30 October 2012
Secretariat
Social Services Select Committee
Parliament Buildings
WELLINGTON 6011
SUBMISSION
Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill
I OPPOSE Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill
Reasons:
The Bill is unjust. It is immoral and unjust to deprive poor minorities of the right to decide on their child’s education based on their child’s individual needs. The Government should not have the right to break up families for educational purposes, that happened in Socialist Russia and was called brainwashing. It is blackmail and coercion to give the ultimatum of “Get your own money or we will chose your child’s educational future for you”.
Poverty does not equal neglect and/or abuse. Look at how our Grandparents lived. It would be ridiculous to say that a child denied a smartphone is abused.
Too many people will be negatively and unnecessarily affected.What about children traumatized by the Christchurch earthquake, a marriage breakup, the death of a parent, a sick or dying family member? Are these children’s needs catered for by this bill?
Also making another law targeting child abusers who have already proven their disregard for the law in general is flawed logic, perhaps focusing on enforcing existing legislation will prove more effective.
You may aim to get 100% of criminals in New Zealand behind bars, but trying to achieve that by putting 100% of Kiwi citizens in prison is not a realistic solution. In the same way you may aim to get 95% of at risk children in ECE, but putting 100% of beneficiaries children in ECE is persecuting, and interfering with honest and innocent families. Deprivation of choice in your child’s education is a breach of basic human rights.
Many beneficiaries will never abuse or neglect their children, and this law makes no distinction between abusers and good parents. It requires all children to be out of the home “in case” they should be abused. Is there any space for people who want to provide tailor made education for their little ones? Or any other circumstances? Or are 100% of beneficiaries to be treated as though they need to be kept away from their children because they might be a hazard to their children?
What happened to a basic principle in law: Innocent till proven guilty?
Sincerely yours,