E kore te pātiki e hoki ki tōna puehu

01/04/2023

I have been watching the co-governance and free speech debate. There seems to be an undercurrent that the state should focus on “equality” and not “equity”, and all public services – delivered by the state or by a third party – should be at the same or similar quality standard for every “New Zealander”.

That line of enquiry is both shallow and unproductive, and it is also an argument the one-size-fits-all proponents lost a decade ago. That said, it is not unusual to see bad-faith flounders return to their dust.

I mean, most markets provide people with choices, with different mixes of quality and price. People can choose properly between Holdens, Fords, BMWs and many other brands of motor vehicles. So why can’t people choose public services that meet their needs?

Also, those who want equality and sameness of service impose significant costs on others; for instance:

• They appear to argue for excessive conformity. This impedes the responsiveness of front-line delivery and providers to changes in demand. It also reduces innovation and rewards public services to be institutionally self-interested without a care for what works for users. This really matters – especially in monopolies.
• They don’t want any incentives for providers to develop and protect their reputations. Under a one-size-fits-all model, services provided by poorly performing organisations must be recognised as equal to similar to services offered by other providers. Conformity reduces the incentives for poorly performing services to maintain or improve standards.
• They want to impose compliance costs on providers by forcing them to train and deliver to a one-size-fits-all model. The indirect costs may be more considerable. For example, they don’t think about the costs of delays, inappropriate services or public services designed merely to satisfy the majority view. It is, in essence, public services for the majority – not the public. The compliance and implementation costs of one-size-fits-service delivery are substantial. Ignore the arguments that say it will be efficient.
• It also discourages new entrants. For example, we can already see attempts by some professions to control entry into their profession through the setting of very narrow standards. The interests of those who deliver mainstream services get rewarded by moving public service delivery to their one-size-fits generic standard. In contrast, those who offer alternatives that effectively meet the needs of people will not be rewarded. These conflicting interests will pressure professional regulatory authorities to a narrow self-interest at the expense of the community and public interest.

My advice: listen to the equality debate with very open ears. They are rehashing arguments they lost a decade ago – for a good reason. Never trust a flounder that keeps returning to its dust.