Answer to question asked this morning: New Zealand, Sweden and the Johanssons

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: When he said “we don’t want to see any New Zealand child suffer … children don’t get to make choices, they’re often the victim of circumstance” does that mean he will take tangible steps to ensure children don’t suffer because of circumstances beyond their control?

Answer found here: Child Poverty—Government Measures to Address

In this answer was:

Metiria Turei: Does he think that the 36,000 children admitted to hospital in the past year for poverty-related medical conditions got there because of choices that they made; if not, will he now commit to extending free doctors’ visits to all children?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: We are not in a position to extend free doctors’ visits to all children, but we have been in a position to extend free doctors’ visits to under-sixes, and I think if you look at the financial conditions that this Government has faced, that has been an important step. Secondly, I am not sure that it would be in the best interests of the very children she is talking about that we extend that policy on a universal basis, because children coming from very well-to-do homes actually can afford to have their parents pay. Let us target and focus more on those who are in need.

Now I want to apply this statement from John Key to the Social Obligations in the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill

We were told that the Social Obligations were there to help the children in Poverty. Yet many mothers manage on the benefit. Their children are not in poverty. The mother is spending her money wisely and often going without herself to provide for her children.

Why are these mothers all being treated the same? There are a lot of mothers who do not want to send their 3 and 4 year olds to an ECE. There are a lot of mothers on the benefit who want to home school their children and not work for 15 or 30 hours a week. Home schooling and raising a family is a full time job for a mother.

Social Obligations

• attend 15 hours a week Early Childhood Education (ECE) from age 3

• attend school from age five or six

• enrol with a General Practitioner

• complete core WellChild/Tamariki Ora checks

Plus work obligations of 15 hours work if youngest child is 5 and 30 hours work if youngest is 14.

John Key said “What made me Prime Minister was that my mother, who was a solo mother, had the foresight to ensure that I got a decent education.”

This is all that the mothers on the benefit who do not want to send their children to an ECE and want to home educate them want to do. They want to ensure that their children get a decent education.

So Select Committe Members please note that I am not sure that it would be in the best interests of the very children she is talking about that we extend that policy (the Social Obligations above) on a universal basis (everyone on a benefit), because children coming from very well-to-do (caring/loving/educational beneficiary) homes actually can (be educated by their parents/mother) afford to have their parents pay. Let us target and focus more on those who are in need. This is what many of us said in our submissions.

Please continue to fight this Social Security Bill by writing/ringing/visiting the Social Select Committee members.

More here:

Contacting the Select Committee (How to make supplementary submissions if you put in an original written submission.)

International Human Rights Day 10 December 2012

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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

Please do so with the whole post. Thankyou

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Related Links to Social Security Bill:

• New Zealand, Sweden and the Johanssons
• Contacting the Select Committee
• International Human Rights Day 10 December 2012
• Media Release 14 – Social Security Bill Is Unjustifiably Discriminatory, Says NZ Law Society
• Media Release 13 – Australian Benefit Reforms Bow to Parents’ Rights
• A few more tips when giving an oral submission
• More experiences before the Select Committee
• Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill: Best Scenario?
• Home Educators happy with benefit revamp in Australia
• Kate’s oral submission and some questions
• Submissions published for the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill
• Presenting Oral Submission to Social Services Select Committee
• About Early Child Care in Sweden
• ECE linked to obesity in kids: study
• BERLIN DECLARATION
• Media Release 12 – Early Childhood Education Brings Social Drawbacks, Uncertain Benefits
• New Zealand Law Society Submission
• Australians have common sense where it seems our NZ Government does not
• ECE (Preschool) is no good for 4, 5 and possibly 6 year olds expert says
• Presenting an oral submission to the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill
• Social Services Select Committee members
• Barbara Smith’s submission
• Media Release 11 – Parents Are Responsible for Education, Says HEF National Director
• Media Release 10 – Preschool Associated With Social and Academic Disadvantage
• A Bit of Political Advice to Home Educators by Craig Smith
• Samuel Blight’s submission
• Home Education Foundation’s submission
• Media Release 9 – Social Security Bill Should Treat Home Education as a Legitimate Choice
• Media Release 8 – Social Security Bill Will Cause Real Hardship to Real People
• Family Integrity’s submission
• Media Release 7 – Paula Bennett’s One-Size-Fits-All Approach Leaves Parents With No Options
• 2nd letter from Paula Bennett to Barbara Smith
• Why should I put a submission into the Select Committee about the beneficiaries?
• Media Release 6 – Social Security Bill Will Punish Responsible Parents Who ‘Can’t Be Bought’
• Beneficiaries: Policy and Law
• 66 Submissions
• Submission: Trafficking, extortion, kidnapping, slavery and deception
• Media Release 5 – Beneficiary Parents “Not Able to Home School” Under Social Security Bill
• Media Release 4 – Social Security Bill Targets Responsible Parents for Toughest Penalties
• Letter from Paula Bennett to Samuel Blight
• Opinion Piece in Truth
• Possible timeline for Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill
• Media Release 3 – Social Security Bill’s ECE Obligations Breach Human Rights
• Media Release 2 – Vulnerable Children Not Benefited By Social Security Bill
• Media Release 1 – Social Security Bill Coerces Parents, Removes Freedom
• Make a submission: Reject compulsory Early Education for 3 year olds
• Some of the main links
• Comment on Q+A: Social Development Minister Paula Bennett
• Human Rights in New Zealand Today: The right to education
• Raymond S. Moore on Early Childhood Centres
• Should preschool be compulsory?
• TVNZ One this morning Q&A with Paula Bennett
• Maxim Institute: What is best for children?
• HUGE Concerns over the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill
• Letter from Paula Bennett concerning beneficaries and home education to Barbara Smith
• Toby Manhire on Benefit-slaying Nats starting to look plain nasty
• Linking welfare to preschool attendance a world first
• New Update on: How will the new Social obligations which will be required of all beneficiary parents effect home schoolers?
• How will the new Social obligations which will be required of all beneficiary parents effect home schoolers?

I have just sent this email to the Select Committee members. After I sent it I wondered if I might be able to still uplift it to the Select Committee using the link for additional information. This is from the letter that I received after submitting my written submission:  “Should you wish to send any further information to the committee in relation to your submission, you can do that by clicking on this link http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/OnlineSubmission/Supplementary/Verify/?submission=… . (I have taken out my personal numbers) Please retain this email so that you can have access to this link.”

So, my friends, if you put in a written submission to the Select Committee and you still have the confirmation email from them then you can still send any emails and information that you would like to this link. I am going to use this link each time I want to send addition information to the Select Committee as well as sending the info to each of their emails.

More on contacting the Select Committee here particulary today and tomorrow since today in International Human Rights Day: https://hef.org.nz/2012/international-human-rights-day-10-december-2012-2/

Against the Bill at the 1st reading:

Jacinda Ardern, Jan Logie, Rajen Prasad and Su’a William Sio

jacinda.ardern@parliament.govt.nz, Jan.logie@parliament.govt.nz, rajen.prasad@parliament.govt.nz, sua.william.sio@parliament.govt.nz

Those who voted for the Bill at the 1st reading

Simon Bridges,  Melissa Lee,  Asenati Lole-Taylor , Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, Tim Macindoe, Alfred Ngaro, and Mike
Sabin

s.bridges@ministers.govt.nz, melissa.lee@parliament.govt.nz, Asenati.Lole-Taylor@parliament.govt.nz, peseta.sam.lotu-iiga@parliament.govt.nz, tim.macindoe@parliament.govt.nz, Alfred.ngaro@parliament.govt.nz, mike.sabin@parliament.govt.nz

Today, 10 December, is International Human Rights Day

http://www.un.org/en/events/humanrightsday/

The right of parents to choose what kind of education their children receive is thus well-attested as a fundamental human right. The Home Education Foundation advises that in many situations, a parent’s views on what constitutes a suitable education differs broadly from the government’s views on what constitutes suitable education. In such cases, as these human rights instruments attest, it is the parent with whom the decision rests, not the government.

When the government disagrees with a parent over what constitutes a suitable education, it is the government’s opinion which must yield to the parent’s opinion in the absence of actual abuse.

We advise that a Bill which does not provide all parents with the ability to educate their own children at home will breach the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and fundamental parental rights in New Zealand

The Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill breaches Human rights.

Please read these three links for how the SS Bill breaches Human Rights:

1. Media Release 14 – Social Security Bill Is Unjustifiably Discriminatory, Says NZ Law Society
2. Right of Parents to Choose Education
3. BERLIN DECLARATION

Please use the information in these links today, the INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY, to remind the Select Committee that this Bill is in breach of Human Rights.

How to contact the Select Committee members:

Against the Bill at the 1st reading:

Jacinda Ardern, Jan Logie, Rajen Prasad and Su’a William Sio

jacinda.ardern@parliament.govt.nz, Jan.logie@parliament.govt.nz, rajen.prasad@parliament.govt.nz, sua.william.sio@parliament.govt.nz

Those who voted for the Bill at the 1st reading

Simon Bridges,  Melissa Lee,  Asenati Lole-Taylor , Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, Tim Macindoe, Alfred Ngaro, and Mike
Sabin

s.bridges@ministers.govt.nz, melissa.lee@parliament.govt.nz, Asenati.Lole-Taylor@parliament.govt.nz, peseta.sam.lotu-iiga@parliament.govt.nz, tim.macindoe@parliament.govt.nz, Alfred.ngaro@parliament.govt.nz, mike.sabin@parliament.govt.nz

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If you missed writing a letter on the 10th then it is not too late to write an email/letter or to ring or visit the Select Committee members. Today is a good day to contact them. Here is some more information for contacting the Select Committee:  Contacting the Select Committee

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

Please do so with the whole post. Thankyou

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Related Links:

• International Human Rights Day 10 December 2012
• Media Release 14 – Social Security Bill Is Unjustifiably Discriminatory, Says NZ Law Society
• Media Release 13 – Australian Benefit Reforms Bow to Parents’ Rights
• A few more tips when giving an oral submission
• More experiences before the Select Committee
• Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill: Best Scenario?
• Home Educators happy with benefit revamp in Australia
• Kate’s oral submission and some questions
• Submissions published for the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill
• Presenting Oral Submission to Social Services Select Committee
• About Early Child Care in Sweden
• ECE linked to obesity in kids: study
• BERLIN DECLARATION
• Media Release 12 – Early Childhood Education Brings Social Drawbacks, Uncertain Benefits
• New Zealand Law Society Submission
• Australians have common sense where it seems our NZ Government does not
• ECE (Preschool) is no good for 4, 5 and possibly 6 year olds expert says
• Presenting an oral submission to the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill
• Social Services Select Committee members
• Barbara Smith’s submission
• Media Release 11 – Parents Are Responsible for Education, Says HEF National Director
• Media Release 10 – Preschool Associated With Social and Academic Disadvantage
• A Bit of Political Advice to Home Educators by Craig Smith
• Samuel Blight’s submission
• Home Education Foundation’s submission
• Media Release 9 – Social Security Bill Should Treat Home Education as a Legitimate Choice
• Media Release 8 – Social Security Bill Will Cause Real Hardship to Real People
• Family Integrity’s submission
• Media Release 7 – Paula Bennett’s One-Size-Fits-All Approach Leaves Parents With No Options
• 2nd letter from Paula Bennett to Barbara Smith
• Why should I put a submission into the Select Committee about the beneficiaries?
• Media Release 6 – Social Security Bill Will Punish Responsible Parents Who ‘Can’t Be Bought’
• Beneficiaries: Policy and Law
• 66 Submissions
• Submission: Trafficking, extortion, kidnapping, slavery and deception
• Media Release 5 – Beneficiary Parents “Not Able to Home School” Under Social Security Bill
• Media Release 4 – Social Security Bill Targets Responsible Parents for Toughest Penalties
• Letter from Paula Bennett to Samuel Blight
• Opinion Piece in Truth
• Possible timeline for Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill
• Media Release 3 – Social Security Bill’s ECE Obligations Breach Human Rights
• Media Release 2 – Vulnerable Children Not Benefited By Social Security Bill
• Media Release 1 – Social Security Bill Coerces Parents, Removes Freedom
• Make a submission: Reject compulsory Early Education for 3 year olds
• Some of the main links
• Comment on Q+A: Social Development Minister Paula Bennett
• Human Rights in New Zealand Today: The right to education
• Raymond S. Moore on Early Childhood Centres
• Should preschool be compulsory?
• TVNZ One this morning Q&A with Paula Bennett
• Maxim Institute: What is best for children?
• HUGE Concerns over the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill
• Letter from Paula Bennett concerning beneficaries and home education to Barbara Smith
• Toby Manhire on Benefit-slaying Nats starting to look plain nasty
• Linking welfare to preschool attendance a world first
• New Update on: How will the new Social obligations which will be required of all beneficiary parents effect home schoolers?
• How will the new Social obligations which will be required of all beneficiary parents effect home schoolers?

Press Release 14

December 10, 2012

Palmerston North, NZ – Monday, December 10 is International Human Rights Day, and as Parliament’s Select Committee hears submissions on the proposed Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill, the issue of human rights has taken centre stage.

Many families are most concerned about the “social obligations” contained in the Bill, which will make early childhood education (ECE), registration with a medical provider, and attendance at Well Child checks mandatory for the children of beneficiaries. Barbara Smith, National Director of the Home Education Foundation of New Zealand, says that these “obligations” will infringe parental rights under international and New Zealand law.

“The UN’s Universal Declaration on Human Rights says that parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education given to their children,” says Mrs Smith. “And our own Care of Children Act leaves parents with the right to make decisions about their child’s education and health care.”

Surprisingly, the Attorney-General’s opinion on the Social Security Bill was that no human rights would be infringed by the social obligations. Mrs Smith explains:

“The Attorney-General concluded that the social obligations aren’t discriminatory because ‘they are designed to be beneficial.’ He went on to say that if discrimination does occur under the act, ‘the disadvantage is outweighed by the best interests of the child’.”

However the New Zealand Law Society, the premier legal association of New Zealand which regulates the profession, conducts professional development programmes and advises on law reforms like the Social Security Bill, submitted a different opinion to the Committee.

In their submission dated 2 November 2012, the Society stated, “The Law Society considers that the imposition of the specified social obligations…raises serious issues of discrimination.”

The Law Society went on to say that they had “carefully considered” the Attorney-General’s opinion and respectfully disagreed that the discriminatory treatment was justified. Discrimination on the grounds of employment is prohibited under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. According to the Society, they “would have expected to see substantially more evidence as to why such social obligations have to be imposed at all and upon this group alone.”

The Law Society praised the Bill’s intentions to improve the lot of beneficiary children. However, they say, “the means used to achieve them appear to be disproportionate.”

It also blasted the onerous sanctions contained in the Bill. “Harm is potentially much increased because of the sanctions regime…The benefits to be gained from the measures would not appear to be in due proportion to the harm done to the targeted group.”

The Law Society’s reasons for believing the discrimination to be unjustifiable included the fact that no other New Zealanders are required to fulfill such obligations, that it will cause material disadvantage to beneficiaries owing to the 50% benefit sanctions, and that there is a lack of compelling evidence to show that the social obligations will improve the lives of New Zealand’s children.

The Society also expressed concerns about the Chief Executive’s undefined authority to apply sanctions to beneficiary families, and the Bill’s failure to admit reasons for noncompliance such as cost and availability—and, the Home Education Foundation would add, different educational models.

In conclusion, the Law Society stated that the discrimination and hardship involved in the social obligations was disproportionate to the possible benefits gained. “The singling out of the whole group of parents…carries a real risk of stigmatising the affected group. There is no evidence that that group as a whole do not comply with the obligations or that they comply at significantly lower rates..”

New Zealand courts would at first glance consider this Bill discriminatory under the Bill of Rights, according to the Law Society.

“This Bill is a serious challenge to human rights in New Zealand,” says Mrs Smith.

The Home Education Foundation urges all concerned New Zealanders to contact their local MP about the human rights problems in this bill. More information on the bill can be found at www.hef.org.nz.

About the Home Education Foundation

The Home Education Foundation has been informing parents for 27 years about the fantastic opportunity to de-institutionalise our sons and daughters and to embrace the spiritual, intellectual and academic freedom that is ours for the taking. Through conferences, journals, newsletters and all kinds of personal communications, we explain the vision of handcrafting each child into a unique individual, complete with virtuous character, a hunger for service to others, academic acumen and a strong work ethic. For more information, please visit www.hef.org.nz or more specifically hef.org.nz/2012/make-a-submission-reject-compulsory-early-education-for-3-year-olds/

This appeared:

Scoop: Social Security Bill Is Unjustifiably Discriminatory

Voxy: Social Security Bill ‘unjustifiably discriminatory’

The Wire: Between Noon and 1pm today

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

Please do so with the whole post. Thankyou

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Related Links:

• Media Release 13 – Australian Benefit Reforms Bow to Parents’ Rights
• A few more tips when giving an oral submission
• More experiences before the Select Committee
• Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill: Best Scenario?
• Home Educators happy with benefit revamp in Australia
• Kate’s oral submission and some questions
• Presenting Oral Submission to Social Services Select Committee
• About Early Child Care in Sweden
• ECE linked to obesity in kids: study
• BERLIN DECLARATION
• Media Release 12 – Early Childhood Education Brings Social Drawbacks, Uncertain Benefits
• New Zealand Law Society Submission
• Australians have common sense where it seems our NZ Government does not
• ECE (Preschool) is no good for 4, 5 and possibly 6 year olds expert says
• Presenting an oral submission to the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill
• Social Services Select Committee members
• Barbara Smith’s submission
• Media Release 11 – Parents Are Responsible for Education, Says HEF National Director
• Media Release 10 – Preschool Associated With Social and Academic Disadvantage
• A Bit of Political Advice to Home Educators by Craig Smith
• Samuel Blight’s submission
• Home Education Foundation’s submission
• Media Release 9 – Social Security Bill Should Treat Home Education as a Legitimate Choice
• Media Release 8 – Social Security Bill Will Cause Real Hardship to Real People
• Family Integrity’s submission
• Media Release 7 – Paula Bennett’s One-Size-Fits-All Approach Leaves Parents With No Options
• 2nd letter from Paula Bennett to Barbara Smith
• Why should I put a submission into the Select Committee about the beneficiaries?
• Media Release 6 – Social Security Bill Will Punish Responsible Parents Who ‘Can’t Be Bought’
• Beneficiaries: Policy and Law
• 66 Submissions
• Submission: Trafficking, extortion, kidnapping, slavery and deception
• Media Release 5 – Beneficiary Parents “Not Able to Home School” Under Social Security Bill
• Media Release 4 – Social Security Bill Targets Responsible Parents for Toughest Penalties
• Letter from Paula Bennett to Samuel Blight
• Opinion Piece in Truth
• Possible timeline for Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill
• Media Release 3 – Social Security Bill’s ECE Obligations Breach Human Rights
• Media Release 2 – Vulnerable Children Not Benefited By Social Security Bill
• Media Release 1 – Social Security Bill Coerces Parents, Removes Freedom
• Make a submission: Reject compulsory Early Education for 3 year olds
• Some of the main links
• Comment on Q+A: Social Development Minister Paula Bennett
• Human Rights in New Zealand Today: The right to education
• Raymond S. Moore on Early Childhood Centres
• Should preschool be compulsory?
• TVNZ One this morning Q&A with Paula Bennett
• Maxim Institute: What is best for children?
• HUGE Concerns over the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill
• Letter from Paula Bennett concerning beneficaries and home education to Barbara Smith
• Toby Manhire on Benefit-slaying Nats starting to look plain nasty
• Linking welfare to preschool attendance a world first
• New Update on: How will the new Social obligations which will be required of all beneficiary parents effect home schoolers?
• How will the new Social obligations which will be required of all beneficiary parents effect home schoolers?