Brief submission

Dear Select Committee,

I write to completely oppose the Social Security Amendment Bill.

I am appalled to find such discriminatory legislation being put before parliament. I am a homeschooling mother of three children, ages eight, seven and four years. They are well-educated, well-mannered and a delight. No-one outside my husband and I are more committed to their general welfare and education, no matter how well resourced or specialised any Early Childhood Centre may be. Together, my husband and I are self-employed. In times of recession such as these, if we are to find ourselves without work for an extended period and need to become beneficiaries, are we to find our ‘right’ to have our four-year-old in our care, full-time, ripped from us, simply because of our work status? When did our right to have and nurture a young family, in the statistically best-proven environment of ‘home’, become dependent on whether our ‘keep’ comes from wages or government?

This law is nanny-state and abuses the rights of beneficiaries who will be financially punished with benefits slashed 50%, then find themselves pursued by CYFS if they do not comply with the new regulations. Why should opposition to this law suggest to CYFS that a family needs ‘monitoring?’ Isn’t this just invasive ‘big brother’ for anyone that simply doesn’t co-operate? This law will take away mothering rights and the freedom to choose education ‘options’ outside the home. It will force many mums, who like me, want to raise, nurture and educate their children full-time at home, into working hours away from home.

It is wrong!

I have a friend, a beneficiary with two girls. She homeschools. She loves it. She is an awesome educator and thoroughly dedicated to her children. If you allow this law to be passed she will not be able to continue homeschooling because she will have to go out to work. Isn’t the welfare system supposed to help solo mums, not make their job even harder by adding the pressure of juggling work and home life by themselves?

Why not start to reduce the millions of dollars spent on welfare by reassessing the situations of young fit and able men, with no dependents at home, currently taking the benefit?

Essentially, this law discriminates against beneficiaries, removing parenting rights and freedom, and forcing their hand in favour of government control. It is a terrible law for a supposed democratic country. What is this National government doing? Is this law about the mighty dollar or about social engineering? Good government protects it’s people with good law.

Please consider and weigh the outcomes of this law carefully and wisely.

Yours faithfully,