230,000 kiwi kids deserve better - support our legal challenge in the Court of Appeal
STOP DISCRIMINATION AGAINST OUR POOREST CHILDREN

Court of Appeal Hearing Date Set: 28-29 May 2013

A number of CPAG executive members  will be attending the Court of Appeal hearing and we strongly urge all our Wellington based supporters to come along as well.   Packing the court out on both days will send a very strong message. 

Please join us as a mark of solidarity at the Court of Appeal, 54 Molesworth Street, Thorndon, Wellington.   

Learn more about the case:

In addition to our extensive research, education and advocacy work, CPAG has been challenging successive governments in court over legislation which unfairly discriminates against 230,000 of New Zealand’s poorest children, many of whom live in severe and persistent hardship.

Removing this discriminatory policy would be one practical and just way to address the appalling level of child poverty in our country.

The Working for Families package has been widely criticised for the speed at which it was passed into law and the lack of transparency around its development – there was no public consultation – no green paper, no white paper, no select committee process and it was passed into law in one day.  No account was taken of the 230,000 children who would miss out, despite New Zealand’s human rights commitments to protect all children.

Of specific concern is a child related family assistance payment that is given only to children of those who are in paid work of required hours and not on a benefit.  This means that many low income children – through no fault of their own – do not receive the same financial support as others. The extra $60+ per week these children miss out on would make a huge difference to their well-being.  A child’s needs don’t change just because the work status of their parent does.  Children of those reliant on a benefit have the right to the same support as other low-income children.    The payment in question is misleadingly named the ‘In Work Tax Credit’ (IWTC).  We argue that it discriminates against children on the basis of their parents’ work status, which is prohibited under the Human Rights Act. 

The Human Rights Review Tribunal found that the IWTC does constitute real and substantive discrimination. The High Court ruled it was discriminatory in part.   Both however did not issue a declaration of inconsistency with human rights legislation.  Rather they showed deference to government, ruling that this policy was justified in a free and democratic society.

Read the full article >
  • Send us your thoughts & feedback on this issue