The NZ Green Party is a far left socialist party first, a feminist party second and only then is it a green party. This is why they are mostly vocal about socialist policies rather than environmental ones.

The logic of their latest policy is difficult to follow in detail. As I understand it they simply want to take yet more money from tax players and give it to solo mothers. Now this is not so politically easy to sell anymore so they just extend it to all custodial mothers … err…. I mean families.

I raise all this because of how they describe a key part of this policy:
“We particularly support extending the in-work tax credit — which is really a child support payment — to all families with dependent children.”

— which is really a child support payment —

1. Well yes it is. In NZ there is no child support only child tax. What the Greens are pointing out is that this would just be an increase on the existing general tax on the population to give money to intact families and custodial parents. IN the NZ terminology this is child support. Other people would call it communism but I’ll let the reader decide.

2. By describing this as “really a child support payment” they are one step ahead of point one. Point one prompts you to ask why should the tax payer pay for other people’s life choices to fund what “is really a child support payment”? So the Greens/feminists say – oh quite right we should just increase child support.

What is remarkable about all this is that people usually don’t see the deep flaws in the rationale behind this idea at all.

“It is well known that New Zealand has become one of the most unequal societies in the OECD. This inequality impacts hugely on the lives of children, leaving about one in five living in poverty.”

Where is the supporting evidence?
I don’t know that at all.
However if it is true then obviously more of the same policies we have had for the last 20 years is not the answer.

Poverty in a developed country is not actual poverty like in the 3rd world. It is just a figure which shows which people are poor compared to the average. It doesn’t mean they suffer from poverty. It only means they are relatively poor. Poverty in the 3rd world is real poverty and is terrible.

All the leading studies have shown that it is not 1st world poverty that is the main factor in poor outcomes for NZ children. My father’s family were dirt poor and prior to his generation few people completed high school. They still reached good outcomes in life. In contemporary society 1st world poverty is not the main factor to a whole host of negative outcomes for children. Fatherlessness is the most significant factor followed by several others before money really matters.

Think about it. Everything a child needs is provided by our welfare state already in abundance. Children don’t get smacked up, neglected, wag school, become teenage parents, suicide, starve, etc because their parents don’t get enough handouts. How many beneficiaries do you know have a veggie garden? These kids wont have an iPod but that is not what is creating such negative outcomes.

Groups such as the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) are in fact a major impediment to addressing the real causes of negative outcomes for children. This is because their noise and political correctness prevents the real causes even getting mentioned.