The Hardest Blog I have ever had to write...

The Hardest Blog I have ever had to write... 

As many of you know I am a single Mum and I homeschool my girls. What I may not have shared with you before now because it is deeply personal is that when my marriage broke up I was forced into a position where I needed financial help from our government here in New Zealand. I swallowed what pride I had left and asked for help which they gave and for that I am most grateful. 

Being a single Mum can be incredibly challenging with all the responsibility squarely on just one set of shoulders. It is not easy trying to find work full stop but trying to find work that fits around one three year old and one six year (even if they were at school) as a single Mum is even harder. However my love is writing and since becoming a single Mum I have focused much of my working energy on making a living as a writer and photographer. I am not yet at the point where my writing can sustain us fully but it is my hope that one day soon it will, I certainly put in the hours!

I am writing this blog today on a very personal note and in support of other Mother's like myself who contrary to the new 'social obligations' that are about to be attached to the Sole Parent benefit have our children's education, health and well being at the centre of our universe. The new 'social obligations' being added are that children of sole parent beneficiaries like myself must :-

• 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 

These new 'obligations' will be compulsory for all sole parents like myself. For non compliance three warnings will be given before their benefit is cut by half. At which point other pressure will be applied through other agencies like CYFS to ensure submission. 

These new obligations make the very wrong assumption that all sole parent beneficiaries are bad parents and are incapable of making intelligent and well reasoned decisions for their own children. As my Mum said to me this week "One size does not fit all"

Interestingly in a recent interview on TVNZ's Q+A programme Ms Bennett actually states "I don't think that every child actually needs to be in early childhood education, but I do think it benefits those that are most vulnerable so much, that's why I'm doing this." but she agreed these reforms would indeed force all beneficiaries to enroll their children."It is an expectation for all beneficiaries, however we will only be dealing with those whom we class as vulnerable" Ms Bennett said there had to be a "stick at the end" to get behavioral change. 

Does that mean it's just tough luck for those of us who actually care about our children? That we must all be treated the same? Or hope no one notices us sitting quietly in the corner praying to God our children will not be forced from our homes into substandard childcare (in my area anyway). When we ourselves as their Mothers are willing and able to offer them a rich environment of education, care and love? I would love to know what percentage of sole parent beneficiaries children are 'vulnerable' and what percentage are like my family that simply doesn't have quite enough to get by on. 

How times have changed! It used to be that Mother's were respected for their choice to stay at home and care for their young, now it seems we are to be punished for it. It is now the 'norm' to send our children off to be looked after by strangers under the pretense it is somehow good for them to be separated from those who love them. Many of my friends send their children to ECE and I respect their decision to do so, in the same way as they respect my decision not to. It is a freedom of choice that is being removed from one section of society - sole parent beneficiaries.

According to the Human Rights Act 1993, "Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children" My human rights are being completely violated by this new bill and why? because I am not able financially to completely support myself. This bill targets just one section of society, am I somehow less human than my friend down the road with a husband at work? Or is this the beginning of legislation they will bring in for all parents across the board. 

Even if you are not a single Mum or Dad, beneficiary or not please take the time to look at this issue, it has the potential to effect all us and the freedom we currently enjoy to make decisions for our own children.

Our Family - Please help us to Protect our Freedom to choose

Below is the submission I made to the Government. If you would like to make a submission please go to http://bit.ly/VyFqpP

_______________________________________________________________________

Submission regarding Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill

I am a single Mum to Charlotte who is six and a half and Rosie who has just turned 3. I am not a single Mother through choice; I cannot imagine there are too many parents who would choose this difficult path to one of two parents sharing the role of parenting and the financial security this would usually bring. 

My choice is to stay at home with my children, I look at it as a profession that demands the absolute best that I can bring to it and I do it with a bucket full of love for each of my precious children. I also work from home as a freelance writer and photographer and I am also a sole parent beneficiary.

I knew I wanted to homeschool my children before they were even in existence. I feel passionately about bringing up my children within the home environment, somewhere their needs and education can be met with love, respect and passion.

I would draw your attention at this point to the Human Rights Act of 1993 that states, “Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children”. I believe this bill will be in breach of my human rights. How can we only target one section of society because they are poorer than the rest, are we saying that somehow this section of society is less human than our next door neighbours because they don’t have a husband or full time employment to support themselves without help? I repeat it is not a path you would choose if didn’t have to; Single parenting is hard, incredibly rewarding but hard.

I believe that a child's ability to function throughout his life is directly attributed to their home environment. ‘Home is where the heart is’ I believe the saying goes. Home is where you rest your head at night; it’s a place where we find comfort, food and clean clothes. As adults we have many roles in life and being a parent seems to be becoming less and less important. Trying to force Mother’s back to work when they should be at home caring for their children is a loss of one of the most important tasks a person can undertake, to educate and care for their child and not feel pressured if that is their choice. I understand it is not for every parent but it should remain a valid choice of career for Mothers. Our children after all are the future, what more rewarding or important task can there be in life than to bring these little people up to be incredible human beings?

You would not expect a government department to work without a manager would you? That person is present everyday to ensure that plans are followed; jobs are completed and that everyone is working the way they need to. It’s the same in my house, I am that Manager I have the time and energy to invest in my two little girls like no one else does, no one is more qualified than I am as their Mother.

My two children are thriving under home instruction and I find it more than a little difficult to understand a government policy which can possibly think that my girls would be better off in an over crowded classroom or fighting for a place in the local Early childhood education centre which isn’t even walking distance from our home, when I am willing and able to provide such a high level of individual tuition, activities and education for them both.

I would bring your attention to the study done by the researcher Dr Raymond Moore: ‘“Harold McCurdy, a distinguished psychologist from the University of North Carolina and a leading student of genius, says that genius is derived from the experience of children being most of the time with adults and very little with their peers. So when you start assembling children in very large numbers for long periods of time, you are on the wrong course for producing strong character and intellect. The more children around your child, the fewer meaningful human contacts he will have. Let me give you another example, the matter of adult responses. John Goodlad, Graduate Dean of Education at UCLA, came out with an article in the Phi Delta Kappan in March, 1983. He did a comparison of over a thousand schools and found that the average amount of time spent in person-to-person responses between teachers and students amounted to seven minutes a day. It doesn’t take much to see that if your child is one of 20, 25, 30 or maybe more youngsters in a classroom and the teacher is giving only seven minutes a day in responses, that your child is lucky if he gets spoken to once a day. If he is an aggressive or misbehaving child, he might get more attention. But when a child is home with his mother, he may get one, two, three hundred answers to his questions and ideas a day. So you can see right there where we are in terms of the sheer potential there is for the stimulation of intellect in a home.”

In further research I have undertaken I have found many reasons against sending my children to Early Childhood facilities. I will just mention two of the studies for you. The first study was undertaken by The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and found that aggression and behavioral difficulties are linked to children being placed into early childhood settings from a young age. The second study by Jay Belsky Birkbeck College, University of London, U.K. found that his analysis of research produced the conclusion that early and extensive non-maternal care carried risks in terms of increasing the probability of an insecure infant—parent attachment relationships and promoting aggression and noncompliance during the toddler, preschool, and early primary school years. 

My children are both thriving at home and I do not wish to separate them from one another. They are best friends and absolutely adore each other. At the present time they learn together with great enjoyment of each other’s company, although they work at different levels of course. It would be detrimental to both my children to remove the younger of my children into forced ECE. At this current time I hold an exemption for my eldest as was even commended highly from the Ministry of Education for my enthusiasm “Congratulations on this application, a very full, thorough and well reasoned approach. Your enthusiasm certainly comes through. Nice to see you know the “big picture”, enjoyed the DVD” Steve McGregor. 

I understand sadly that there is many parents out there, who are not just single but married, on benefit and not on benefit that do not have their children’s welfare at heart and these children need to be protected. However I cannot object more strongly to the government’s assumption that sole parents on benefit are all neglectful parents who don’t care about their children’s health and education and in the words of the MP Paula Bennett need “A big stick waved at them” to be compliant to the new social obligations that make sweeping assumptions about our parenting abilities as single parents because we have had to ask for financial assistance. What possible basis do you have for such severe discrimination and assumption of bad parenting against this small section of society?

There is no thing of greater importance in my life than my two children, their education and their health. I do not wish to delegate my responsibility to educate and care for my children to anyone else. Yet according to new guidelines after three warnings of refusing to bend to your will, the little help I get from the government will be halved and the big stick brought out to punish my little family. Followed by involvement from other government agencies to further push and stress my beautiful family into submission.

On the issue of health I do believe children should be enrolled with a GP or at least have access to a doctor but not just the children of single parents but ALL children, again why is this issue aimed at sole parents only, yet more discrimination and judgements on our parenting abilities and freedom of choice for our families.

I do believe we have a right to choose if our children are to be vaccinated. I know this is a hugely controversial issue and the government is keen to get to its targets but at what risk? Let me site three interesting facts concerning vaccines and why it should be a choice given to all parents to make for themselves.

• In 1975, Japan raised its minimum vaccination age to 2 years old. The country’s infant mortality subsequently plummeted to such low levels that Japan now enjoys one of the lowest levels in the Western world. 
• In Australia in 2005 the flu vaccine was suspended after an alarming number of children were showing up in A&E with febrile convulsions and other vaccine related symptoms just hours after receiving the vaccine. 

• Some of the ingredients that can be found in vaccines currently on the market MSG, antifreeze, phenol (used as a disinfectant), formaldehyde (cancer causing and used to embalm), aluminum (associated with alzheimer’s disease, parkisons and seizures), glycerin (toxic to the kidney, liver, can cause lung damage, gastrointestinal damage and death), lead, cadmium, sulfates, yeast proteins, antibiotics, acetone (used in nail polish remover), neomycin and streptomycin. The ingredient currently making the press is thimerosol (more toxic than mercury, a preservative still used in many vaccines, not easily eliminated, can cause severe neurological damage as well as other life threatening autoimmune disease). 

To say nothing of the controversy that has surrounded the MMR for years and the tragic effects it can have. As a family we know this only to well after watching a friend lose her child from the suspected effects of the MMR vaccine.

I would at this point draw your attention to a paper that MP Paula Bennett released where she stated, “Immunization is a medical treatment and the decision should remain with the parent” I don’t think at any point did Ms Bennett say ‘except single parents on benefit’! Why do we cease to get the choice? Are we now lesser members of society because we are financially vulnerable and in need of help from the country we live in?

I work as many hours as I can to help provide for my family. I am a writer and photographer and do as much work as I can to help my situation. I imagine next to a lot of people the hours I work as a parent on my own, teacher to my children, and as a writer would make their working day feel like a part time job! It is my hope that it won’t be long before we can fully support ourselves but until then I am at your mercy. 

It is my hope that you will all individually consider the rights you are intending to take away from sole parent beneficiaries like myself and SAY NO to this bill, one size does not fit all.

I truly believe that this new legislation discriminates against beneficiaries and their children. The question is how long before this type of legislation creeps into all of our lives and decisions that should be ours are taken away from us? Speak now or forever hold your peace.

Have a great day folks and thanks for listening, this has to be the hardest blog I have ever written.

Kate xx 

Replies from MP's so far -

Dear Katherine

Thank you for your email, and for sharing your personal experiences and opposition to this bill.

You are not the first mother who has raised with me these concerns, and I followed up with some questions to the minister to clarify whether there would be any home schooling exemptions- the simple answer is no. I have also pushed the other point that you have raised, and that is that if she believes these obligations are in the best interest of all children, why is she only targeting those on government support? Her response was in essence, 'because we can'

I also sought clarity around the question of immunization. Although the social obligations include well child checks, the minister has said that this will not include sanctions if a child is not immunized.

These are all issues though that I will continue to raise at select committee. I really do encourage you to make a submission on this bill, although I appreciate that you have enormous amount of pressure on your time.

In the meantime, I can assure you that labour will be opposing this bill every step of the way.

Yours Sincerely

Jacinda Ardern

Jacinda Ardern

Labour Member of Parliament based in Auckland Central

Labour Spokesperson for Social Development and Children

__________________

From: David Cunliffe

Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2012 04:05:06 +0000

Subject: RE: Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill.

Hi Katherine

Thank you for your heart felt email. I am sure that you do the very best for your kids and I agree that Ms Bennett is discriminating against beneficiaries.

Thanks for sharing your views.

Kind regards

David Cunliffe 

______________________

Dear Katherine,

Thank you for your thoughtful letter. I appreciate your situation, and taking the time to write.

I shall be discussing this with my colleague(s) in the Green caucus who are responsible for this issue.

Sincerely,

Ken Graham

___________________

I have finally heard back from Ms Bennett's office, asking me whether I require an answer to the same email that I wrote to all the other MP's and also makes up my submission to the select committee!  I wrote back and said yes I would like a reply as I would appreciate her comments before the select committee meet in November.  I also inquired as to when I might hear back from Ms Bennett regarding my previous letter sent to her office on 18th September and apparently 'it is in the final stages of sign-out and should be sent to you early this week'. I am learning this is a fairly standard reply sent out from this office!  I take it they actually mean early next week as it is Thursday now!  I have had replies from so many MP's within just a few days and yet it has taken 21 days so far to get a reply to my first letter.  Only time will tell, I do so hope that the Hon. Paula Bennett actually addresses the issues I raise and I don't get general letter of reply, fingers crossed. 28 days and counting and still waiting :-(  UPDATE STILL NO reply from Paula Bennett it has now been 34 days I was promised a reply last week, just waiting on the final sign out....as the Tui advert says 'Yeah Right'.

Hi Katherine

Your email of 18 September 2012 was received by this office and your response is in the final stages of sign-out and should be sent to you early this week.  An acknowledgement was emailed to you on 20 September advising that you would receive a response at the Minister’s earliest convenience.

I have forwarded your email of 7 October to the Clerk of the Social Services Committee and consideration is currently being given to the matters you raise and you may expect a reply at the Minister’s earliest opportunity.

Kind regards
Natalie Hansen

Private Secretary, Office of Hon Paula Bennett Minister for Social Development | Minister of Youth Affairs Executive Wing 5.5, Parliament

____________________

Dear Ms Armon,

On behalf of the Prime Minister, Rt Hon John Key, I acknowledge the copy of your email sent for Mr Key’s information.

Regards,
E Tanga         
Ministerial Assistant/Records Officer          
Office of the Prime Minister


______________________________

Dear Katherine,
Thank you for your thoughtful letter.  I appreciate your situation, and taking the time to write.
I shall be discussing this with my colleague(s) in the Green caucus who are responsible for this issue.
Sincerely,
Ken Graham

______________________________

Dear Katherine

Thank you for your letter on the Social Security Amendment Bill.

I have passed it on to Jacinda Ardern, Labour’s Social Development Spokesperson and asked her to copy to me her reply.

I certainly understand the concerns you have about the Bill.

Yours sincerely

Phil Goff

Hon Phil Goff
MP for Mt Roskill
Labour Spokesman on Foreign Affairs and Trade


Interesting and unbelievable reply someone has received from Paula Bennett (so doing better than I am!!) http://hef.org.nz/2012/letter-from-paula-bennett-to-samuel-blight/

____________________________

A rather predictable reply from Hon Jo Goodhew regarding immunizations. In reply to the comments in her letter, there are as many studies that DO show the links between autism and other conditions.

I notice she does not address the issues I raised about the toxic contents found in vaccines, I wonder why!!!!

__________________

 

 

STILL awaiting reply from Hon Paula Bennetts office it has now been 36 days.  Every other person I wrote to within parliament has now replied except the one person who is able to make a decision about it!!!!!!