Who knows best about your children's "Wellbeing"?
According to the government- they do
I am reading through a vast array of early childhood education documents and policies at the moment. The area is so vast, there are ridiculous amounts of think tanks and policy creators, Wellbeing and Social Emotional Learning models, as well as “philanthropists” collaborating with universities and government to create financial markets off children. So whilst I am putting together information on the bigger picture I am doing smaller scoops of information out to the public. My focus is mainly on Australian documents, but it’s relevant regardless of what country you are in. The Wellbeing- Emotional Social Learning (ESL) - Social Impact Bond (SIB) agenda is global.
Small children are better off not being looked after at home, mothers are better placed in the work place. According to UNESCO under United Nations SDG5 Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls, the best outcome is for small children to be in care. This frees up the mother to have more "equitable" outcomes.
The “experts” know better then the parents about their children’s wellbeing and safety- Under The Australian government Early Years Strategy 2024- 2034 parents must be taught by "experts" as to how to keep their children safe, and how to look after their children's wellbeing. As well as:
A lot of data on children and families must be collected and collated.
The "community" must support parents (community means government).
“Philanthropists” are involved.
ARACY Nest's Wellbeing program is mentioned.
Think tanks, “Philanthropists”, investors are creating Social Impact Bonds on children’s “Wellness”- ARACY is involved with the Government Investment Dialogue for Australia's children. This is a government "philanthropist" collaboration to address children's wellbeing. The "philanthropists" INVEST through Social Impact Investing. They receive a profit return based on outcomes (Data). The spin is government no longer pays for inputs (i.e. paying for services). Philanthropists and investors pay for inputs and the government pays for outputs (i.e. they pay the “philanthropists” based on data- they pay more then if they funded the service directly).
What stands out to me:
Parents are no longer the ones who know their children best, instead they must be taught what constitutes their children's "Wellbeing".
It's in the best interests of children and parents if children are in childcare- not at home.
"Philanthropists" are creating a market off your children- focused on wellbeing- helped along by Treasurer Chalmers (Liberal governments have also supported the Social Impact Bond market).
Here is one example of the Nest Program in action:
I am not saying that there are never times where children and families need extra supports. What I am saying is I am not comfortable with a tracking device assessing children’s wellbeing. I am not comfortable with the OECD wellbeing metrics including clangers such as data on families need to be tracked to ascertain: if a family is dangerous, parent’s mental and physical health history, the quality of the parent’s relationship and the families’ wider networks. I am not comfortable with the lens through which welfare workers, the government and “philanthropists” assess and determine what constitutes a child’s well-being and how well a family is doing.
I am not comfortable with babies’ (in utero) to 3 years of age, being assessed through a mental health lens.
Or that children’s mandatory mental health screening is increasingly being discussed.
I am not comfortable with a system that shut down children’s schooling, created enormous pressure on families through lockdowns, made many people destitute, and now wants to make markets (through Social Impact Bonds) on those most affected.
During the lockdowns I worked with a number of welfare workers who gave testimonials on the harms caused to children and families due to the government covid measures. We wrote letters to government giving first hand information and asking how they risk assessed covid was more serious then their measures. Not one politician answered that question. I documented our efforts here:
I am not comfortable that children are increasingly ending up in the foster care system, due in large part to the flow on impact of government and their private partnership enacted policies, and that their answer is to create Social Impact Bond markets on these poor children.
Covid did not create this- government policies did:
The Keeping families together through COVID-19: the strengthened case for early intervention in the child protection and out-of-home care system in Victoria report calls for increased funding for early intervention in families and is funded by Macquarie Group Foundation who are involved in Social Impact Investing i.e. profit return. They partnered with Social Ventures, also involved in Social Impact Investing, and Berry Street, a community organisation who works with children and families.
I am not comfortable with the government determining what constitutes a child’s “wellbeing”, and that interventions can then occur. Interventions on children used to be confined (in theory) to “risk of serious harm”, i.e. sexual, physical abuse and neglect. This is a significant shift in focus.
I am not comfortable with a government who is working hand in hand with private corporations wanting untethered access in to families’ lives. It’s dangerous- and it’s imperative that families are aware of the larger picture. This is all going on with very little discussion.
Here is an example from Goldman Sachs on Social Impact Bonds. They are funding places in childcare. They then use a magical modelling system which shows that the places they funded kept children out of jail later in life, and therefore they saved the government the money they would have needed for locking children up. They then get their funding $$ back, plus interest- so more then if the government funded the places themselves. If it doesn't make sense- it’s because it’s ludicrous- it’s also corporate governance.
My first article on Chalmer’s Wellbeing budget, schools and the Social Impact Bond market is here:
What's with Treasurer Chalmer's "Wellbeing" obsession?
I’ve been a bit quiet lately as I am getting my head around the proposed amendments to the Queensland Education Act. Proposals such as: Thanks for reading Kate Mason! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. A year of kindergarten (3.5 years up) with a focus being Social Emotional Learning (SEL).
Great article, Kate. What maddens me is that we are, in many cases, dealing with the problems that governments have created. Is that a coincidence? Mental health has been handed to the pharmaceutical companies, pliable affirming therapists and the Headspace / Orygen stooges who, unsurprisingly, are also World Economic Forum (WEF) spivs.
Our local Federal member recently wrote to Blue Mountains youth telling them about expanded mental health spending. Is that something to celebrate? Is that something that in a healthy society you would think essential news for an 18 year old. Week by week some new opportunistic mental health facility opens in one of our mountains towns connected to and often run by Queer lobbyists.
Late entries in child predation market are the Social Impact Investing vultures. Here, it seems great promises are being made to them in the form of tax advantages coupled with an ever-broadening spectrum of government assisted social distress to prey upon.
What you might reasonably expect is that a social impact experiment MAY take place and then be incorporated into government practice once its efficacy had been proven. Yet, if the expanded market Chalmers is drooling over becomes a reality, there will be more incentive to identify problems with the aim of expanding investment opportunities.
Having attacked women's role in society as women through the transgender psyop, Kate tells us plans are now afoot to have the state take over their parental duties. This is being done on the basis of achieving gender equity. The destruction of the family is now well advanced but clearly our bureaucracies still believe they have some way to go.
Meanwhile, the New South Wales Government, chasing the examples set by Victoria and South Australia, want gender instruction and warnings against homophobia built into the curriculum for children Kindergarten to Year 6. What do you think this will do for our children's mental health? Promotion of gender fluidity appears to be a major government priority.
More importantly, what do you think it is meant to achieve. We are now surrounded by governments that are dangerous; to our health, mental and physical, and intent on betraying the public interest in the service of the neo-Malthusian monsters of the UN and WEF.
Has anyone else had enough?
It's all so disgusting, disturbing and dystopian ... to say nothing of all the virtue-signaling buzzword word-salad coming with assembly-line relentlessness from the great state-sanctioned kitchen.
"What stands out to me:
Parents are no longer the ones who know their children best, instead they must be taught what constitutes their children's "Wellbeing".
It's in the best interests of children and parents if children are in childcare- not at home..." — Spot on!
"The Nest is Australia's wellbeing framework for children and young people aged 0 to 24 years." — Translation: through their latest perfectly Orwellian-titled Nest program, Big Brother and Sister seek complete control of all humans during the entirety of the time their brains are forming.