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


Gordon Campbell: On The Roe v Wade Aftermath


Now that the right of US women to abortion (formerly protected by Roe v Wade) has been abolished, the important role of medication-induced abortion will come even more to the fore. Already, research by the Guttmacher Institute reproductive rights centre shows that over half of US abortions are obtained by medication. According to the US Food and Drug Administration and the World Health Organisation, the abortion pills can be safely self-administered at home within the first ten weeks of pregnancy, rather than via a surgical procedure carried out in a bricks-and-mortar abortion clinic...
More>>



 
 


Winston Peters: Issues Judicial Review Proceedings

Winston Peters has issued judicial review proceedings against Speaker of the House the Rt Honourable Trevor Mallard, challenging Mr Mallard’s issue of a trespass warning against Mr Peters on 28 April 2022, which the Speaker then withdrew on 4 May 2022... More>>

Government: Electoral Changes Will Bring Greater Transparency For Voters

Changes to electoral law announced by Justice Minister Kiri Allan today aim to support participation in parliamentary elections, and improve public trust and confidence in New Zealand’s electoral system... More>>


Parliament: Grounds Fully Reopened

Parliament’s grounds have been fully reopened today at a ceremony and community event with mana whenua, members of the public, and representatives of Parliament... More>>


NZ Republic: Charles CHOGM Speech Green Light For Change
“Prince Charles had made it clear in his speech to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Rwanda today that even the Royal family think it’s time for change” said Lewis Holden, campaign chair of New Zealand Republic... More>>


National: Goodfellow To Retire As Party President
Peter Goodfellow today announced he will not seek re-election as President of the National Party at its Annual Conference. Mr Goodfellow will remain as a director on the board for one final term to assist in the transition... More>>

Police: Parliament Occupation Investigators Seek Public Assistance
Police investigating criminal activity on the final day of the occupation at Parliament grounds earlier this year are appealing for the public’s help to identify 15 people... More>>

 
 
 
 
 
 

LATEST HEADLINES

  • PARLIAMENT
  • POLITICS
  • REGIONAL
 
 

InfoPages News Channels