John Porter: Equality or Equity

In New Zealand we are so very, very fortunate to live in a democracy where we all have the same opportunity to exercise our right to elect the government in an election. So many around the world do not possess that privilege!

That’s, one person, one vote. EQUALITY!

Being afforded that licence, conveys a duty and responsibility to honour and protect the legacy of New Zealand’s democracy. Individuals participating in a democratic society are obliged to agree to the rule of law and the regulations that govern the society in which they live in.

In exchange, democracy bestows on the citizenry the protection of their democratic rights. Every single person has an equal opportunity to benefit. EQUALITY!

The odd thing about democracy and freedom is that those who enjoy it — as all of us in New Zealand do, fail to understand its importance. Democracy and freedom are like oxygen. You only realize its importance when you don’t have it!

Democracy is like an elevator. There are only two directions it can go. It can move upwards toward greater individual freedom or it can move downwards toward an authoritarian society that survives by limiting freedom of choice. 

 “Democracy is susceptible to being led astray by having scapegoats paraded in front of the electorate.” (Frank Herbert)

But equality in itself fashions a conflict whereby there are actually two classes of equality and they contradict each other. There is the equality of rights, which we strive to maintain and there is the equality of results. Which some are now endeavouring to assert are the most important.

Both are not able to coexist. We can’t have both.

Because our battle to protect our democracy and the equality of our citizens equality blurs and stumbles when the equality construct is skewed by maori sovereignty activists via their of transposing of equity in place of equality.

Equality of rights is a regime of individual liberty while equality of results requires regulation and regimentation and thus the suppression of certain liberties. People enjoying equal freedom will use freedom differently and the results are inevitably, going to be unequal.

A simple example is; Imagine giving 10 people $10,000 each on Friday; Chances are they will have unequal wealth by the following Friday.

The choices they made will change their results!

And this is where maori activist demands are now concentrated. Incorrect choices are now judged to be inequities requiring to be remedied by way of preferential treatment, financial assistance and a host of separatist legislation.

Equity not equality is their catch cry!

Māori are deemed to have been largely dispossessed of their lands and natural resources, faced the consequences of social and economic injustice, injustice that is claimed to be rooted in colonisation. Activists assert racism is still present and has helped to sustain colonisation over time. White advantage is maintained through intergenerational wealth, discretionary decision-making and majority rule.

There is no doubt many of the māori population inhabit our lower socioeconomic classes, unemployment rates are twice as high as the national average and life expectancy of Māori is some eight years shorter.

How much is systemic and how much is down to personal choices?

Labour, the Maori Party and the Greens, through their policies, pronouncements and coupled with the belief it will garner votes are all too quick to espouse the ideology that maori in New Zealand are being treated as second-rate citizens, are being relegated backwards, and are extremely concerned the government is repealing policies and programmes implemented for the exclusive benefit of māori.

All too often policies and programs that have confirmed and quantified positive outcomes that require politicians and public servants to work hard implementing them are found to be simply far too complicated.

Then we witness politicians take the easy way out and address real inequity by doing less “lifting up” and default to the easier “tearing down” option.

Equality of results or in their parlance, equity, can be easier achieved by confiscating wealth. This is the Green Party mantra and is now being tentatively advocated by Chippy as he sees his and the Labour Party’s ratings continue to slide.

Of course, in the process of creating equity a new economic elite is created! Politicians, civil servants with power and control, and, of course, those with the special interests in the “tearing down” favours!

In 2017 Ngai Tahu commissioned BERL to report on maori  inequity. The purpose of the report was – “To create an evidence base, quantifying some aspects of inequity in Aotearoa”.  

·        Equality with Pākehā is not the final destination but one of many navigation markers upon the journey to a world where all Māori can live and succeed as Māori.

·        Equity means fairness, in contrast to equality which simply means sameness.

·        Māori have had and continue to have unequal opportunities to access to education and better incomes.

·        Currently, one third of the working age Māori population have no qualifications.

·        Historically, recessions had a disproportionately negative impact on Māori compared to non-Māori due to where Māori have been concentrated in the labour market.

I say well done to Ngai Tahu for their efforts to lift their people’s lives but, again, what proportion of said inequity lies with personal choices?

You know, there is a huge incongruity in this equality/equity debate.

If the personal choices of recipients of inequity rebalancing measures are, to some degree, to blame, perversely, then the only real solution to this problem of inequality is to strip said beneficiaries of their rights to make choices!

Therefore, the unavoidable fact is that for equality of results, equity, to be achieved, freedom must be reduced! The goal of equity will require the use of undemocratic or repressive measures.

The result of this process is simply a crude equality at the lowest levels and for this personal freedom was sacrificed!

John Porter is a citizen, deeply concerned about the incremental loss of  democracy and the insidious promotion of separatism.