 |
| Paula Bennett |
15 hours of ECE for a 3 year old is not recommended by kindergartens. They’ll only take a child up to 12 hours a week at that age.
Some parents may wish to follow the Steiner educational model that doesn’t start children in school until age 7.
Some parents want to have a choice about the educational environment they put their children into. Not all ECE is suitable for all children. One of my colleagues went through three services until she found one to suit her daughter.
Some families chose to home school their children to provide them with an alternative positive schooling environment.
Some parents may wish to follow the Steiner educational model that doesn’t start children in school until age 7.
Some parents want to have a choice about the educational environment they put their children into. Not all ECE is suitable for all children. One of my colleagues went through three services until she found one to suit her daughter.
Some families chose to home school their children to provide them with an alternative positive schooling environment.
Jan Logie, Green MP points to some of the many flaws in National's draconian demand on parents who are receiving a benefit.
Paula Bennett though, cares not a jot.
What she says, GOES!
46 comments:
....well get off the benefit and get yourself some choices then. If labour are saying they want all decile 1 schools to feed their children they are exposing a deep mistrust in people to do the right thing (feed their children) and making the choice for them. Is this really any different to national mooting the ECE debate, in principle?
Vote green, and receive a benefit for life ,
You know you want to !
"Get off the benefit"
Charming. You've clearly no idea why it is that many of the people needing a benefit can't simply 'get off the benefit", nor do you seem to understand why it is that New Zealand has a supportive benefit system in the first place. Are you Judith Bennett?
Feeding the children in decile one schools is taking the choice to feed their own children from the parents? What tosh. Your claim fails all basic logic tests, Anonymous.
Is there any difference? Hard question to answer as you seem not to understand the situation at all.
Anonymouse - more trite pish from you. I suppose it's hilariously funny from your end, but it reads thin and insubstantial from here. You need more substance to your opinions before they can be taken seriously.
indeed it is not hilariously funny.
I dont happen to share your opinion.
the fact that for society to thrive social welfare entrapment is not a good thing ,
I see nothing in the recent proposals that are either unreasonable or unfair .
i agree with the simple principle that we should have a social conscience and that will be expressed through a benefit system.However , i see nothing wrong with a principle that requires recipients of a benefit to meet certain obligations ,, it is no different in the work place , it is the reality of life .. we all have responsibility, to society , children , each other and not to forget ourselves as we consider a healthy and prosperous future,
Do you, anonymouse think that I believe welfare dependency is a good thing?
If it's true that you see nothing wrong at all with National's proposals, do you wonder how it can be that some people can? Does it occur to you at all, even for a moment, that you might be missing something?
You seem to believe me arrogant for stating my position strongly, but you seem entirely wrapped up in your own opinion and unable to see the other point of view.
Just sayin'
But i do see your point of view and thats why i comment because i know it is flawed ,
We will not agree , this is the nature of politics and philosophy,
Could you describe that for me, in a nut-shell, so that I might see how it measures up against my own view?
It'd be interesting.
Reflecting 'you saids' and 'you believes' back to the originator reveals interesting things, in my experience.
Robert, stands up for life's losers! Are you hoping for a medal moron?
What's a 'medal moron'?
Can I trade mine for an intelligent comment from you, or are they as rare as hens' teeth?
Hi anonymouse.
My 4yo daughter is not enrolled in ECE and hasn't had her well child checks. Neither me nor my partner are beneficiaries. Should we be held accountable? If yes, how? If not, why not?
No mr Guyton, i will hold my beliefs and opinions with out your critique.
It might surprise you but i dont consider your views as the bench mark by which i measure my own .
Arm Chair .. do you think well child checks ,are a bad thing?, I hope your child is enrolled in primary health care?
Will he or she attend school?
anonymouse - answering a question (Armchair Critics) with a question of your own, is the feeblest of internet fails.
For arguments sake let's say:
I read the well child check information and decided against it.
My daughter is not enrolled with a PHO.
She may or may not attend school. We have not decided.
Back to my questions - should we be held accountable? If yes, how? If no, why not?
If you dont send your child to school assuming you dont home school u should be beheld to account .
What you want me to comment on is the status of being a beneficiary though isnt it ?
If i was supporting you financially i would be expecting you to send your child to school and be enrolled in primary health care .. The financial support enables and ensures you are able to do that .
Unless you live in the back of beyond obviously
Very good, anonymouse. Would it be fair to say, then, that you don't care about me or my daughter because I have a well paid job.
To clarify - My partner is a teacher and is quite capable of home-schooling our daughter.
I guess ill answer this with a question.
Are there beneficiaries . supported by the state to ensure their children are not disadvantaged who do not in fact ensure that support is passed on to their children?
Of course there are .
This provokes the question , do we have a right as a society to be prescriptive with those who are able to support themselves and assume they will also ensure their children are also cared for.
Once again, there are children who are not adequately provided for , but where does nanny state end and personal responsibility start?
If i was drawing a line it would be linked to the degree that material support is received from the state .
I dont expect central government to be perfect.i dont expect central government to be all things to all people ,
I do expect central government , to make the best provision for the majority. But this majority is made up of both beneficiary and tax payer
It seems you are willfully avoiding the point, anonymouse. By Paula Bennett's definition I am a bad parent. Yet I can "get away with it". Because I am not a beneficiary. Does that make sense?
On the issue at hand, I have no strong objection to what is proposed to help children. It seems petulent and destructive of the government to heap more hardship on children whose parents do not take advantage of what is on offer and thereby make themselves subject to a benefit cut. Will it lead to better outcomes? Overall, probably, but for some individuals it will make things much much worse. I don't want a society like that.
I suspect both Robert and AC are arguing a redundant reality. Generally laws make practical allowances. You could well be arguing fine deals which are already planned for.
I'm arguing that the effect (cut benefit by 50%) is not a logical or constructive fit with the cause (well cared for children).
Surely a half-decent government could come up with something better.
I think anonymouse is taking this 'social contract' thing too personally. he seems to feel that beneficiaries owe him their compliance to the 'rules' around Well Child, Ece and so on, because he pays their benefit from his own paypacket These beneficiaries who are not toeing the line right now are stealing from anonymouse and failing to play their part. It infuriates him!
Pretty much right Rob. It annoys me too. Bloody oath they are accountable they should be drug tested too
Im guessing there are some stats around this ,
Obviously the intent is not to remove the benefit but to coerce those that dont put their children first to do so ,
As far as tax monies go,,, we have a problem , we dont have enuff to run the show . so we have to become more efficient with what we have ,, this includes beneficiaries.
There are stats. The first place to look is the Statistics NZ website.
The intent is to cut benefits. 2,200 is the current estimate. If it wasn't the intent, they would do something else instead.
There is enough to run the show. Only people who are owned by their possessions think otherwise. Beneficiaries have the least capacity to help with efficiency. John Banks new where the spare capacity was and targetted it ruthlessly when he ran for mayor.
Another serpentine character.
No Armchair .. the intent , obviously, is to get all children . who have parents who are beneficiaries to have the benefit of healthcare and education.
Some times we have to put aside our personal political and social agenda to appreciate the positive aspects off suggestions from others not of our ilk,
I think it would be not unreasonable to assume that children within the lower socio economic grouping have less advantages when it comes to education and health care ,, The ministers proposal is to ensure this is corrected with a solution at the top of the cliff not an ambulance at the bottom
" The ministers proposal is to ensure this is corrected with a solution at the top of the cliff not an ambulance at the bottom"...by threatening to halve the benefit the parent of the children in question.
It's not a question of what the minister hopes to achieve, it's the method by which she proposes to achieve it (for clarity, I mean the punitive aspect, threats, sanctions, punishment). This point has been made over and over and over but people just like you, anonymouse, can't see it, don't/won't address it.
And so we go round and round and round...
" people " like me put the children first and people like you put government bashing first.
"So we go round and round"
Now that is funny, anonymouse. The Greens are forever being lambasted by the Right for their cries of 'think of the children' and 'what about the children', yet here you are, claiming the opposite. I am heartened by your lack of big-picture awareness.
I wish all good on the children, but not at the expense of everything else. Next, you'll be claiming that 'the children' of beneficiaries, not enrolled in ECE, should be removed from that environment and those non-complying parents, for their own good and the good of society. Then it's only a skip and a jump to Bennett's other pearl, sterilization of woman on the benefit.
Do you sense where there might be concerns here, anonymouse? You put a huge deal of faith (I'; sure it'll all be done humanely) in a party and ministers who are showing a very, very poor grasp of their portfolios and of the real on the ground situation in New Zealand, evidenced by their complete stuff-ups in so many areas, education being an example I'm more than happy to debate. Or environment. Or economic management (how much have National borrowed since the came in to power, did you say? How much?! Good Lord!
Is this a Green ploy? .. trying to redefine the debate and take up another new fall back position from which to launch criticism on a broader front!
The debate is this.. who is more vulnernable beneficiaries or children of beneficiaries.
Receive a benefit, enjoy the social provision of society, just ensure that provision of welfare is passed on to your children because they will take their place in society and be called upon to make provision for others in time ,, Surely this is as big picture as one can get ,, a society where everyone can be both provided for and in time make provision for others .
No problem with the big picture, anonymouse, and I'm still awaiting and explanation for or justification of how halving the incomes of non-compliant beneficiaries progresses us toward the big picture.
AC - having the benefit halved will hammer home to those recalcitrants the value of personal responsibility.
And the importance of doing what your Tory master demands, without quibbling.
Armchair i have far more faith in the ability of those on a benefit to work out that enrolling their children for health care and schooling will in fact be more profitable.. than loosing 50% of ones benefit .. in reality no one will loose their benefit will they?
tory,, mr Guyton.. a little assumption going on here i think.
This scrum of National MPs behave like Tories, anonymouse - surely you're not disputing that???
In reality the government expects to cut the benefits to 2,200 families.
By the implementation of specifically this proposal?
I think we can assume that 2 plus 2 still does not equal five armchair ,
Yes, anonymouse, by the implementation of specifically this proposal.
I understand we can prove two plus two does not equal five. If you are suggesting the end justifies the means, in some cases I agree but this is not one of those cases. The ends are ok, the means are not, IMO.
Show me a link to the data please Arm chair?
An article on nzherald.co.nz on 12 September 2012 called "fears over beneficiary child changes by Simon Collins refers to a cabinet paper containg the estimated figure. I can't link to it via my smartphone, but there's enough for you to track it down.
So Its not government policy around this proposal atall but the opinion of a journalist!! { who is paid to whip people like you into a frenzy i might add }
You have go two things mixed up..
One. initiative to ensure early childhood education and health.
Two, need to reduce long term social spending,
Different . targeted differently and with different objectives ,
No, it's not the opinion of a journo. The figure of 2,200 families affected is taken directly from the paper that was presented to cabinet and constitutes expert advice given to the politicians responsible for making the decision on whether or not to penalise these families. If you doubt the veracity of the report, I suggest you track down the cabinet paper.
Arm chair ,, you have your facts wrong,,
It says that 2200 presently do not have their children enrolled in either health or early education and as such would fail .
The whole initiative is to ensure these parents enroll their children in health care and early child ed ,,
You have made a leap of fantasy to suggest this is designed to get people off a benefit ,
Ask yourself what is the intent of the policy??
This is obviously not a policy to get people off a benefit,
If a policy maker was asked to developed social spending reduction policy it obviously would not be done as u have assumed or suggested ! It would be linked to employment and job creation,
Fair cop then, it's estimated that at present 2,200 don't comply and of those 900 will comply once the law is introduced. Leaving 1,300 that won't comply.
The argumant that it only affects a few thousand people doesn't mean it's not a terrible idea.
And I'm still waiting to hear whether amd how I should be punished for my non-compliance.
Post a Comment