Friday, February 27, 2004
My god, intelligent humour, whichever side of the fence you are on
Russell Brown has 'outed' this gem, the Don Brash blog. My congratulations to whoever is responsible - damned funny.
P.s. If you want to get rid of those little 'edit me' tags, just throw a link to My Right in their place, Don would.
An award of sorts...
NZPols has kindly gifted me the "Dumb quote of the day" for yesterdays post. Criticism always smarts a little more when you respect the source, but a response (positive or negative) is why we are all here I suspect.
It is perhaps timely then that My Right is disappearing for a long weekend with Always Right and tribe. Posting over the next few days will be light, normal service should resume on Tuesday.
Thursday, February 26, 2004
Odd title, dodgy photo, good point
Dr Noel Cox is chairman of the Monarchist League - and he ain't happy. Perhaps not surprisingly, he too believes that the Labour Government is hell bent on republicanism. The dumping of the Privy Council was the biggest Constitutional change forced through by a minority Government New Zealand has seen.
Goff's turn now, taking out references to the Crown in the oath of allegiance. So it appears that the Governments policy is to use the Crown when it suits (see below) and just flick it completely when it doesn't suit.
The bugger is that by eating away at it now, when it does come to a referendum (surely to god they can't make us a republic without one!), they can play the, "realistically, there will be very little change" card and avoid what would have been a full and robust debate.
What happens when the Crown is no more
In Hard News today Russell Brown states that New Zealanders are comfortable with the notion of Crown Ownership, he is probably right;
Even Tariana Turia has admitted that the new formulation, which she doesn't like any more than the old one, will actually "give my people more certainty". The government will be hoping that the wider public feels the same way. Hardly anybody grasped the public domain proposal, but New Zealanders do, and always have, felt comfortable about Crown ownership.
That stirred a question for me, what happens when Helen and Margaret finish the job and do a Republic of New Zealand make? I imagine it simply means that The Crown is replaced by the Government or Republic in legislation. But for now, the Crown suits Helen, 'we're vesting it in the Crown' certainly sounds more benign than 'we're taking it'.
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
Hang'em all, but you can't touch Helen
The Terms of Reference for the "Inquiry into actions of employees of Immigration Service and Parliamentary Service" have just been released. The State Services Commissioner will investigate the department, the lawyer, the background of the letter and this:
The involvement, if any, of any such employee in the passing of the letter to any party, including the Electorate Office for the member of Parliament for Mount Albert, and/or in transmission of the letter to the Minister of Immigration.
I would have thought that given Joan Caulfield's (paintergate arsonist) history of operating directly for her Leader (despite being a neutral public servant), the Prime Minister's possible involvement may have at least being looked at?
The 'center' is heading in the right direction
The last couple of days seen one of the most unbelievable political back downs I can remember. From 'self righteous I know best idealogues' to 'save my salary poll driven cynics' in two short polls - it has been quite remarkable. There are numerous and obvious examples, such as:
From The Daily News, "The Government is taking a fresh look at its contentious foreshore and seabed proposals.
It is part of a comprehensive review of policy toward Maori that appears to be aimed at addressing Pakeha concerns, following National's recent poll surge."
The Herald, "But Mr Mallard's appointment is crucial, especially because he is a minister who has resisted having Treaty of Waitangi clauses inserted in the Education Act.
"I have not been supportive of it because I haven't seen a need for it," he said yesterday."
The Herald again, "The other major change was Margaret Wilson's loss of the Labour portfolio to Paul Swain, who is considered more business-friendly." (Ross Wilson would look business friendly next to Maggie!)
So will National hold support all the way through to the next election or not? Wait, hope and see. But regardless, we should all thank Don Brash for stemming the torrent of PC, leftish bollocks that was befouling New Zealand and pulling the 'center' back from the depths of the left.
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
Be-jesus, they'll be talking tax cuts next!
So Labour have hit the panic button, and it would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. Suddenly they are reviewing race based policies (not that they were ever policies based on race, just policies which had stuff about Maori and no-one else in them).
The most alarming turnaround yesterday came from the most unlikely to back down, Trevor. I had earlier struggled to come to terms with his relentless crusade to axe schools, now Trev is not so sure either. The reasoning that superseded the 'months of research' that resulted in the closures originally came in four words - "well I'm a politician" said Trev, 'and I don't give a shit about schools as long as I'm pulling $180,000K plus perks', he may or may not have added later.
John Armstrong's column in the Herald is bang on, and put very politely, it states that Labour will abandon the high moral ground and duck into the pawn shop if ever they are threatened. People don't tend to hold politicians in high regard, this is why.
Monday, February 23, 2004
So it isn't just hysterical reaction
A Massey University study has shown that there is real concern and division over the role and status of The Treaty of Waitangi.
"The survey of a thousand people conducted before Christmas showed 55 percent of people believe the treaty should not have an influence on government decision-making.
Seventy-seven percent think the treaty mostly creates division."
The most interesting thing is that this was taken well before the Orewa speech. So one thing is confirmed, below (and even before) the hype exists a serious issue that needs an inclusive, informed and respectful debate about our current constitutional framework (or lack of it).
Go back to a Bill English speech in May 2002. It makes me think what a shame it was that Bill lacked some of the key qualities and traits of political leadership, because more often than not, the man spoke sense;
"It’s against this background that we need a deeper debate about the principles of the Treaty. Questioned in the House on the principles of the Treaty, Labour evaded answers and then ultimately fell back on the 1989 statement by the Palmer Government. This is no basis for the Attorney-General’s preference for judicial activism to interpret the Treaty. Our judiciary is competent and intelligent, but they breathe the same thin air as the politicians on Treaty issues. They cannot make mature consideration without deeper, more open debate about the Treaty.
Unless more New Zealanders become aware of the content of modern Treaty discourse, and where that discourse will inevitably take us, we are going to wake up one day, and find that New Zealand has been reconfigured more or less as that shown in the TV3 documentary "2050 - What if … ". Then New Zealanders, Pakeha , Pacific and Asian, and Maori too - for most Maori want to be ‘just New Zealanders’ - will ask "How could this have happened?" And the judges will keep explaining in their judgments, and the Ministers will remain silent, the media will bite on the sensational aspects of it, and no ‘ordinary’ New Zealander will be any wiser."
Well said.
Sunday, February 22, 2004
Mislead by all means, but please don't lie
This is Helen's explanation for her u turn on Leanne Dalziel, ."I judge that to have gone beyond being a misleading to being an untrue answer." So misleading the public is OK for the Government, as long as there is no evidence that you flat out lied.
This is the new level of accountability and open Government we were promised when Labour swept to power, nice.
Friday, February 20, 2004
How bad does it have to get before it is criminal?
Ross (mate of Helen) Armstrong has been given the wet bus ticket by the Select Committee, and they only swung it lightly. If this was the private sector he would be toast. From Stuff;
After Dr Armstrong left the three companies it was revealed he had in three years received $584,365 in fees, $292,407 in expenses, dispensed $145,874 of taxpayer funded hospitality, ran up $43,829 in miscellaneous expenses and accumulated a bill of $248,884 for professional services he directly hired.
Dr Armstrong had to repay $10,000 in expenses he had claimed from more than one organisation.
I don't think this one is going to go away as quietly as Hells might like.
Just go away
Donna has vowed to fight on in the face of a crystal clear finding against her. The basis for the appeal is;
"I think the judgment has important constitutional issues involved with it. What it means is a leader can sack anyone that they don't like and that's intolerable in a democracy."
You're a list MP, elected through the party, you are no longer a member, see ya. I don't know if she actually believes that she has a right to be there or whether she is just lapping up the last of her camera time. But if she does believe she has a right to be there, she is even scarier than I thought.
Thursday, February 19, 2004
Winston must be gutted he missed this one
Winnie has been throwing jabs at Immigration Minister Leanne Dalziel for months, but it looks like it will be Judith Collins who finally knocks her out.
Fair enough to, leaking a document to 3 News about a deported Sri Lankan girl who had been raped and came here (in fairness, illegally) seeking refuge, for political mileage is deplorable and very possibly criminal.
Log onto Question Time on nzoom for a turkey shoot (apologies to any turkey readers), Winston is joining in the fun naturally, with this gem for Hells Bells:
"4. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: How many times has she told the House that she has confidence in her Minister of Immigration and does she still hold that view?" Should be fun, for those who don't see it, I'll post the response tomorrow.
Interesting - NZ Political Compass
Courtesy of No Right Turn via Deep Red is an overview of the leanings of our political leaders. No real surprises, although I thought Peter Dunne might have a few more dots on the board depending on the wind direction.
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
Tax Policy next please Don
This sort of shit really pisses me off;
“Dr Brash believes that the rich have to earn more to work harder and the poor have to earn less to work harder because he believes there are two kinds of people in this world – the rich and the rest. National is for the rich. We’re for the rest,” Dr Cullen said.
That's bullshit Mike, work hard, earn more - that's how it works, for everyone. The only difference is, the more successful someone is, the more you take - perhaps fair enough, but certainly not an incentive.
If you want to talk about devisive and alienating, try kicking the family with a combined income of $70K, desperate for a little tax relief, and make them feel bad about being earning more than the median wage. Nothing but exactly average will do for this Government.
And the focus group said, "you know, he may be right"
Labour have obviously been doing their own private polling and it seems that their results indicate that the last Colmar Brunton poll may not have been the flash in the pan that they had hoped.
The reaction, use the same message (but change a key word). Dr Cullen released a press release yesterday stating; "That is why our policies are focused on need rather than privilege.” He then bangs on, in Anderton mode, about the 'rich' vs the rest. “National is for the rich. We're for the rest," Dr Cullen said.
Well, the way you're taxing us, you consider must consider a lot of us rich. Every year that the upper tax threshold is not adjusted for inflation, you create more and more 39%'ers. But Mike whilst you desperately maintian your devoted and loyal underclass, please realise that not being on a benefit does not necessarily make you rich.
Tuesday, February 17, 2004
Dog = Responsibility, Reckless = Reckless
Another horrific mauling by a pitbull, queue another justified public outcry. The dogs (pitbulls) had wandered on to the property where Alex (the child) was playing and did not belong to the neighbour, she (Alex's mother) said.
Ms Hutton said: "I want those dogs put down, and the book thrown at the owners." It seems fairly clear the owners of these dogs have being reckless, what will happen to them is not clear as yet.
My question - what is the difference between being reckless in a car, or reckless with a dog, and causing the same sort of injuries? Wouldn't it be right and just to see the same sort of consequence?
Sunday, February 15, 2004
The best form of defence is attack, shoot the messenger and make it personal.
Rather than justifying their policy, or focussing on the issue at hand, Labour have launched their own form of ad / information campaign about their policy on race relations to counter National's "Separatist" ads. The only difference is that they get to do it on the front page of the Sunday Star Times; presumably they didn't have to pay for it either.
There has obviously been a lot said on that Brash speech, especially in blog land, and the one thing that everyone seems to agree with is that the standard of comment and debate has been simplistic, alarmist and generally atrocious.
Russell Brown is indeed "entitled to the view that the "debate" has already become stupid and debased to an alarming degree". I will be very interested to see what Russell thinks of the SST being so breathtakingly transparent about its politics. I don't see how anyone could see that article as journalism, it is, to further torture the phrase, Brash-bashing.
Elsewhere, NZPols is typically balanced in his slamming of Joris de Bres, the race relations commissioner who can't help himself from wading in where public officials should fear to tread.
So lots of hysteria, and inflammatory statements denouncing other people's inflammation, but precious little constructive dialogue. Here's hoping the name calling takes a back seat, and the media give air time to those who take the time to explain their positions. Once that has been done, take another poll.
Saturday, February 14, 2004
I told you I was looking forward to this year, but ye gods, I didn't expect this...
Recently the great Helen said that she was 'not concerned' if National could only draw level in a poll given their recent media exposure. Well, a couple of weeks on it is fair to say that everyone has had some press, and the most recent Colmar Brunton poll has National ahead.
For once I am looking forward to hearing what Helen has to say. Keep your ear open for something along the lines of, "Well, National have had a lot of attention lately due to an exaggerated and divisive speech, but I am confident that once everyone realises that there is absolutely no basis to Don Brash's claims, that normality will resume".
Me thinks you may under estimate and dismiss Joseph Public to your peril on this one Hel's, but keep going by all means.
Thursday, February 12, 2004
One of the strangest days in Parliament I have ever scene, but all easily explained
Today, Winston served up patsy questions to the Government (I swear to God, even Darren Hughes would have been proud of them), and then promptly turned pitbull.
It basically, and transparently, delivered the message that National have put the jips up NZ First and Labour. More importantly that Winston and Labour will work with their mutual devils to eliminate any threat.
Fun and games, however sordid, coalition talks anyone...
Minor correction, it's not so much that "it was", as "it is"
Donna, you can't hold on. The following line from today's court proceedings regarding Donna's status as an (Act) MP:
"They have closed their minds. It was a fait accompli," Mr Spring said. The party, or waka (as the analogy was relentlessly tortured in the proceedings today), hoping law seems clear enough to me. If you come in on the list, and you can no longer bat for the same team, whether it is the choice of the party or your own, your gone.
Fair enough to me. NZ may need a Jackie O, but Donna, you aint it.
Wednesday, February 11, 2004
OK - let's not move on
No Right Turn takes objection with my observation that there is something inherently not quite (my) right about indefinitely offering one group of people two 'options' (or rights) to another groups one, as Tariana obviously and understandably likes it.
Quite simply, why don't we start from scratch (past events and wrongs given due consideration) and find a framework that can work for all of us? Or should we go on having this base dialogue forever? You call me simplistic, I say you are missing the point (possibly because it is too simple for the 'thinkers', apologists and idealogues of the left).
I have never thought that retrospection and guilt have provided a solid basis for a collective and constructive approach to policy making and defining a way forward, still don't.
Even the most evil could be prophetic, or just plain knew something
Here is a quote that opens a very interesting article on the mainstream modern media, and our willingness to swallow tripe by the bucket:
"The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands... [Propaganda] must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited degree at the so-called intellect... The art of propaganda lies in understanding the emotional ideas of the great masses and finding, through a psychologically correct form, the way to the attention and thence to the heart of the broad masses.[Propaganda] does not have multiple shadings; it has a positive and a negative; love or hate, right or wrong, truth or lie, never half this way and half that way - But the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. The purpose of propaganda is not to provide interesting distraction for blase young gentlemen, but to convince the masses. But the masses are slow moving, and they always require a certain time before they are ready even to notice a thing, and only after the simplest ideas are repeated thousands of times will the masses finally remember them.
-- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf"
The full article from Scoop is well worth a read...
Tuesday, February 10, 2004
By golly she's finally said it
In either a slip of the tongue, a moment of lucidity, or an inadvertent frank admission, Tariana has finally come out and said it - "we (Maori) want the best of both worlds". She may have been talking specifically about Health Services on this occasion, but I fear this represents a more general mind set.
Did he get drunk and lose a bet?
I continue to struggle to understand Trevor Mallards relentless axing of rural schools, maybe he doesn't have access to Labour's polling resources, but he must know that this is a sure fire vote kicker (and it is not like Labour to do anything if there are votes at stake - regardless of how much they may 'believe' in the proposed policy).
Trev insists that he is listening to the voices of the affected communities. I have to give him credit for fronting, but shouting down an audience doesn't really constitute 'listening'. Recommended reading for Trevor, click here.
Comment? You may.
Monday, February 09, 2004
Speaking of affirmative action
NZPols suggests that we need policy to satisfy the many different needs of the community. Not a sure thing, but a start:
"This is not to suggest that only Maori, or Pacific Islanders, or farmers can serve those particular demographics, but setting aside some places for these groups is one way to increase your odds."
Couldn't agree more. But to be intentionally simplistic, I would have thought that Dr Don's point to the letter. Where there is a need, seek to increase the odds of satisfying it, simple.
Following NZPols "need reasoning", there is a distinct lack of the "principles of the paddock of Himatangi", or for that matter, the "principles of the nesians of Auckland central" in current statute.
To be a responsible society, where there is need, seek to satisfy it. Right the wrongs of the past - absolutely, we can never deny or forget that. But to advance NZ long term, policy based on "need" not "race" has a certain sustainable and long term ring to it, doesn't it.
A quick question
If you can put all the current excitement to one side briefly, something that I think is being overlooked...
I don't think anyone will deny that, rightly or wrongly, race based funding does exist ("affirmative action" for those a little left of centre). Question: Is it doing any good, are things changing, is the gap closing?
Or are my kids going to be having this same debate in 20 years?? God I hope not - for the sake of black and white and everyone in between.
Sunday, February 08, 2004
Thanks for playing, what's your point?
Taken from Stuff today, "National leader Don Brash has pledged to end race-based funding. Ruth Laugesen and Anthony Hubbard discover the truth about whether Maori really get a bigger share of government money."
They start, quite rightly, by asserting that measuring the exact extent to which specific Government funding is dedicated to Maori is nigh on impossible - the data just ain't kept. Ruth and Anthony promptly say themselves, to hell with that disclaimer, we'll pluck out a couple of numbers that suit us anyway. Their finding is that Maori are not really getting that much of your cash whitey (non-Maori darkie and yellowy et al), so just relax.
The question is short and simple, are Maori, regardless of need, entitled to things that other New Zealander's are not? That is what Don Brash thinks is wrong, spurious examples and a couple of dodgy stats can't rebut an argument based on principle.
Saturday, February 07, 2004
A little time in the real world never hurts before making policy
On January 23 Margaret Wilson asked business to 'engage' in the select committee process re the Employment Relations Act amendments. To balance the fact that the Unions had 6 months in Maggies pocket whilst the policy was being formed.
Roger Kerr has laid out 12 questions for the professor in this weeks Independent. The first challenges the underlying principle of the Bill, that the employment market is fundamentally different to any other market, it assumes that individuals don't have the capacity to bargain for themselves and that employers are inherently bad.
Personally, I enjoy amicable and mutually beneficial relationship with 'the man'. Union? Not for me thanks. Some other people may have less capacity to bargain for themselves and have a less than perfect boss. Union? Perfect. But this ideological drive towards compulsion is so clearly driven by a woman who went from school, to varsity (learning), to varsity (teaching), to parliament and has read a little to much Marx....
An overview is available here, but it is worth picking up a copy of the Independent for the full article (and others), good read.
Friday, February 06, 2004
Faith restored, cynicism lost, my right not feeling right and loving it
Just back from 'Groove in the Park'. Great day, great people, great music, minimal and friendly security (not required) and a rather familiar scent in the air... (current typing speed circa 8 words per minute).
Damn it was nice to be surrounded by thousands of people hell bent on simply enjoying themselves. No protests in the Domain today. Feeling frighteningly positive at the minute.
6 o'clock News on Waitangi Day should take care of that and return my right to the default position.
Thursday, February 05, 2004
As predictable as it is sad
Don Brash has reportedly had mud thrown at him at the Te Tii marae this morning. One dopey bastard slings some mud and bang, there is the leading news item for our national day. It pisses me off that one (or a few) ribald idiot can consistently hi-jack Waitangi Day. The mainstream media were banned from the lower marae, but will still slavishly lead with this circus act.
Maybe if Labour owned TVNZ realised that this will do the Docs poll ratings a favour, they may refer to the charter and let this one slide.
I suggested fireworks for the celebration, starting with a sky rocket straight up the mud slingers ar...
Wednesday, February 04, 2004
Be a political strategist, sod that, for just one day just be a New Zealander
Waitangi Day is near - and as far as the News is concerned I can see two main options:
Option one, Dr Don fronts at Te Tii and draws massive abuse - outcome - the emphasis on Maori indignation over the Seabed and Foreshore is dismissed to page 5 of the broadsheets. Then a lot of 'middle' (predominantly white) NZ say, Maori don't like Don, they don't like Helen, they have no all inclusive voice in the establishment and can't be satisfied - so sod this and them, this is all to hard. Or...
Option two, the good Dr walks away in silent protest and is promptly branded a coward. Maori protest re the Foreshore and the Seabed again consigned to the later sections of the major papers and we are still no closer to having a National identity or day.
How many countries in the world place bets over what controversy will dominate their national day? As My Rights' learned older brother (Always Right) observed, we love the All Blacks - brown or white, Maori (and Polynesian) music is at the head of our music industry, we all join in the Haka, we share some of the greatest and tragic moments in our history, and simply, my brown brothers are just that, brothers.
Racial tension is real, but to the man on the street, I believe most of it is media driven and political. Come Friday, let us spend our yearly allocation on Fireworks on this day (rather than a celebration of failure in November) and have a party - together.
Let the sparklers off and the people shall come......
Tuesday, February 03, 2004
Opportunity lost, regrets - this has to be one
In the lead up to the last election, the National Party gave a disgracefully low list ranking to a loyal, hard working, up and coming, and particularly pragmatic Maori candidate with an immaculate background. Having put up a good fight in a no win battle in the previous election in the Ikaroa Rawhiti seat, he was tasked to take on Ohariu-Belmont in the last election. For that, he was shafted in the list placings for more 'high profile names'.
This particular candidate, to my mind, would have been ideal to step into the Maori Affairs portfolio in light of recent events. Alienating Maori and assessing the risks (votes) is one thing, but the media and other parties are going to have a field day with Big Gerry as Maori Affairs spokesman.
I don't disagree with what you said Don, but one standard of citizenship, one country, includes Maori. They need, deserve and rightly expect representation. There was significant traction gained from one speech, but I still believe some of the old school attitudes need to change. It wasn't your doing, but Don, I expect you know who I am talking about, and god wouldn't you love to have him in parliament now to step into the breach (which in reality is an embarrassing void).
Lets see some progressive Maori join the ranks and give the policy position some leverage and legitimacy (Tau - you may think that sounds like you, but no thanks). Or you could apologise and get the ex cop back...
Available on nzoom today only
If you have a lazy eight minutes to spare, check out the Holmes segment on prison food last night. A fairly vacuous piece stating the painfully obvious, nothing short of a three course meal will do for the poor victims that society has failed, hence they end up inside through no fault of their own.
To close the item Holmes has 2 ex cons on the show (the swastika on the neck was a nice touch lads). They bleat, "how many times do we have to be punished?". The answer is simple, just the once - for the duration of your lag. Don't know what you did, don't care - when you're in, you're getting thin.
To hear pricks like this feeling sorry for themselves pisses me off something shocking.
I couldn't help but think that Holmes missed an opportunity to ask, "do you want to go back to prison?" - I am sure they would have walked straight into (not being the brightest lights) "nup, no way, it sux, foods shit and the TV's only 29 inch man".
"Well done to the Department of Corrections, something is working well. This was Holmes tonight."
Monday, February 02, 2004
Trev's schools
There's a lot of interesting reading on the 'save our schools' blog. Such a shame researched and detailed discourse has no place in modern day news, but however one sided this site may be, it is hard to disagree with much of the sentiment and the majority of facts.
If Trev could release an equally detailed and reasoned justification of his slasher 'review' of the nations schools, and the affect that it will have on our rural communities in particular, he may be slightly less 'misunderstood' (hated).
Granted, anything a know it all, academic, social engineer does to lose a vote should be applauded, short term pain, long term relief. On ya duckee...
Sunday, February 01, 2004
Thanks Dr Janine, now I know (sort of)
Kiwi Pundit has helpfully defined the principles of The Treaty for me, however, there was a nagging suspicion that it hadn't come from an official sources. The alarms bells were ringing as soon as I read it, it was succinct, clear and essentially sensible - so official it was not.
A quick visit to the Waitangi Tribunal website confirmed my suspicions. In 1989 the then Labour Government issued the following "Government Satements of Principles of the Treaty" (this document prepared by Dr Janine Hayward is well worth a read, but head to page 493 if 20 pages doesn't appeal).
One passage reads; "(c) The principle of equality: Article 3 constitutes a guarantee of legal equality between Maori and other citizens of New Zealand. This means that all New Zealand citizens are equal before the law. Furthermore, the common law system is selected by the Treaty as the basis for that equality, although human rights accepted under international law are also incorporated. Article 3 has an important social significance in the implicit assurance that social rights would be enjoyed equally by Maori with all New Zealand citizens of whatever origin. Special measures to attain that equal enjoyment of social benefits are allowed by international law."
There, simple - apparently we are all to be equal before the law. Quite simply, right now, we are not. The current Government is taking the idea of special measures to attain the equal enjoyment of social benefits to its absolute extreme. Helen's quote in the Star Times that "I want Kiwis to be treated equally. But that may mean different ways of delivery to different communities" is politician speak at its academically arrogantly snobbish worst. It don't fool me Helen, if you insist on race based policy, say so and be judged.
I am not reading too much into the results of the somewhat questionable Star Times 'shock poll' yet - but keep sleeping easy Helen, I am starting to sleep a little easier as well.
