No. Cutting public jobs and spending in the public service, as proposed by National, is not the solution. We are prepared to bring forward spending on infrastructure and other initiatives to create real jobs and build the potential for future growth. While the economic conditions have meant we have been unable to commit to our goal of increasing the minimum wage to $15 during the next parliamentary term, we are committed to increasing it each year by the greater of the increase in CPI or the increase in the average wage. This highlights our commitment to seeing wages grow, not freeze or contract.

No, Labour believes our public sector does a first class job for New Zealand. Our public service is among the best internationally. Labour has been rebuilding the capacity of our public service. The high level of satisfaction reflects this commitment.

The biggest challenge is to redress the over representation of Maori in low skilled jobs. In rough economic times this makes Maori workers more vulnerable to unemployment and low wages. Labour is investing in increased training opportunities and modern apprenticeships to raise the skills of the Maori workforce.

This plan would destroy KiwiSaver – it betrays the 800,000 Kiwis who have already signed up. It’s a short-sighted plan for consumption growth. The world financial crisis shows why New Zealand needs to build some savings and investment of its own.

We simply do not believe that at a time of international financial crisis, giving the CEO of Telecom a $500 a week tax cut should be the number one priority. We have delivered personal tax cuts - for low to middle income families, these are more generous than National's - and we have done this without putting people’s retirement savings at risk.

Labour does not believe there is any advantage to PPPs in schools and hospitals. We believe that the government has a responsibility to ensure that these institutions are adequately resourced and have the facilities that they need to deliver good services. Labour would consider the use of PPPs in activities such as roading as long as there are alternative roads so kiwis are not forced to pay tolls.

Labour does not support the privatisation of ACC. We believe private insurance companies have one goal – to make money rather than focussing on rehabilitation and injury prevention. We are committed to the long-term viability of a comprehensive, no fault system.

Labour strongly supports workers and unions having an input in their places of work. We spend a huge part of our lives at work, and all workers deserve fair and decent working conditions. We’re proud to have signed the 3rd Partnership for Quality in 2007.

Labour is firmly committed to securing basic rights for all workers. In addition to four weeks leave, extending paid parental leave and other legislation we have passed, we will also work to provide greater protections for workers who are made redundant or restructured out of their jobs.

Labour is committed to lowering everyday costs for Kiwis. That’s why we have lowered doctor’s fees and prescription charges and introduced 20 hours free early childhood education. Labour believes in a high quality, free public education and health system that delivers the services Kiwis need.

Note: The National Party combined its reply to the first two questions.

National does not plan any major changes to the way the state sector is organised. What we have announced is that we will cap the size of the core bureaucracy in the first term of government. Since 2000 the number of people who are employed in central government administration has grown from 25,900 to 39,400. These are people who are mainly engaged in formulating and administering government policies rather than frontline service delivery.

That growth in numbers represents an increase of 52% during a period in which the number of other state sector employees grew by only 14%, and the number of jobs in the economy as a whole grew by 25%. Our priority will be the delivery of frontline services that directly benefit New Zealanders.

Other policies relating to the state sector that National has announced include:

• Requiring departmental chief executives to undertake a line-by-line review of their expenditure with the goal of identifying areas where savings in government administration can be made.
• Establishing a Cabinet Expenditure Control Committee to oversee the above process and to consider chief executives' reports on potential savings.
• Ensuring the State Services Commission, the Treasury, and the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet provide strong leadership by example, exhibiting high standards of professionalism, efficiency, and service delivery.
• Recognising the professionalism of New Zealand Public Servants.
• Restoring the absolute commitment to the political neutrality of the public service.

For more information see: http://national.org.nz/files/2008/state_services_policy.pdf

We need to raise real after-tax incomes for Maori workers. Statistics New Zealand tell us that in 2000, Maori earned, on average, $119 less per week than Pakeha. In 2008, on average Maori earn $270 less per week than Pakeha. It is unacceptable to us that Maori have become more than $150 worse off per week than Pakeha under the current government.

Every Maori worker who reads this should think about what a difference that $150 per week could make to their lives, and to the lives of their families. That is why it is essential we grow New Zealand’s economy to provide greater opportunities to Maori workers, and to provide higher after-tax incomes. That is why National, unlike Labour, is promising a series of responsible, phased cuts in personal income taxes in every one of the next three years. It is essential that we allow all workers to keep more of the money that they earn through their own hard work.

We also need to raise skills, and that comes back to the vital important of good education. Education is the greatest driver of higher socioeconomic achievement in our society. That is why it is unacceptable to us that 56% of Maori leave school without achieving NCEA level 2. That is why it is unacceptable that fewer Maori qualify to attend university than any other ethnic group in New Zealand.

That is why National is placing such a great emphasis on education this election. We will introduce national standards so that students who are not achieving to their potential can be identified as early as possible, and additional resources can be devoted towards helping that student.

We need to make school relevant for our children. That is why National will introduce a school-based apprenticeship scheme and fund schools to run ‘Trades Academies’. We will work with iwi organisations and wänanga to support proven Maori-led programmes that work.

The development and growth of initiatives such as kohanga reo, kura kaupapa Maori, and wänanga in education all occurred under previous National Governments, and illustrate the value of restoring to Maori a level of decision-making and control that enables families, whänau, and hapu to improve their own outcomes.

The benefits are that it makes KiwiSaver more affordable for more workers and employers, and will therefore ensure that the scheme is able to survive and that people are able to save both in good times and in leaner periods. The immediate benefit for the economy is that it provides stimulus at a time when the economy is under stress and the availability of funds has tightened considerably.

KiwiSaver specialist Mary Holm, who has written two books about the retirement savings scheme, said this about National's proposed changes:

We also note that the CTU, NZEI, and others supported a 2% contribution rate. As the CTU wrote in their submission on KiwiSaver: "So what could possibly be the objection to a lower entry rate of 2%? If it is a concern that 2% from a worker (even with tax credits and employer contributions) will not deliver an adequate lump sum (or annuity) for retirement, then surely a lower than desirable balance is better than no balance."

Union officials are reporting that there is quite a lot of resistance among low-income workers to join at a minimum of 4% of gross salary (which of course is more than 4% of take-home pay).

National wants to build New Zealand’s asset base, so we will not sell all or part of any state-owned enterprise or Crown company. We will review governance of all SOEs to ensure strong performance, and we will review the 20-year-old reporting and accountability processes of SOEs to ensure they provide effective monitoring of performance and improve performance.

We believe New Zealand needs better infrastructure, sooner, and that one way to achieve this is to close the circle between infrastructure capital and project management needs, and private sector capability. Public-private partnerships allow the government to spread payments for major projects over their useful life. Payment is made only when services are delivered, risks are shared between the private sector and the government, and private sector management and expertise is also bought into play. National believes there is capacity for some private sector involvement in financing roads, where that involvement makes sense. But PPPs are just one part of a toolkit widely used around the world to improve financial and project disciplines on large infrastructure.

The existing scheme, provided through a single state insurer, is capable of improvement:

• Workplace accident rates are high by international standards. OECD data to the end of 2003 showed New Zealand’s non-fatal injury rate rising when everybody else’s, except Luxembourg’s, was falling. ACC data shows the number of work-related injury claims increased each year from 2002 to 2005, only declining in 2006. Either way, we can do better.
• Incentives for employers to improve safety practices are poor. Similar premiums are charged to employers regardless of their workplace accident record.
• Incentives for quick, high-quality rehabilitation are weak.
• Entitlements under the scheme for injured people are not of high quality. For example, injured employees are asked to pay a part-charge to receive surgery promptly.

National wants a more flexible scheme that rewards employers with good workplace safety records, penalises those with poor records, and encourages employers to buy more than the basic cover. With this in mind, National supports the introduction of competition and choice to the ACC Work Account (covering employees and the self-employed at work). We believe this will result in safer workplaces and a more efficient and effective accident compensation system that benefits all New Zealanders.

We will review the present scheme by conducting a full stocktake of its various components, evaluating progress to full funding, and identifing areas of cross-subsidy or cost-shifting, and underfunding of newly-legislated entitlements. We will introduce competition and choice by investigating opening the Work Account (covering employees and the self-employed at work) to competition. Any changes will be made carefully after full evaluation of the benefits.

New Zealanders are ready for a constructive and mature dialogue between business, unions, and the government about how best to raise wages and living standards. Our door will be open to unions as we formulate and design policy that helps New Zealanders get ahead.

We expect government departments and Crown entities, as good employers, to have constructive and ongoing relationships with the unions that represent workers in their organisations. At a higher level, we also expect there to be regular contact between unions and Ministers, and in particular between the PSA and the Minister of State Services, on issues of mutual interest.

Signatories to the current Partnership for Quality are the Prime Minister, the State Services Commissioner, the CEOs of government departments, and the PSA. From our perspective, if there’s a change in government, the agreement as it exists, ends

National supports the retention of paid parental leave and will keep four weeks annual leave, but we will allow employees to request trade of the fourth week for additional cash. But this can be done only at the employee’s request and cannot be raised in negotiations for an agreement. During tough economic times families will appreciate an easing of pressure on the household budget.

We will introduce a 90-day trial period for new staff, by agreement between the employer and employee, in businesses with fewer than 20 people. This will give those having difficulty getting work – such as young, inexperienced people or new immigrants – a better chance at a job

National will restore employees’ rights so they can enter into a collective agreement without having to join a union, if they so choose. This measure will increase an employee’s options when negotiating improvements in pay and conditions.

Certainty about rights makes them stronger and National’s commitment to improving the quality of decisions emerging from the disputes process will give employees and employers greater certainty.

National will not introduce user pays for hospital treatment or higher costs for doctor’s visits, prescriptions, or early childhood education. We are, however, not averse to using tolls on occasion to help pay for major roading projects, particularly where there is private sector involvement in financing, and where that is the best way of getting a project built in a timely fashion. However, we have said that tolls would operate only on routes where there was a toll-free alternative route.

The Green Party is committed to maintaining a strong public sector operating as a single entity. The prospect of cash deficits may necessitate some readjustment of the emphasis of public services, but we do not believe it justifies significant job losses or the downgrading, privatising or contracting out of essential public services.

The Green Party supports the State Sector Act and the Public Finance Act being reviewed to provide greater collaboration across government agencies so that they lessen competition between departments, promote better employment practices [and] promote multi-departmental collective bargaining of consistent wages & conditions.

Wages received by Maori are on average significantly lower than the wages received by non-Maori. The Green Party is committed to increasing the minimum wage to 15 an hour immediately (and maintaining it at not less than 66% of the average wage) and to providing greater support for collective wage bargaining.

The Green Party opposes paying for larger tax cuts through changes to Kiwisaver. This is likely to encourage short-term spending at the expense of long-term saving. The National Party's tax cut funding proposals will will increase New Zealand’s debt and the gap between rich and poor

The Green Party does not support the privatisation of any state assets. We also acknowledge that a number of private public partnerships arrangements overseas, including in Australia and the United Kingdom, have been disastrous for the taxpayer and bonanzas for the private sector, particularly in transport projects.

The Green Party is totally opposed to any privatisation of ACC or opening it up to private competition. This was done in 1999 and 2000 with disastrous results for the compensation and rehabilitation of injured people as private insurers attempted to maximise profit by denying ACC cover and entitlements.

The Green Party will strive to improve workplace democracy and improve workers’ union representation and participation in the future of their work. This will include providing adequate funding for workplace training of workers and workers' representatives and providing information resources

The Green Party supports the retention of paid parental leave and four weeks' annual leave. We also propose to undertake a full review of the Employment Relations Act with a particular emphasis on strengthening collective bargaining and facilitating multi-employer collective bargaining and agreements and discouraging freeloading by non-union members.

The Green Party opposes the introduction of road tolls, hospital treatment charges or other user-pays charges, nor increase user fees for doctor's visits, prescriptions, or early childhood education.

The government’s indebtedness has declined to a low level relative to our gross national product, and is in a better position to borrow than small businesses and individuals, and should do so to protect vulnerable citizens from the harshest impacts of economic recession, and invest in their futures. With 27% of Maori children already living in poverty, and 150,000 children categorised as living in ‘severe and significant hardship’ – the government cannot afford not to act.

Given this, the priorities for the Maori Party would be to protect New Zealand jobs and industries, and to raise the minimum wage to at least $15 per hour.

The Maori Party believes efficiencies can be gained by unbundling government funding spent on Maori across the social policy sector, reviewing outcomes, and redirecting budgets into programmes to better achieve positive outcomes for Maori.

We would monitor all state sector departments, agencies and providers for cultural competency to ensure the quality of services, access and outcomes invest in the well-being of Maori. Cultural competence will be an employment standard in social services, and we will support and resource providers with a track record of success in attaining mauri ora.

The Maori Party is committed to addressing institutional racism. We must have the courage to acknowledge and address institutional racism. In the 49th Parliament, the Maori Party will be tabling a private member’s bill to eradicate institutional racism from all public services.

We are aware of the ways in which institutional racism also impacts on Maori workers, as well as those seeking access to services. The Maori Party is particularly concerned to address the income gap that exists between Maori and non-Maori, even when employed in the same jobs in the same employment fields. Our bill to eradicate institutional racism will include measures to address differences in pay rates and employment opportunities.

The Maori Party supports KiwiSaver, and would support it becoming compulsory for all wage and salary earners provided there is relief in the scheme’s design for those earners at the poverty line. Analysis has shown that it is income redistribution up the income ladder – the more you earn, the more government funds you can receive. We will review KiwiSaver given these implications for equity and fairness.

For the Maori Party, the tax system needs to more adequately reflect the principle that income should be distributed to achieve equality. In particular, those earning $25,000 or less need to be better supported by being exempt from income tax, and food should be exempt from GST given that GST hits low-income people disproportionately. As the mainstay of the New Zealand economy, the Maori Party also supports a 5% tax reduction for small businesses to incentivise growth.

The Maori Party is opposed to privatisation and public-private partnerships which facilitate it. Instead, we favour iwi-public Treaty-based partnerships for the management and delivery of services.

We believe that the state must continue to be responsible for the provision of accident compensation and rehabilitation services, to best ensure accessibility for all.

The Maori Party will support any amendment to the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001 that will increase access and entitlements to ACC – as we did in June 2008 when the Act was amended to improve access to compensation for previously disenfranchised groups. These groups were those in non-standard work, those mentally injured by trauma, those between work, and seasonal and casual workers.

There are many outstanding issues which we believe still need to be addressed, such as: reducing the gap in claiming ACC cover between Maori and non-Maori; the lack of awareness of ACC entitlements; the inequality of outcomes for Maori; the increased risk of injury that accompanies industries such as fishing, farming and forestry; and the serious issues related to the gaps in data collection.

We will support initiatives to address inequities and instabilities of the current system, and to make compliance comparatively hassle free.

Major health agencies, such as ACC, are, however, in need of a comprehensive review with respect to their responsiveness to Maori and need to operate in accord with Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Yes. The Maori Party is very supportive of partnerships which include and empower workers and unions in decisions affecting their working environment. We would also be very supportive of initiatives to address and promote Maori workforce development in the public sector.

Yes and yes. The Maori Party supported amendments in the 48th Parliament to improve workers’ rights, and would support further amendments to employment legislation to make it more worker and whanau friendly.

No. Our priority is to invest in our public health and education systems to make them more accessible for all whanau, regardless of the ability to pay. Our priority for roading and transportation, in the face of the dual crises of climate change and peak oil, is to invest in public transport to ensure there are sustainable, affordable alternatives to running private motor cars.

Not if New Zealand First has a role in the next Government. Unlike certain parties that would slash the public service in response to the deficit, as they did in the 1990’s, we would keep frontline services strong and ensure that wages increase.

New Zealand First has no specific intention to change how the state sector is organised. However having stated that, it is true concerns have been expressed to us in regard to elements of the state sector. The most common matters raised involve DHB and ACC administration. As many of the criticisms are genuine we believe it would be prudent to undertake some detailed investigation into them.

Low wages are the biggest challenge facing Maori workers, many of whom have low skilled, low wage jobs. We would raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour over the next term and raise skill levels for such workers to address this challenge.

We believe such changes will have serious negative consequences for our economy. While we support lower taxes, a cut at the expense of KiwiSaver will damage our economy in the long run as it will limit the funds available for productive investment.

New Zealand First is an advocate for compulsory superannuation. We believe we should take a leaf out of the Australians’ book. They introduced such years ago and now have super funds in excess of NZ$1.0 trillion.

KiwiSaver was a move in the right direction and to scale it back as the National party proposes, is to do a huge disservice to New Zealand.

We strongly oppose privatisation of strategic assets. Previous privatisations have done massive damage to our economy, and the impact is still being felt today. We also oppose public-private-partnerships as they privatise profit but socialise risk, and the end cost to users are higher than if Government-built.

You should be aware that RiskMetrics, an international organisation which specialises in risk management, corporate governance, financial research and analysis, undertook a study of Australia’s infrastructure sector, and in particularly what has become known as the “Macquarie Model”.

It is New Zealand First’s view that all organisations, in order to function well, incorporate efficiency, cost effectiveness, flexibility and innovation. In order to make sure these attributes exist the usual requirement is to ensure the organisation operates within a competitive environment.

The call to privatise aspects of ACC masquerades as a call to obtain and maintain the best possible value for every dollar. In other words, cement in the aforesaid attributes by way of creating competition. For a commercial venture this is an accepted stance.

However for a social entity such as ACC, a competitive environment is not the right answer. ACC exists principally to address the needs of accident victims. It has other roles of course, such as encouraging accident prevention, but by far its first duty is to look after the needs and requirements of accident victims, including their rehabilitation.

To achieve this aim ACC has to deal with a range of organisations, some private, some government owned. To introduce a competitive element, by way of insurance companies, is to introduce differing systems and approaches, which will complicate and increase costs at the service level. The most obvious case of this was the differing range of forms medical practitioners were required to fill in when ACC was privatised. This was time consuming, often confusing, and increased the practitioners’ costs.

Private organisations such as insurance companies need to make a profit. This is a further added cost to the system.

Another concern is that to obtain the best deal from an insurance company employers sometimes are of the opinion that disguising workplace accidents is a prudent course to take. This can distort accident data to the degree that simple solutions are not applied to straightforward accident- prone situations. In short, to some degree at least, accident prevention methods are wrongly applied or not applied at all.

Whilst New Zealand First requires ACC to operate efficiently, ensure cost-effectiveness and good corporate governance, we believe, for an organisation with such a great social responsibility, the best way of achieving these attributes is by continual internal measurement and external auditing.

In principle, yes - in regard to operational matters: There could be circumstances, as in the private sector, where management needs to make decisions without consultation. However, always there is the moral obligation to take workers’ concerns into consideration.

Yes. We strongly support paid parental leave and four weeks annual leave, and would want to see these retained in the future. We support collective bargaining.

No. New Zealand First is strongly opposed to introducing or increased user pay charges. In fact, we want to further reduce or eliminate charges for doctor or hospital visits, prescriptions and early childhood education, and we reject the need for road tolls.

We would not cut public sector jobs nor freeze wages. Society should not just be judged by how it treats it’s most vulnerable members, but also by how it treats those who support and care for them. We would ensure wage rates are included as part of all government contracts with providers; the starting rate should be $18/hr.

We have no policy to change the structure of the state sector.

The biggest challenges facing Maori workers are the same challenges facing all workers. We need to cut taxes and raise wages particularly with the rapidly rising cost of living. Enable workers to afford to purchase a home to raise their families.

UnitedFuture opposes cutting the KiwiSaver scheme. We supported and promoted KiwiSaver, specifically negotiating mortgage diversion whereby up to 50% of individuals' contributions to KiwiSaver may be diverted into their mortgage.

Our tax cut package has been costed and is affordable without cutting KiwiSaver.

UnitedFuture supports public private partnerships and the opportunities this will create. They already occur in areas such as transport to much better affect than the days of Ministry of Works. We particularly want better cooperation in the health sector to enable more operations, and prisons.

We support the continuation of the ‘no-fault’ regime and mandatory workplace accident insurance, but support competition in the provision of accident compensation services as long as cover remained at current levels at a minimum.

Yes, UnitedFuture does support workers and unions having input in their workplace.

Yes we would extend paid parental leave to 12 months and extend the right to parental leave to fathers as well as mothers. We also support workers in making places and hours of employment as flexible as possible, and support the rights of unions.

We oppose higher doctor visits and would extend 20hours free to include playcentres. We are not opposed to road tolling, so long as other alternative routes to a destination are possible to choose if people wish to avoid such a toll.

The Progressive Party does not draw any direct relationship between the current global financial crisis and job numbers and wages in the public sector, although it is one factor which must be taken into account by any Minister of Finance setting a Budget. Cash deficits can have an effect on the development of new initiatives but we do not see any automatic case for cutting jobs as a ‘quick fix’ in such a situation. We are opposed to wage freezes for any specific sector which are inequitable and an excuse for scapegoating the public sector should it be suggested there.

We believe that restructuring in the public sector has been moving in the right direction over the past nine years with a greater strategic approach to achieving sector wide goals, and with the re-incorporation of previously decentralised public service functions into a core public service. We would like to see this process extended and accelerated. We do not believe that the claims made in ‘reforming’ the public sector in the nineties i.e. that this would lead to a more efficient and economic public service have been justified in the event; on the contrary we believe that they led to the opposite outcome and have been discredited as an ideological approach to governance.

There is no single or simple answer to this question but figures show that Maori workers are under-represented in management and tend to fall behind non Maori when it comes to average and mean salaries. There needs to be a concerted and focussed effort to address this problem

The Progressive Party is entirely opposed to the National Party proposal to cut back on Kiwisaver to pay for tax cuts. These cuts are not justified and will leave lower paid workers less well off overall. They will also significantly reduce the value of the scheme as a savings scheme within the economy when that is one of its major advantages. In essence the proposal transfers potential future savings by those on modest incomes into an immediate cash advantage for those with higher incomes.

The Progressive Party does not support privatisation as a philosophy. Although we would not absolutely rule out public private partnerships, experience elsewhere suggests that such ‘partnerships’ often amount to privatisation by stealth. They are also more expensive for taxpayers to under-write in the log run, and in many cases constitute little more than a subsidy by taxpayers to the private sector. They must therefore be treated with caution and entered into only on the basis of a specific business case in which the advantages and disadvantages for taxpayers are clearly spelled out.

We do not see any advantages in this and oppose it. Most serious analysts agree that the current New Zealand scheme is unworkable in such a context because the private insurers will ‘pick the eyes’ out of the most profitable parts of the system and leave the rest to be covered by taxpayers. This amounts to a massive profit windfall for private insurance companies. It also alters the client relationship. The client ceases to be the injured party and becomes the policy holder. This means that the insurer and the policy holder then have an incentive to deny claims made, particularly by workers.

The Progressive Party takes the view that employers and workers through their unions both have a stake in the workplace and should be equal partners in workplace matters as these have a bearing upon workers. Workplaces should be structured accordingly, by industrial legislation if necessary.

As the sole partner in coalitions from 1999 to the present, as the party instrumental in initiating legislation for four weeks leave, and as a party instrumental in introducing paid parental leave and restoring collective bargaining we strongly support the retention of these achievements on behalf of working people. We firmly believe that there are further ways in which workers’ rights can be strengthened and enhanced, particularly in ways which restore the work/ family life balance

This is more aptly described as ‘payer uses’ in the sense that it excludes those who can’t afford what should be generally available public services from access to it. This is a principle which ill consorts with New Zealand’s egalitarian philosophies and we therefore are in general opposed to it. As a coalition partner in a government which restored funding in the public health sector, and significantly reduced the cost of prescriptions and GP visits we have taken practical steps to reverse the user pays principle introduced by previous National administrations.

No. ACT's position is to hold the increase in government spending to inflation plus population growth. This means slower growth in employment in the public service in future.

No.

Creating the economic conditions for productivity growth and higher wages. ACT's 20 point plan contains a range of policies for achieving this goal including reductions in red tape regulations and competitive education markets that are more responsive to different cultures.

ACT’s tax reductions reflect spending restraint (as explained in answer to question 1) and not changes to Kiwisaver.

An extension of competition would encourage greater economic efficiency in the provision of some services. The principle of neutrality between public and private provision would apply in such cases. There are various ways in which competition might be facilitated where appropriate. Contracting for services, which is common in the public sector, and private-public partnerships, are two possibilities.

Competition would improve incentives for injury prevention and rehabilitation of accident victims. The benefits also include increased choice of customised packages and more efficiency as competing firms seek to deliver a better deal cheaper.

There is considerable scope to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of government services, Constructive input from employees, users of services and taxpayers is welcomed. We support workers and employers coming to mutually agreeable terms, but we don't believe it is the role of Cabinet ministers to decide what those terms are. People in each workplace have more information about their circumstances than government policy makers.

Workers' overall conditions cannot be improved by simply making laws that wish it so. Productivity is the only way to improve real conditions and, as with question seven, people in each workplace have better information for doing this than governments.

We do not have a single answer for every case. In some cases user pays protect people from subsidising wasteful use of services by other people. In other cases central funding enhances equality. The important thing about applying these mechanisms, which already apply, is to apply accepted principles in funding public services.