INTERSECTING DISCOURSES: CLOSING THE GAPS, SOCIAL JUSTICE AND THE TREATY OF WAITANGI.

• Author: Humpage, Louise

Abstract

Public policies are neither neutral nor static entities. Analysis reveals that the three arguments offered in support of the Closing the Gaps strategy -- namely, "social justice", Treaty of Waitangi and social cohesion -- stem from distinct social justice discourses. This paper demonstrates how the interplay of these intersecting rationales is fraught with tension, ambiguity and contradiction. In particular, it is argued that a distributive "social justice" discourse is inconsistent with the recognitive justice demands of Maori as tangata whenua. The existence of discourses that contradict or modify each other reveals how social policies are continually constituted and reconstituted in different contexts. The tension between these intersecting discourses is also shown to correspond with a comparable dynamic involving the Treaty of Waitangi. Finally, the paper contends that the predominantly accommodative stance of the Closing the Gaps policy may well have the intent or effect of de-politicising a rights-driven discourse that challenges the foundational principles of Maori-Crown relations.

INTRODUCTION: THE POLITICS OF POLICY

The general public often assume that policies have one intended purpose, to rationally identify and solve a single "problem". There is an expectation, therefore, that public policies should have singular and authoritative meanings that can be universally understood. But policies are neither neutral nor static entities with a singular and uncontested point of reference. Rather, their meanings are constituted and reconstituted in an ongoing process of construction and reconstruction within diverse and contested social contexts (Pihama 1996:108).

Policy content evolves as a wide and complex "space" of plans, documents and practices in which key terms, such as "social justice", "equality" and "partnership" may be interpreted and negotiated from a wide range of perspectives (see Marshall et al. 2000:12). Such perspectives are shaped by the philosophical positions of those who control, comment upon and capitalise on the competing interests of intersecting policy discourses (see Solomos 1988:171). As governments are made up of collections of competing interest groups, whose points of view and goals vary greatly, the discourses that inform policy may at different times, or simultaneously, conflict with or at least modify each other (see Cheyne et al. 2000:45, Pihama 1996:108). The politics of policy thus make it highly problematic to portray public policies as monolithic entities that can be reduced to a single reading or interpreted in an unambiguous fashion.

To illustrate this argument, this paper analyses and assesses the rhetoric employed to promote the Closing the Gaps strategy, conceived as the flagship of the Labour Coalition Government's social policy programme. Political speeches and promotional material announcing and detailing the policy strategy highlight the multiple discourses captured by the Closing the Gaps policy. In particular, this paper centres on the Budget speech of Prime Minister Helen Clark (2000), which offered three reasons for the strong emphasis the Labour-led Government placed on reducing disparities between Maori and Pacific peoples and other New Zealanders:

First, it is a simple issue of social justice. Second, for Maori, it is a Treaty issue. Third, for all New Zealanders it is important that the growing proportion of our population which is Maori and Pacific Island peoples not be locked into economic and social disadvantage, because, if they are, our whole community is going to be very much the poorer for it. The three rationales for Closing the Gaps appear to correspond with the three articles of the Treaty of Waitangi. The "social justice" discourse correlates with Article Three, a "Treaty" discourse acknowledging tino rangatiratanga coincides with Article Two and the "social cohesion" discourse is in line with Article One. Moreover, the rationales offered correspond with different models of social justice. When these competing models intersect, they uncover the questions and contradictions that underscore the politics of policy when applied to issues of social justice. Exposing such contradictions goes some way to explaining media reports of a backlash by the general public towards Closing the Gaps, causing this catch-phrase to be politically abandoned only a year into the Labour Coalition's term (see Young 2000:A17).

The paper follows three lines of argument. First, it outlines three major models of social justice and contends that each may be inferred from the Closing the Gaps policy, depending on which discourse is used in its support. In particular, the primacy of the distributive model of social justice is shown to be at odds with the highly politicised claims of Maori as tangata whenua. Second, exploration is made of the way in which the tensions between the three defences of the Closing the Gaps strategy correspond with similar tensions implicit in the relationship between the three articles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Third, it is argued that, like the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, the Closing the Gaps strategy cannot be analysed as a unified set of logical responses to rational debates. The intersection of social justice models that contradict or modify each other is a common attribute of public policies since they are neither fixed entities nor explicitly transparent, but are constantly in a contested process of construction and reconstruction (see Solomos 1988:235-236). "Floating signifiers" such as "Closing the Gaps" rarely have inherent meaning (see Gunew 1999:12). Rather, policies are constituted in relational negotiations around certain reference points that themselves are reconstructed in light of shifting contexts. The remainder of this paper provides a critical analysis of the three reference points used to support Closing the Gaps, indicating that both Treaty discourses and social justice models may conflict with each other at one level, but prove compatible at another.

CONTESTING SOCIAL JUSTICE

The concept of social justice is frequently invoked but has proven difficult to define or to characterise. Social justice may be interpreted from the perspective of freedom and democracy, or in terms of social and economic equality (Corsianos and Train 1999:xi-xii). Furthermore, social justice models are complicated by difficult questions that are the subjects of ongoing debates. Who is entitled to social justice allocations? On what grounds? Who should pay? Should individuals or collectivities be the recipients of social justice entitlements? Should social justice approaches endorse a "one size fits all" remedy or should reparations be customised to suit the context? Should differences be ignored as a basis for equitable justice treatment? Or should differences be taken seriously and into account to ensure a substantive justice within unequal contexts?

Three models, however, dominate discussion: distributive, retributive and recognitive models of justice. The extent to which the interplay of these competing social justice models inform, rationalise and advance the Closing the Gaps policy is pivotal to this paper.

Distributive Model of Social Justice

A distributive model of social justice is based on the principle that individuals are entitled to an equal distribution of scarce resources. Fairness in allocation is based on treating everyone the same, unless an unequal distribution is in the interests of those historically disadvantaged. There are two main variants of the distributive justice model. A "liberal-democratic" version of social justice is founded on the premise that all individuals are fundamentally alike and have the same needs with respect to material and social goods. It is also based on the universalistic principles of liberal pluralism, namely, that what we have in common as morally autonomous individuals is more important as a basis for recognition and reward than what divides us as members of fixed groups. The solution to any unjust balance is to compensate excluded individuals on terms defined by the dominant sector. A "social-democratic" variant argues that different people possess different needs, yet have unequal resources at their disposal to meet these needs. Attainment of social justice is thus based on the differential distribution of social and material goods for different people -- albeit within a common institutional framework (Gale 2000:234,254-256).

Retributive Model of Social Justice

A retributive model of social justice is grounded on the principle of fairness in the competition for scarce resources. Individuals are entitled to different rewards in accord with their differential contribution to the competition for goods, rather than because of any disparities in possessions. A retributive version of social justice endorses a commitment to compensate those unfairly victimised by past actions. It also seeks to penalise those who unjustly infringe on the rights and freedoms of others to compete fairly. This model bears a striking...