PHOTO
Thank goodness for democracy and for a government that positively contorts itself to spread it about.
I refer, of course, to the government’s delightful inversion of Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarian injunction that an action is good if it increases the quantum of happiness in the world.
The democratic implication here is, the more widespread the better (the principle of fairness).
In some cases, though, intensity, the quality of joyfulness visited upon an individual or select group of people might outweigh mere quantity widely distributed in little bundles.
Such are the philosophical knots that governments must unravel and two recent cases of government action, or inaction, prove the truth and practical utility of this philosophy.
The first of these is a decision to apply the principle of fairness in a most innovative and novel manner.
Two subspecies of the species “renter” are those on limited incomes, one of whom has the government as a landlord, the other depending on private landlords.
The former has by law a cap on the proportion of their limited income to be paid in rent (25%).
The latter do not, but have some access to an accommodation supplement.
The quantum of misery, therefore, is unevenly (ie, unfairly) spread.
To remedy this injustice the quantum of misery is increased by raising the rent cap for the first group, thus closing the gap at least a bit.
Democracy is the winner by means of a simple inversion of the happiness principle.
Clearly, to have come at this relational problem from the other end by increasing supplements for the other group and so marginally reducing the total misery is impractical because such increases are likely to be snaffled by private landlords and nothing would change.
A question this raises, however, is the potential diminution of happiness for landlords.
Fortunately some light can be shone on this conundrum by the second part of my analysis.
Intrepid journalists have noted that the Hon Louise Upston, whose onerous duty it is to police accommodation supplements, has not only decided not to increase them, but to raise the eligibility threshold for getting one at all.
To get one at least 30% of income must be paid in rent. This will rise to 40% if her new Bill passes through Parliament.
Ms Upston, however, because she does not normally live in Wellington, must rent accommodation there in order to do her job. For this she collects $1000 per week as an accommodation allowance.
It is not clear whether her rent reaches 40% or even 30% of her ministerial income.
The philosophical implications of this are profound.
Obviously the qualitative return of happiness for the government from this well-focused $1000 per week is superior to the more widespread maximum of $305.
• Harry Love was the chairman of the Castle St branch of the Labour Party in 1987-88, and the New Labour parliamentary candidate for St Kilda in the 1990 election.