were saving the Govt money – I didn’t need to answer it. But I did also say that it is all a lifestyle choice. We can all home school it we want to. Mothers don’t have to go out to work. It is all a matter of choice. Do we want to do what is best for our children by home schooling them or have a fancy house and car etc. We can take a lower standard of living and home school or send our children to school and have lots of money. I know what I would rather do.
  • I didn’t answer it quite like that but sort of like that.


Key links for presenting an oral submission


Please feel free to use any of these links to help you with your oral submission

Please feel free to repost, forward or pass on  this email

Please do so with the whole post. Thankyou


Related Links:


From the Smiths:

Updated 5 October 2012:  One year on (Craig Smith’s Health) page 7 click here


Needing help for your home schooling journey:


Here are a couple of links to get you started home schooling:


This link is motivational:


Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill

Make a submission: Reject compulsory Early Education for 3 year olds