A population policy (not family policy)- which of course in itself implies that one is needed. The overall tone is disturbingly collectivist and Leninist in outlook. It harks of course to the nonsense that is Malthus. Statements like "Ministry of the Environment current modelling estimates put our carrying capacity at 5.7 million" imply that somehow if that population is above that "something bad will happen". One of the principles is "New Zealand's population should not exceed the ecological carrying capacity of the country".
What does that mean? Who does this "carrying"? Besides which, consider the central planning behind this principle and the whole policy.
It continues... "Uneven regional distribution of the population will be remedied through regional development measures" Yes, vee cannot have zee uneven population diztribution can we comrades? No. It vill be REMEDIED! Who distributes this population? Actually it is individual decisions - people choose to live where they want. It's called freedom you planning zealots. What the hell is a "regional development measure" other than perhaps:
- Laws banning development where people want to live?
- Subsidies bribing people to develop where they don't want to live?
- Taxes discouraging people from living where they do want to live?
You'd think property prices would be a clue, but no, the authoritarian planning fetishists don't believe that's enough.
It continues "Informed decisions about family size and spacing will be made by the parents concerned" Will they?? You see I would have thought that when Keith Locke says "it would be quite wrong to take from this that we are asking parents to have less kids" that he's wrong.
Read it yourself.
Of course i'd make one simple point - if you care so much about the size of families and people breeding, why they hell do you want to increase subsidies for people who do breed?
Let parents make their own decisions and, amazingly, pay for them.
Either your stupid, or you have some fetish for centrally planning and managing everything, control freaks that you are. You LIKE people being dependent on the state - which you think is some proxy parent or version of society. You LIKE making people pay to your beloved leviathan state, telling people how to live their lives, how best to live, how to meet with the plans of "society".
It's about time this benevolent, loving the trees nonsense was revealed for what it is, a barely shrouded desire to grow a big Nanny State that has policies on absolutely everything.
It ISN'T based on results, it ISN'T based on empirical evidence, it ISN'T based on science, it ISN'T based on anything beyond an ideological fervour to control.
It is statism through and through.
New Zealand doesn't need a population policy, it doesn't need you telling families how to live their lives when you want to force GOOD families to pay more taxes to pay welfare to all families, including abusive, negligent, lazy and even criminal ones. You treat everyone the same, except you want to tax the successful and control them, and pay more money to the least successful, the ones that aren't responsible. You want the state to reward the bad, and penalise the good.
Green policy promotes violence - but it is the violence of the state regulating, taxing, compelling and threatening. It promotes state control and authoritarianism, despite proclaiming peace and justice. It is, basically, a bunch of do-gooding control freaks in love with the idea of pushing people around with the state, instead of convincing people to make different choices, voluntarily, and tolerating when they don't.
The Green Party is, undoubtedly, the party of an intrusive invasive and disturbingly ubiquitous Nanny State.