Maxim Institute - real issues - No 245

Maxim Institute - real issues - No 245 22 March 2007

www.maxim.org.nz

'New Zealand's spending binge' A 'trade founded in iniquity' UK universities to engineer equal outcomes? Two tiers of school qualifications

IN THE NEWS

Sexual orientation regulations cause controversy

'NEW ZEALAND'S SPENDING BINGE'

Generally when we pay more for something, we expect to get a better return -- higher quality, more efficiency or a more desirable outcome. A new report from the Centre for Independent Studies suggests that government spending is not obeying this rule. We are spending more, and we are getting little improvement in return.

The report finds that government spending is now almost $20 billion per year higher than in 2000, an increase of 32 percent, and total New Zealand public spending is now at 40 percent of GDP, higher than in many other OECD nations.

The report finds that 72 percent of government spending is on health, education, welfare and superannuation, yet improvement in many key areas such as life expectancy, infant mortality, the suicide rate and economic hardship, has been only negligible. In fact, the number of individuals in 'severe hardship' has increased, as has violent crime. So why hasn't all this extra spending translated into better outcomes?

One major reason, according to the report, is the problem of 'middle class welfare' or 'churning' tax. As spending and public services increase, more of their benefits go to those who funded them in the first place. Obviously, recycling money does not fix social problems. The Working for Families scheme is a good example of tax 'churn,' with tax credits even available to families that are on six figure incomes and paying the top rate of income tax.

There are other reasons why increased spending is not a magic bullet. Public spending is usually remote from the people it serves. Because it is centrally-directed, it reflects central priorities. It is not tailored to individuals and their particular situations, and this diminishes its effectiveness. High levels of government spending also tend to reduce accountability and responsibility; there is less incentive for people to make good choices if government coffers will bear the cost of them.

Of course we need a social safety net for those in need, but simply ramping up public spending does not bring automatic benefits. Many politicians are fond of measuring success in terms of increased government spending and initiatives. The report suggests that the time has come for a debate about what government should do, and what the people should do for themselves. New Zealand needs to get this debate rolling, and reduce its reliance on government spending.

Read the report New Zealand's Spending Binge

Write to the editor

A 'TRADE FOUNDED IN INIQUITY'

This Sunday marks the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the African slave trade in the British Empire. The Slave Trade Act received the Royal Assent on 25 March 1807, signalling a crucial breakthrough in the fight against slavery. It prohibited the taking of new slaves, encouraged the suppression of the trade, and began Britain's long and honourable record of struggle against the traffic in human flesh.

As we celebrate an historic step forward for human dignity, and recall the chequered nature of that history, it is right that we remember those who fought so hard against the grain and the economic interest of their time to persuade public opinion, and finally Parliament, that slavery was an affront to the national conscience and should not continue.

William Wilberforce, MP for Hull and then Yorkshire, raised the issue again and again, beginning in 1789 and continuing until leaving Parliament in 1824, always calling for the suppression of slavery, the emancipation of slaves, and the protection of Africa. He persisted, despite strong opposition. Joined by allies from across the political spectrum, including Charles James Fox, William Pitt the Younger and Lord Grenville, Wilberforce worked to change public opinion, drawing in Evangelicals, Quakers, Utilitarians, former slave traders and anyone else who would listen.

The moral example provided by the abolitionists inspires us today, as the struggle continues for the recognition of basic human dignity around the world. Campaigns such as Stop the Traffik continue the fight against human trafficking and modern slavery, drawing upon the legacy of their forebears. We continue to honour their memories as the fight that they began -- for dignity, decency and justice -- continues.

Read accounts of Wilberforce's 1789 Abolition Speech

Read about the fight to stop modern slavery and human trafficking

Write to the editor

UK UNIVERSITIES TO ENGINEER EQUAL OUTCOMES?

Universities in the UK are being encouraged to consider the backgrounds of applicants, including their parents, in an attempt by the Government to increase the number of students from low socio-economic groups pursuing higher education.

The Universities and Colleges Admission Service (UCAS) has announced that applicants will be asked to make additional information available during the selection process, including their parents' occupations, ethnicity, and whether or not either parent ever attended university.

The government initiative, Widening Participation in Higher Education, states that its 'vision is to narrow social class gaps in educational achievement, to create a society with equality of economic and social opportunity.' Equality of opportunity is an important part of a fair society, but seeking to engineer equal outcomes in educational achievement is not equivalent to giving everyone the same platform from which to start. In fact, it depends upon discrimination and undermines incentives to work hard. It even risks collapsing our basic understanding of merit and desert, and in the process, makes tertiary education out to be a right. It is difficult to see the relevance of requesting such information unless university selection panels intend to use it to actively prefer applicants.

There are fears that capable applicants will be turned down because of their family background. These fears are not without foundation, as the government has in the past set 'aspirational targets' for universities, and offered funding dependent upon more students being selected from state schools and working-class groups.

This new initiative claims to provide equal opportunity, but would do precisely the opposite. True equality of opportunity would see each student chosen according to their individual academic merit, regardless of their social, ethnic or parental background and not because of it.

Read the UCAS press release

Read the Department for Education and Skills initiative: Widening Participation in Higher Education

Write to the editor

TWO TIERS OF SCHOOL QUALIFICATIONS

With the release of the 2006 NCEA results, a great deal of attention has focused on schools offering alternatives to the NCEA. Avondale and St Cuthbert's Colleges, along with Kelston Boys' High, have publicly stated they are interested in offering the Cambridge A-Level qualification as an option for parents. They join 45 other schools around New Zealand that already offer an alternative qualification to the NCEA.

Confidence in the NCEA has been gradually undermined since its introduction in 2002 to the point where schools feel it is necessary to offer parents and pupils international qualifications like Cambridge or the International Baccalaureate.

The result is an emerging two-tiered qualification structure in secondary schools, as schools must provide the opportunity for pupils to sit a 'nationally approved qualification.' But NZQA's definition of a nationally approved qualification is nothing short of ideological dogmatism, since nationally approved qualifications must use standards-based assessment, which in effect limits the options to the NCEA. Consequently, because of the rules there is no financial support for schools wishing to offer an alternative to the NCEA. These constraints leave the NCEA as the only option open to schools unless they can afford to run parallel qualifications to give parents a choice.

NCEA may be suitable for some pupils, but not for others. If schools consider another assessment system to be more appropriate for their pupils, they should have the freedom to offer that system. They should not have to face the extra financial burden imposed by the requirement to offer a nationally approved qualification.

Write to the editor

IN THE NEWS

SEXUAL ORIENTATION REGULATIONS CAUSE CONTROVERSY

An attempt to halt the passage of the British Sexual Orientation Regulations has failed in the House of Lords. An amendment by Conservative peer Baroness O'Cathain which would have scrapped the regulations, has failed 168-122. The regulations, which have already been approved by the House of Commons, seek to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the provision of goods, services and facilities. The regulations are controversial because the exemption on the grounds of religion does not apply to religious providers of publicly funded services, such as the Catholic adoption agency. This means such agencies could be forced to place children with same-sex couples, contrary to the teaching of the Church, instead of, as at present, referring them to another agency. Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor, Archbishop of Westminster, has threatened to close the Catholic adoption agency rather than be forced to go against Church teaching.

Faith groups, including the Catholic Church in England and Wales, and the Church of England, have urged that liberties of conscience should be protected. The debate throws into sharp relief the increasing conflict of rights: between the desire for non-discrimination and affirmation on the one hand, and the liberties of religious conscience. The regulations come into effect in England, Scotland and Wales on 30 April.

TALKING POINT

'As soon as ever I had arrived thus far in my investigation of the slave trade, I confess to you sir, so enormous, so dreadful, so irremediable did its wickedness appear that my own mind was completely made up for the abolition. A trade founded in iniquity, and carried on as this was, must be abolished, let the policy be what it might, let the consequences be what they would, I from this time determined that I would never rest till I had effected its abolition.'

William Wilberforce, Abolition Speech, 1789

A registered charitable trust, funded by donations, Maxim Institute values your interest and support.

ENDS

© Scoop Media