Gordon Campbell | Parliament TV | Parliament Today | News Video | Crime | Employers | Housing | Immigration | Legal | Local Govt. | Maori | Welfare | Unions | Youth | Search

 

Why the CPAG Should Lose in Court

Why the CPAG Should Lose in Court

The Child Poverty Action Group is taking the government to court for discriminating against the children of beneficiaries. They want the existing child tax credit, soon to be replaced by the new in-work payment, to be extended to families on benefits - not just low income families who work.

The problem is, the in-work payment is intended as a reward for working.

A working parent might equally claim they were being discriminated against by having their "reward" granted to others who didn't earn it.

In which case, why not remove all discrimination? That is, all children, regardless of the source or level of their parents income, must be treated the same.

That's Green policy - a universal benefit for children, which would include redistribution of income from not so wealthy single people to wealthy Mums and Dads.

Or, it could be argued, provide no assistance at all. Both would solve the problem of discrimination but there is, understandably, little support for either. Most people want fairness and most people care about kids.

And the CPAG has no compunction in exploiting the second sentiment for all its worth.

Its submission to the Human Rights Commission repeatedly refers to the "best interests of the child" and New Zealand's collective obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

But pause for a moment and consider; did the beneficiary put the best interests of their child (or potential offspring) first when; getting pregnant outside of a stable relationship; giving birth to a child they could not support, sometimes more than once; leaving a financially and emotionally supportive partner for trivial reasons; deciding that staying home was better than working, even if WINZ held the purse-strings?



(It goes without saying that some beneficiaries are on welfare for genuine reasons but they tend not to remain there long. They are not the "life-stylers".)

You see, I question the motives of the CPAG. They say children of beneficiaries are suffering material deprivation. But that is only part of the picture. A New Zealand study conducted a couple of years back clearly showed that children from comparably 'poor' families had worse outcomes when the parent's source of income was a benefit.

The children from poor working families are better off because they live in homes where there is routine, structure, better budgeting skills, fewer self-destructive behaviours and sometimes, there is even a father in the picture.

So, and I am sure the counsel for government will put this argument, it is in the best interests of the child, on balance, to have at least one working parent. That is taken into account with the in-work payment.

To discourage a child's parent from working or being part of a mutually supportive partnership would be to discriminate against that child. To "reward" all parents equally (it is the parent who receives the benefit payment and there is no guarantee it reaches the child anyway) will do exactly that.

But the CPAG don't understand that enforced equality does not guarantee equality of outcomes. Socialists don't, despite an abundance of grim evidence to the contrary. I wish the government well in their attempts to fight this ill-advised campaign.

Lindsay Mitchell
Petitioner for a Parliamentary review of the DPB

ENDS

© Scoop Media

 
 
 
Parliament Headlines | Politics Headlines | Regional Headlines

Pike River: Families Welcome Opening Of Drift

The group representing 29 of the Pike River Families - the Pike River Family Reference Group - has welcomed the unsealing of the mine at a private family event this morning...

“Watching those doors open and seeing the light enter that dark tunnel for the first time in years was incredibly emotional. We’ve known we are going back in for a year now, today it feels like it.

“This is the start of a journey that will end with truth and justice.” More>>

 

Shaw First Reading Speech: Climate Change Response Bill

Madam Speaker, today we begin the task of amending the Climate Change Response Act [2002], to fulfil the commitment that we have made, as a country, to limit global warming to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. More>>

ALSO:

Report Released: Harmful Behaviour In Parliamentary Workplace

Rt Hon Trevor Mallard today released a report containing the findings and recommendations of the independent external review into harmful behaviour within the parliamentary workplace. More>>

ALSO:

Housing: More Unsold Kiwibuild Houses Bought By Govt

The Crown underwrite for unsold Kiwibuild homes has been triggered for a second time. Now lack of sales in Mike Greer's development in Canterbury and Auckland means the government has had to buy back seven more homes. More>>

ALSO:

camouflageGordon Campbell: Why We Shouldn’t Genuflect To Security

Reportedly most (and possibly all) of the Royal Commission investigation into the Christchurch mosque shootings will be closed to the general public and to the media… More>>

PM's Post-Cab: Pike, Bullying, Carbon...

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern began her post-cabinet press conference by announcing that the zero carbon bill would have its first reading the Parliament this week. More>>

Budget Announcements: Family And Sexual Violence Response

The family and sexual violence package, which sits across eight portfolios, is the result of the first ever joint Budget bid from multiple government departments. More>>

ALSO:

Deals, Sanctions, Consultation: National's Foreign Policy Plan

“National will prioritise our relationship with the United States.. National will also further the strong and dynamic economic relationship with China." More>>

ALSO:

 
 
 
 
 

LATEST HEADLINES

  • PARLIAMENT
  • POLITICS
  • REGIONAL
 
 

InfoPages News Channels