Building a Responsible Society

June 1998

Lecture 1
The Rt. Hon. Jenny Shipley
Prime Minister
June 9, 1998

The Challenge

You have posed a series of challenging questions about what it takes to 'Build a Responsible Society.'

About six weeks ago I was invited to deliver an equally challenging speech in another forum. I began by saying that I'd had my hair cut and rather than seeking advice from my officials on what I should say I chose to give a candid view developed at the ha irdressers. I've had my hair cut again … and so this is my personal view on the vexed question of how you build a responsible society, rather than Government policy.

The Responsible Society

From my point of view there are three things that we need to explore. Firstly, a responsible society knows who is present. It also knows what its human capacity is. It seriously analyses what resources are available. It understands fully what the need s of the majority are but it also understands the needs of the minority. It seeks to understand what values and aspirations the majority and the minority share in common but it is also realistic and pragmatic about the differences. A responsible society will allow both the majority and the minority to express their views fully, for while there may be differences there need not necessarily be conflict. We must, if we seek to be responsible, work out how to accommodate both groups, nurture diversity and recognise differences, rather than seek to bury or dismiss them. In this, we in New Zealand can give ourselves a pat on the back because we are making some progress, but I believe there is still some way to go.

Secondly, to be a responsible society we have to be prepared to defend strongly the freedom to choose how to think, act and interact. And it seems to me that each of us needs to be prepared to debate what personal benefit we are getting from that free dom but also what mutual benefit we get. While I often hear people argue they want freedom for their own private benefit, they can be totally unwilling to acknowledge that there are very significant mutual benefits of freedom.

We face the enormous challenge of ensuring our personal freedom does not impinge on the rights and freedom of others in our society.

That leads to the third point I would make. In my opinion, a responsible democratic society will cherish freedom but it will also be prepared to define the boundaries around that free space. These boundaries include orderliness and fairness. They also include justice and the law, and they are two different things in my experience as a woman, and also as a woman politician. I also see the concepts of inclusiveness, participation and rights as boundary issues. Because in my opinion, and my experience , freedom cannot be real either personally or collectively unless we understand where those boundaries are, in the view of the majority.

Because democracy cannot exist without consensus about respect for boundaries such as law and human rights and unl ess those boundaries are understood clearly and adhered to by the majority, freedom is seriously undermined.

The Tensions

And so as I look back on my personal life and my political experience, these emerge as the tensions that we need to understand in order to seriously be able to answer the question "what is a responsible society?". We've got to test those ideas. I certai nly personally support the concept of public debate on these ideas, from which public understanding and public policy will emerge. They are two different things in my opinion. Because we can't hope to have a responsible society in New Zealand, that meet s our human needs, if we leave the delivery of it up to the government of the day.

In summary, it seems to me a responsible society has to be built firmly on the concept that we are a free democracy, where the majority experience freedom in a genuine and real way, while respecting both the rights and opportunities of others. I come b ack again to the need for people collectively to share the responsibility of debating and finding consensus on where the boundaries are.

We need to debate these issues because we've probably been through two or three decades in New Zealand where we've extensively explored the concept of rights and we've almost completely ignored the issue of responsibility. I personally don't believe y ou can genuinely enjoy rights, unless you fully understand how they intersect with both personal and community responsibility. Whether New Zealand will really know itself and set a pace for itself in the next century will depend on the degree to which th e public are prepared to advance this debate.

The Code

It is in that context that I want to comment on the response when the Government raised the question of a code of family and social responsibility. I know a number of people publicly asked "why is she asking us this question." I found that statement in itself an interesting one. It isn't "she", it is the Coalition Government that has decided that this is an issue that New Zealand must address. It strikes me as interesting that people ask why the question is being asked because it seems to me they are saying the only agency responsible for social responsibility is the Government. I don't share that view, as it seems to me that social responsibility rests on a much broader base. One of the huge benefits is that the very fact that the question was ask ed has led to significant public debate. That debate is providing reference points for this and future governments as to what the public of New Zealand wants, needs or is prepared to tolerate. So I am firmly of the view that we must ask questions, and I would argue very strongly that a courageous society, that wants to have control of where it is and where it is going, should be willing to participate in answering. While we will not necessarily agree on answers, one of the benefits of the debate is tha t in the homes of New Zealanders people are thinking "I wonder where my kids are today?", "I wonder how my Mother is?", "I wonder if I know who that person is that's moved into the street recently?", and "have I made sufficient personal effort to reach ou t a hand or to say hello to them?"

Inclusion is not the exclusive responsibility of Government provision. Inclusion is a much broader concept, of which public provision is just one part of the whole. The discussion, prompted by questions about a code, is a significant benefit and as w e get the results back we will understand to what extent the public were interested in participating in that process. In August we expect both the first analysis of the Code consultation to be available.

In relation to the Code, I want to comment on the UMR insight poll that did ask some of the questions that the Code posed in their normal statistical survey.

When asked whether the Code of Social Responsibility was a good idea or a bad idea, 34 per cent said it was a good idea and 43 per cent said it was a bad idea. When asked whether beneficiaries who repeatedly seek emergency income should be made to have free budget advice, 83 per cent said yes and 14 per cent said no. On the question of whether courts should have the power to make parents of children who break t he law set up a curfew or attend parenting courses, 81 per cent said yes and 15 per cent said no.

The proposal that up-to-date immunisation for children should be required for entry to early childhood education and services was supported by 71 per cent and opposed by 23 per cent. Lowering the age at which juveniles can be prosecuted for crimes fro m 13 years to 10 years was supported by 58 per cent and opposed by 38 per cent. And when asked whether benefit payments should be cut to parents who do not ensure their children go to school, 50 per cent said yes and 43 per cent said no.

The reason I give you these figures is because I think they confirm one of the arguments I have tried to put forward—that people don't want a heavy authoritarian hand laid over the whole of New Zealand society, but they do want boundaries defined. The y want clear spaces in which their freedom can be exercised and maintained, but the answers to these five code questions indicate that they accept certain understandings about boundaries being necessary for a cohesive and orderly society. We could probab ly think amongst ourselves of another 100 questions about boundaries and I suspect that it wouldn't be difficult to get a majority of New Zealanders to express an opinion on those critical questions.

I wouldn't mind betting that one of the results of the Code's survey is that a lot of people do not want pervasive directives across the whole of society, but they do want more consultation and input into how the boundaries are defined.

I would caution that one of the things we will have to be very careful of is to not allow the tyranny of the majority to be let loose on this issue. I say that because there are opportunities for the majority of people, who are not affected, to freely express a view about how minorities should be treated and we will in public policy terms have to be wary about that.

Roles

In your pamphlet you posed the question "What role is it that each New Zealander, the institutions, the corporations and the government have in trying to build a responsible society in our nation?". I want to briefly touch on each of these.

To answer these questions effectively New Zealanders must accept in our personal roles and in our family and whanau roles that there are values, such as what is right and what is wrong, that are required of each of us as individuals. Government can de fine the extremes but cannot do it all. It seems to me that our understanding of some basic principles and values may not be as good as we may have thought historically. There needs to be a rediscovery and a re-ownership amongst every one of us as to wh at we really understand the difference between right and wrong to be, in every aspect of our lives. New Zealanders also need to have a strong sense of who they are, and I bring in here all of the issues of the interests of the minority groups, the issues of cultural diversity. We cannot be who we can potentially be unless we both acknowledge and cherish the virtues and the attributes that make us different. And until we get past being uncomfortable to the point of both owning and resolving historic iss ues, we limit our society's chances.

Beliefs

The next issue for individuals is what they believe in. Now obviously many of you know that I have a personal belief in spirituality and for me that is personally critically important. I'm not going to dictate, or direct, or even have a view on what peop le should believe and I know this incenses some people in the Church when I say this. However if you were to line up two ten year olds and one of them had a strong set of beliefs and the other was devoid of beliefs, whether they are religious, spiritual or cultural beliefs, I know which would have a better chance at life. It seems to me that if we keep ignoring this element of the human experience we just destroy our ability to function effectively.

I am continually frustrated by the fact that the minute I raise this question, there are some who will see that this is Shipley preaching religion again, when what I am saying is that the factor that makes human beings different is the spiritual and cu ltural dimension of who we are. Unless we recognise that, value it, and nurture it, we are as a society less than we can be. For me as Prime Minister, but also as an individual and as a mother of two children I want to see New Zealanders be the best the y can be. I don't think we can be responsible individually or collectively, unless we understand the need to believe in something. On the issue of institutions, this is a huge challenge. The church, schools, the Government, the justice system, are all institutional influences on our nation. It seems to me that each institution does help lead debate both from a historical perspectiv e and in the way in which it interprets its role in a contemporary society. These institutions have got to have a view on things. The tension for them is whether their view is seen as valuable and relevant. Institutions cannot expect to be pillars of s ociety for historical reasons alone. Institutions that want to be seriously relevant in terms of influencing a responsible society have to be able to attract public support, recognition and respect by the application of their influence in a relevant and c ontemporary way. As an active member of a Church, I understand that this is an ongoing challenge. I think that the judiciary and others may well, if they are honest, acknowledge that this is something that it's easy to speak about but much harder to brin g to life.

Corporations

Turning to the role of the corporations. Some, if they were here, would argue the only role for corporations is to serve their shareholders. I would argue that corporations must serve all their stakeholders of whom shareholders are one group, employees a re another, and there may be others. The culture of a modern corporation is something that's worthy of public debate, as are the roles that corporations can take in terms of environmental, social and cultural contributions to society. There is a huge dif ference between a corporate that as a matter of course would not dream of discharging effluent because they see it as a public health risk and one who regards it as an issue of corporate performance. In contributing to something there are some who nurtur e the arts as a matter of principle. And so in asking how corporations can foster a responsible society I think there is a challenging discussion to be had on whether you want to stand up and say "I'm only serving my shareholder" as opposed to "I am seek ing to take a wider view."

Government

Moving on to government, obviously it is crucial in terms of contributing to a responsible society. For my part, at the risk of simplifying this, I think the issue for Government is the tension of trying to deliver equal opportunity for people to blossom and succeed. There are two tricky questions that have to be answered if we are to genuinely deliver equal opportunity. The first is how do you actually decide for every dollar that is earned how much you should take to contribute to the whole, as opposed to how much you leave with the individual.

It's not only an arbitrary argument about tax rates, it is actually a much broader and more complex question of whether you serve the majority better by collecting more and spending it as a whole, or leaving a greater proportion with individuals and al lowing them to spend it to create work and opportunities. Politically that is one of the greatest unanswered debates and I'm not sure there is a set answer. It will be a matter of debate amongst political parties that you will hear much more about. But I don't think it's meritorious or virtuous to argue more or less tax unless you're prepared to argue the consequence of more or less tax, in terms of greater or lesser expenditure.

The second tricky question is related to that. Does equal opportunity mean universal provision, or do we accept that some, being given an equal opportunity, will do better than others and therefore don't require the same level of support from the coll ective whole? I hear people arguing that universality is required to build a responsible society but I find that morally unsustainable.

If I've been given equal opportunity and for whatever reason—birth, skills, experience or capacity to earn—I finish up with more than some, I don't see that it's morally justifiable to argue that those who have less should pay a greater proportion in o rder for me to be able to participate universally. I'm not saying it's an "either/or" because it isn't. The argument is not as simple as "let's be totally targeted", "let's be totally universal". The argument is: where does the balance lie? What should we all collectively receive and when and how should we take a different view? If you were to ask me in the last ten years what has been the most frustrating issue, politically it is the dishonesty around this last question. I hear people virtuously arg uing universality and the only word I can use to describe it, is greed. And I have seen major institutions like the Church stay silent when these matters have been debated.

So asking me as an individual but also as Prime Minister to answer this question, I say it can only be answered if there is a high degree of honesty around these issues of allocation of resources and equal opportunity. I am realistic enough to know tha t the parable of the talents demonstrated that if you give everyone the same thing, the outcome will be different and we should not pretend it is otherwise. If that is true we must then debate how the allocation can honestly and genuinely be made in a mo dern society.

For the answer to how our society is built we must go back to the history of who we are, our traditions and our culture. Adding to that is the issue of performance. No one owes New Zealand or New Zealanders a break or success. We must find some conse nsus amongst ourselves as to how we earn success and value and share the fruits of that success. In politics that is what the debate is about and I look forward to being part of that political discussion.

There is also a role for academics, supporters, opponents, protesters and other observers, in crafting what we mean by a responsible society, because it cannot and should not be left to politicians or the Government of the day. Unless we all participa te in this, inevitably we will disappoint each other.

As an observation over a decade in politics, if I were to be given a dollar for every time a person as come to me describing a problem, I would be rich. If I were to be given a dollar for everytime a person had identified a problem and identified a so lution that would work, I would be poor. The point is that there are many who identify what's wrong, and that's not a bad thing in itself, because the analysis of what disturbs us is critical. However at the desk at which I sit I don't have the choice of only talking about what is wrong. I have not only the responsibility but the privilege of trying to then decide what might help to fix it and I don't claim to get it right all the time. So I guess I'm trying to be fairly direct and say in my experien ce it is relatively rare to find people who will participate in finding a solution. I hope to be inundated with both academics and others who are willing to genuinely participate in public policy solutions, rather than simply analyse the problems.

The Media

I can't leave the media out. A responsible society relies on the media because a responsible society sees itself as it is, not as a few perceive it to be. One of the things that distresses me most as a leader is that people keep stating things as they ar e not, rather than as they are. I don't ask the media to do anything other than to tell the truth but in doing so I plead with them to put the issue in context. Let's deal with the Rewa case. I was with my Mother as we watched the reports of the Rewa ca se on the final night after his conviction. She asked me why they keep talking about the terrible things he did even after he had been convicted. She argued that they did it for reasons other than public information or knowledge and from her experience as an older New Zealand woman not only did it create fear, but she argued that it disproportionately described a risk that may not exist. I make that observation because we keep allowing the media to leave every woman in this Church with the impression t hat if we walk out the door by ourselves we might be raped by a Rewa. Now that's just not true. While he is an absolute menace to society, the vast majority of New Zealand men would never dream of treating women like that. I think it's critical if we ar e to be a healthy and responsible society that we demand that the extraordinary and the exceptional is stated in the context of the whole, honest picture of what New Zealand is today.

Social Policy

Social policy is as much about the instincts of mothers in New Zealand today as it is about what I will decide in the next twelve months at my desk. In terms of potential impact and outcome, I suspect the instincts and influences of New Zealand mothers t oday will have a greater impact on the society of tomorrow. I wonder how much we nurture those instincts and influences of today's mothers in terms of the experiences and values and support that extended family and society wraps around those individuals.

Building societies that work requires everyone, whether it's the Prime Minister or the institutions or the individuals, to think of three things:

What each of us in our personal or our official roles can contribute how we use our human resources to the best capacity, in all dimensions and how we identify and allocate the financial resources that are available.

These three things are the crucial determinants of the New Zealand of today and the New Zealand of tomorrow.

Inclusive Society

I want to end on a positive note. We are a more inclusive society than most. We've just had Canadians here observing the cultural progress of New Zealand's settlement of historic claims. The Canadian experts observed that in cultural relationship terms, New Zealand was further ahead than the Canadian people, in general and in the way in which they treat minority groups. In my opinion our human rights legislation is standing New Zealand in good stead as it deals with excesses and creates the freedom for all New Zealanders to explore and experience equal opportunity. We are doing well internationally by most measures.

We can always do more because we should always seek to improve and enhance the society that we are and that we can be.

The questions you ask are complex. It is important that every New Zealander see that they can contribute to building a responsible and inclusive society. I think we're well on the way but there's still much to be done. Please don't ask me or others in Government to do it alone.

We do not have the capacity nor should we carry the responsibility alone. The responsibility rests with us all.

[This is an edited transcript, subheadings were added by the Editor.]

The Lectures

[Lecture 2] Rt. Hon. Helen Clark
[Lecture 3] Prof. Jonathan Boston
[Lecture 4] Prof. Lloyd Geering
Return to SATRS Home Page