Guest Editorial
The Government is concerned that the children of beneficiaries are currently missing out on a key educational experience in early childhood education (ECE), and hence has decided that from July 2013, receipt of a full benefit will be conditional on children attending ECE.
On the positive side, study after study has demonstrated the gains to be made, especially among children from low-income backgrounds, from attendance at high quality ECE.
Thus, it would probably be a good thing for more children of beneficiaries to spend at least some time in ECE.
But just because higher enrolments in ECE, one of the Government’s ‘Better Public Service goals,’ might be a good, it does not make an equally good idea to have the Government increase ECE enrolments via the stick of benefit sanctions.
Legitimate obligation
It is reasonable for the Government to expect certain behaviours and actions from those to whom it extends a benefit. Being work-ready, for instance, seems to be a legitimate obligation for most beneficiaries.
But when the Government interferes in the decisions a beneficiary parent or parents make in raising their children, it would seem to have gone too far.
It is essential that families are able to make decisions about how they will raise their children, so long as the immediate health and safety of their children are not at risk. Being in receipt of a benefit does not abrogate this right of families.
If the Government wishes for more children to enrol in ECE, it should do more to support parents in making this choice either by encouraging more high quality ECE providers to enter and saturate the market or by offering more subsidies and credits for low-income families.
What it should not do is make receipt of a full benefit dependent upon parents giving up their right to choose.
Maxim Institute
