Invest in parents to invest in kids

Written By: - Date published: 4:44 pm, August 2nd, 2012 - 7 comments
Categories: babies, child welfare, Economy, families - Tags:

Labour’s alternative economic policy got a huge boost last week, courtesy of the Members’ Bill lottery. Sue Moroney’s Paid Parental Leave Bill and David Clark’s Mondayising of holidays Bills were introduced in the House and forwarded to Select Committees. Investment in parents and small children, by all accounts the most valuable there is in terms of payoff; and acknowledgment that public celebrations of our national days are also a time of recreation and contemplation for working New Zealanders.

Now on top of that comes a move to a decent living wage with David Clark’s Bill to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour; and Clayton Cosgrove’s Bill to fence off the next set of publicly-owned  assets the Key/Banks government still hasn’t put on the block.

National Party wails that this people-centred economic policy costs too much sound hollow, when compared with how they are happy to give away hundreds of millions of dollars to stockbrokers and public relations companies, many overseas-owned, to persuade a few to buy what all of us own. Bill English has promised to veto the Paid Parental Leave Bill when it returns to the House.

You can have your say before it gets to that. An easy way is to make your submission here on Labour’s website.

7 comments on “Invest in parents to invest in kids ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. xtasy 1
    2 August 2012 at 10:54 pm

    Wrong angle this has: It should be as a nation, or society, we should invest in parents and kids!

    So parents may choose the preferred status choices to “invest in kids”, which this headline does allow, but that is totally not working, as we see internationally.

    Of course parents want the best for their kids, but are private schools and institutions the solutions, like they are offered in so many countries?

    I do not see it that way. We had discussions about the Finland and other examples. Some of that may not match NZ requirements, but in general schools in Finland, some other European and a few other countries do well.

    Why the hell by the way should we go and try some bizarre charter schools, as J. Banks and the government announced today? There may be some arguments in favour, but in general, I see little or NO advantage. To have a functioning educational system it is important to also have a degree of sufficient cohesion, national agreement on what the core educational standards and subjects need to be, and there must be involvement of all sectors.

    So Banks tonight thought charter schools are the best bet, allowing even uncertified, insufficiently qualified “about teachers” to teach in them. Well, does the man know what he is talking about? Maybe his son got a last resort education to get him back on track to get him somewhere. That is what he claims. But it raises the question, why did his son fail in the first place?

    I believe in education improvements for ALL, across the board, and I want private schools abolished, so all students learn to live and study with each other amongst themselves at EQUAL level, to also learn social responsibilities.

    That is one thing badly lackin g in NZ now. so I strongly emphasize that chance, and the private school attendees will have to sweat, rub, play, learn with all the others, for once!

  2. tracey 2
    3 August 2012 at 7:57 am

    How stupid did banks look rolling out apiata as an example of a two day a week teacher. Such blatant exploitation of mr apiata for political gain. He also rolls out the misleading 1 in 5 stat again. Are they really saying charter schools are only going to have clases of the lowest performing 20%?

  3. tracey 3
    3 August 2012 at 7:59 am

    Arent private schools like kings college close to the ideal charter school. Mind you banks sets a good example for his kids… Rememer the illegal and dangerous jet ski ride with all three on the back.

  4. Tom Gould 4
    3 August 2012 at 10:50 am

    Problem is, Mike, that loads of people have lost faith in the notion that pouring money into poor parents will trickle down to the poor kids. How else do you explain the popularity of Paula Bennett’s ideas?

  5. tracey 5
    3 August 2012 at 1:12 pm

    A popular idea is different to an idea which will work.