Re: Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill
Dear Parliament Members,
We oppose the Social Security Amendment Bill for the Following reasons:
-First, the fundamental reason for this being that this bill is a breach of the Human Rights Act which states, “Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children”. In light of this, the government has no right to force parents to place their children in Early Childhood Education. It is the parents’ right to choose the education that their children should receive, that being in this particular instance a normal home life, and under no circumstances should the government negate this.
-Second, mothers also should not be forced into the workplace. Mothers are just that, Mothers! No one else can know their children or anticipate their needs as they do, and being the child’s mother gives her a responsibility to look after that child. Therefore when these mothers diligently carry out this responsibility they should not be penalized for doing so. Mothers can be very productive at home, and don’t need to be in the workplace to be fulfilled. It is our opinion that it is wrong to belittle the role of a mother in the home, and assume that such a hardworking woman finds it degrading to be in such a fulfilling role. Also, having and maintaining a job brings costs of its own, which is more likely to mean that these families would be worse off in the long run by the time expenses such as tax, transport, easier and less-time consuming food to prepare, work uniforms etc. are deducted from the wage.
-We have three precious children of our own, with another on the way, and although 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 center where I worked was a good center, and yet it could not begin to compare to a healthy home environment. At home the parent/s can have boundaries and expectations for behavior that are rarely implemented at daycare. In a home environment the children also do not expect the inappropriate behavior they inevitably see from the other children to be acceptable. At home the parent/s can also ensure the child has a diet appropriate to his/her needs and can keep track of what is being consumed by the child.
Research has also proven that children benefit more from parental interaction than from Early Childhood Education. It is very apparent that with less children vying for attention the child who is at home will have many more meaningful adult interactions in comparison to a child at an Early Childhood Education Center. By learning from and interacting with siblings and parents/adults the child has a more well-rounded and better developed perspective on life and behavior. This is particularly true in relation to spending large amounts of time interacting solely with little children their own age. Those seeking to provide such a stimulating environment for their children at home should not be penalized for doing so.
-WellChild/Tamariki Ora checks are a good and appreciated initiative, but again, it is the parents right to choose to what degree they use these resources. The government should also not assume jurisdiction over the parents’ right to choose whether or not they immunize their children or what health care their children receive. Most parents who choose not to do so have researched the issue and have legitimate reasons for not immunizing their children.
These are good parents who are looking out for the best well-being of their children, and we respectfully suggest that their financial restrictions should not be a reason to target their parental rights in any of the aforementioned issues.
Thank you for your time in reading this letter and please consider it very carefully.