We Can’t Afford to Be This Dumb About Equity

1/1/2021

Somewhere along the way, the public policy advisory system got lazy.

It blurred the line between equality and equity, treated them like interchangeable buzzwords, and stopped thinking clearly.

The talk is access and outcomes in the Poneketanga, but they design services for sameness.

And while they argue over language, the system keeps failing the same people.

Let’s be blunt.

Equality is not the same as equity.

And pretending otherwise is costing us: in outcomes, in trust, in credibility and in lives.

Equality means treating everyone the same.

Same forms, same rules, same access.

It looks tidy on paper.

But in practice, it delivers wildly different results depending on who you are, where you live, and what barriers you face.

Equal treatment only works if the playing field is already level. It’s not. It never has been.

In Aotearoa, the public service was built by the Crown, for the Crown and for officials in service of a settler population.

It wasn’t designed for Māori.

It wasn’t designed for Pacific peoples, for disabled communities, for rainbow whānau, for rural towns, or for struggling workers.

So, when the state delivers “equal” services through that system, it just entrench the original design flaws.

Equity is about fairness.

It means understanding that people start from different places, and redesigning systems and public services so that everyone can participate, benefit and succeed.

It’s not about giving some groups more. It’s about finally giving everyone a fair shot.

We’ve known this for decades.

The data backs it. The Waitangi Tribunal has said it.

Whānau have lived it.

And yet our institutions still default to standardisation and call it fairness.

It’s not. It’s lazy. And in public policy, laziness isn’t neutral: it concretises the status quo and its dangerous.

Take health. Māori, Pacific, Indian and rural peoples have persistently worse outcomes: not because they’re “hard to reach,” but because the system is hard to trust, hard to navigate, and slow to change.

Equal access to a service that doesn’t work isn’t equity: it’s failure wrapped in process.

Take education. We still assess tamariki through models that don’t reflect their ways of learning. We tell families with kids with learning needs they need to “engage more,” when the real issue is that schools aren’t engaging them on terms that reflect their lives and priorities.

Same inputs, worse outcomes. That’s not equality: it’s institutional gaslighting.

Equity, by contrast, is about fairness. It means designing systems that respond to difference. It means asking:

– Who gets through the door?
– Who is missing from the decision-making table?
– Whose ways of being, knowing, and doing are visible in our systems?
– What supports and safeguards are needed for everyone to thrive?

And the kicker?

When communities push for equity: for co-design, for autonomy, for systems and services that reflect their needs, they are framed as asking for special treatment.

That framing is the problem. Those politicians are a problem.

The status quo is already tilted.

Equity isn’t extra. It’s correction.

The public sector loves tidy definitions and uniform delivery.

But sameness only looks fair when you ignore context. When you ignore history. When you ignore the structural arrangements that are designed to benefit the few.

And here’s the thing: equity is harder. It takes work.

It takes different thinking. It means listening, sharing power, and admitting when the current model doesn’t work. That’s why so many avoid it.

Because real equity isn’t a branding exercise: it’s a systems and services challenge.

But it’s also the only thing that works.

We cannot afford to be this dumb about equity anymore.

This country needs public institutions that are not just “equal” but actually effective.

Not just “available,” but trusted. Not just “open,” but designed for all.

Equity isn’t a kindness.

It’s not a vibe.

It’s a baseline.

It’s the standard any competent, effective public management system should be aiming for.

And if that sounds radical: maybe that says more about the system than the idea.

Time for the policy advisory system to grow up.