2 thoughts on “Paula Bennett’s letter regarding Home educators who are beneficiaries”

1. It looks to me from the letter, trying to read between the lines, that this is merely the camel’s nose poking into the tent. It seems the government’s intent is mandatory exposure to environments under its jurisdiction, promulgating its ideas and values, branded generally as ‘socialization’ but only by its definitions. I noted especially the words “licensed education” and “funded by the MoE” and “hospital based”…all of which are clearly under government jurisdiction. The end purpose of ‘socialized services’ of all types: government funding and oversight necessarily implies the right of government control…and indeed who can argue? Someone once said “Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s”. It is not incidental that the means for the control is monetary. Increasingly we will have to choose masters.

   Home-based education is actually directly antithetical to this: who will define what is ‘socialization’…the government, or the parents? What about when the parents’ definition runs directly contrary to the government’s? If it is not so today, it is guaranteed to be so in the future.

   I feel reasonably certain that these minor steps of exerting control where a ‘return obligation’ can be ‘justified’ because of ‘financial support,’ will only be expanded over time…after all, it is impossible to live in any country today without receiving some kind of ‘financial support’ especially when the right to life itself is considered a ‘privilege’ granted by the government. I would suggest that those who receive “Working For Families” tax credits are likely eventually to be subjected to the same criteria or face loss of that credit.

   On the one hand it seems easy enough right now to brush this off if it does not apply personally…not receiving such benefits as yet. But perhaps it is easier to empathize constructively if the long-term goals can be foreseen and judged? I am not sure what to do yet. I do however think the Greater Purpose is to draw like-minded people together closer until such is also no longer acceptable. Use the desert for refreshing springs.

   Truly difficult times have been given to us. But then, we must be here now for a reason!

2. Hello Barbara

   I think it would be a good idea for all those who believe it is the right of the parent to choose how their children should be educated to sign a petition and send a copy to the select committee, Paula Bennett, United Future Leader and the New Zealand First Leader (since they all voted in favour of the bill without questioning any part of it) asking that those who choose homeschooling should be exempt from the new requirements.

   The petition should be made more public and in a way so that those who are not a member of for example Home Education Foundation can also sign it.

   Points should be made that not all families on a benefit are inadequate parents or want to “pass on the culture of dependency” to their children. There are the women who have lost their partner or their partner has suddenly left them but will want to educate their children in the best possible manner (DPBs) and those who have sicknessess but still want to decide how their children should be educated (sickness beneficiaries). This bill is taking this right away from these people and also taking away the rights of their children who could be getting a lot better education in a home envirnment than in school.

   Just a suggestion that I hope will be taken seriously not just by those who are on a benefit but by all those who believe they should have the right to choose what is the best method of educating their children.

   Please let me know what you think and if there is ever such a petition I and my wife will sign it and I know a lot of others who will also sign it.

   As I understand it submissions can be made until the 1st of November. Hence, submissions and letters to party leaders need to be made before that.

Comments are closed.