P.S.A. warns on inequalities

Press, 3 December 1987, Page 37

P.S.A. warns on inequalities

PA Wellington Moves to reduce the State’s role in either funding, planning or providing social services will lead to greater class, race and gender inequalities, the P.S.A. has warned. The Public Service Association, in a submission to the Royal Commission on Social Policy, said that a robust state sector — responsible for planning, funding and providing social services — was essential if New Zealand were to have a fair and equitable society. It raised questions about the broadness of the commission’s terms of reference, noting that the terms allow scope for considerable disagreement. It said, for example, there was considerable debate possible around the- definition of a “fair distribution of wealth and resources”, and what constituted “genuine opportunity.”

The P.S.A. said it believed New Zealand did not meet these standards of a fair society and there was now growing inequality in terms of access to jobs, income and rights. This inequality was present on class, race and gender divisions. "In our view, the achievement of the standards of a fair society require a major overhaul of the present economic and social systems,” the submission said. The P.S.A. said that:

• Dignity and self determination were compromised by high levels of unemployment. • Maintenance of living standards was undermined by the current growth of the speculative, as opposed to the productive, economy. This development was fuelled by deregulation and the inequities of the tax system, including failure to introduce a capital gains tax. • Genuine opportunity for all people clearly did not exist. The gap between rich and poor had already widened and would continue with current public-sector policies.

Its submission expressed concern at - the commission's bias in the terms of reference toward use of policy instruments to achieve fairness and equity. Unions, and the P.S.A. in particular, believed standards of fairness and equity that arose out of, and depended on, Government policy programmes were “inherently vulnerable” to changes in political control and in the political philosophies of governing parties, it said.

A more robust and durable social and economic structure was one that was developed out of the rights that different individuals, groups and organisations had, and out of the processes that operated when decisions were made about the allocation of resources.