Justice the yardstick, not equality

Equality is seen as a cornerstone of Australian society. In fact the egalitarian attitude is probably more sacrosanct than the Hills hoist. But is the sacred cow of a level playing field for all people regardless of colour, creed or race actually the best way to make people equal? I argue not. In fact, I argue further that justified discrimination is needed in some situations to actually bring about equality for all.

The Pauline Hanson heresy strongly emphasises the notion that all Australians should be treated equally and special treatment should not be given to minorities such as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. But to treat such groups in our society as equal ignores blatant situations of inequality and perpetuates that inequality.

A simplistic approach to equality fails to understand that equality must be delivered with justice if it is to be a reality for some in our society. Aristotle puts it very succinctly when he says "There is nothing so unequal as the equal treatment of unequals".

Disadvantaged people do in fact need some positive discrimination if they are to become equal within society. A positive discrimination is needed that takes advantage of policies of equal opportunities and favours unequally some people to make all more equal.

In the sphere of education it is particularly crucial that policies are developed to give a fair start to those who have not done too well in the lottery of life’s chances. Health care is another area that needs special attention to ensure the current push towards private sector health provision does not exclude some groups in our society from receiving the best possible health care. A centrepiece of public policy must be the maintenance of a high standard in both the public health and the public education sector.

There are other sectors where projects of positive discrimination are warranted. Affirmative action for women in the workplace and for better Aboriginal employment are two other areas where positive discrimination is justified.

A fair tax system is another area. One of the arguments against the GST has been that it is a regressive tax in the way it affects the disadvantaged. It is a tax in which the affluent pay at the same rate as the poor. Fine tuning a fair tax system is a complex task but our Commonwealth has taken a step backwards through adopting the principle that all people regardless of wealth should pay equal amounts of tax through the GST.

One of the reasons we don’t have food on the GST list is that some people won the argument based on social justice not equality. Even with the forced modifications to move towards equality this form of taxation is a step away from meeting the social justice agenda.

Ensuring true equality, however, means more than formulating policy and creating benchmarks. The standards, ideals and frameworks that are created need to be worked on and implemented in a real and tangible way. In tandem with creating social policy there must also be an auditing and assessment process to ensure it is implemented.

Central to any debate on ensuring a socially just Australia is the question of how to measure justice in society. Part of this debate is the question of the poverty line as a measure of fiscal inequality.

Last year The Smith Family commissioned a report from the University of Canberra's Centre for Social and Economic Modelling which reviewed the concept of a poverty line. The report sparked a debate about using the poverty line as a true assessment of equality and justice.

In assessing how many Australians live in poverty the report measured the gap between rich and poor. The intervention of the conservative Centre for Independent Studies into this discussion resulted in debate about the usefulness of poverty lines in measuring poverty and for setting targets for social security.

What the debate comes down to is whether Australia’s poor are getting poorer and if the gap between the rich and poor is getting wider. It can be argued that over the past decade the poorest in our society have had some improvement in their standard of living. But it’s also true that those at the other end of the scale are getting even richer and that the gap between the rich and poor is getting bigger and the gap in the middle is shrinking.

Rupert Murdoch called the result an hourglass society with a fat rich upper layer and a large poor bottom demographic with a thinner middle-income grouping. The result is a shift toward a two-tiered society of rich and poor.

Those that want to justify the present set of circumstances will say the poor are not getting poorer in real terms. But in relative terms they are getting poorer and the gap is getting wider.

A society that fosters a polarisation marked by ghettoes of poor suburbs and a shrinking middle class creates enormous social stress and pressure. For that reason measuring poverty in social justice terms is a more significant approach. Social fragmentation undermines the common good as it tends to exacerbate social problems

Two Queensland initiatives are addressing inequality by focusing on social justice. The Queensland Council of Social Service has launched Fair Queensland. Their vision is for government, business and non-profit organisations to give social, economic and environmental issues equal measure.

The UnitingCare Centre for Social Justice is promoting and implementing a Five Point Charter for Social Justice within the UnitingCare agencies in Queensland. It calls for people to relate to each other in a manner that gives dignity, respect and due process. The Charter promotes a commitment to inclusiveness of all sections of society. It also expects access and equity for all. Preferential options for the most disadvantaged is also a priority. And the Charter promotes the common good of all in society and the environment.

The rationale for the Uniting Care Centre for Social Justice and QCOSS Fair Queensland campaign is a straightforward one. Those charged with the delivery of welfare and community services must aim for tangible social justice results which address the needs of the most vulnerable in our society.