Sunday, March 07, 2004
I think Steve may have a meeting with Trevor come Monday
An article in the SST shows that it is quite clear that targeted assistance exists, and some policies pro-actively disadvantage pakeha. Work and Income tell their employees, if you have to fill a job find a Maori, failing that find a Pacific Islander, if all else fails place the white guy.
I would love to hear the reaction from a desperate to work, on the bones of their arse, stuggling pakeha, that has gone to Work and Income and failed to find employment and wondered why they have had no luck. If this sort of thing doesn't spark resentment then what does? Not that this could phase our favourite social engineer Steve Maharey;
Work and Income staff are being paid bonuses based on the race of the jobseekers they place into work.
The scheme varies around the country, but in Counties-Manukau, staff are awarded three bonus points for placing a Maori in a job, two points for a Pacific Islander and one for a Pakeha. The points help determine the size of their annual bonus.
The revelation comes amid growing controversy over the use of race-based policies to address social disadvantage.
Employment Minister Steve Maharey defended the points-for-race scheme citing the huge drop in Maori unemployment.
"We know if we don't do more we are going to have a register filled with Maori people."
Maharey said the scheme allowed frontline staff to understand the areas government wanted to target. He did not want it applied to specific cases - for example, if a Pakeha and Maori jobseeker with the same skills and abilities were after the same job.
The argument that this approach should not be applied to specific cases just doesn't stand up. If Work and Income tell someone they will get paid more for taking option one - you can only expect them to take that option - and fair enough. And then it becomes subconscious, learned behaviour I believe it is called.
The question that needs answering is why would have stacks of unemployed Maori if we didn't take this (overtly racist) affirmative action step?
We need to openly and dispassionately try to ascertain why Maori would be unemployed in big numbers. Some would say 100 years of marginalisation (Pita Sharples springs to mind), others would blame straight out laziness (but few would put their name to it) - I would sit somewhere to the right of centre. Either way - let's have the discussion.
Friday, March 05, 2004
Brash hits back with reason not rhetoric
Don Brash has not enjoyed as much coverage of his speech to the Northern Club compared to the secular one's rant, from the pulpit....
However, the Doctor's speech is now on Scoop, and I would encourage Brash's detractors to read it, and respond.
On a slightly different tack. I may be misreading the mood - but I think a part of Brash's popularity stems from NZ'ers growing up and becoming tired of the we know best nanny state attitude of the past 5 years. Brash has often declared that he is not interested in personal insults and childish, political and simplistic attacks. I for one like his under hyped (but carefully conceived and considered) approach of, 'this is what I think, this is what I will do, if you like it - vote for me'. It certainly beats the references to 'gross' 'cynical' (insert your own reference to irony here) and 'unpleasant' we get from the PM. I'm a grown up Helen, let me decide whether I think they are or not. Anyways - the speech in full is here, a few tastes below;
"The behaviour of the other parties in the House has been an amusing study in political repositioning: United Future seems to have been attempting to climb out of the Foreshore and Seabed waka they had only recently boarded; NZ First has been trying to paddle on both sides of the waka, but in the House it seems to have a liaison of convenience with Labour; the Green Party, at least, has stuck to its guns, and seems prepared to go down fighting on the whole bi-cultural, partnership package, and we can respect them for having the courage of their convictions; while the ACT Party has been consistent in its support of the views I expressed at Orewa.
A number of newspapers spectacularly misjudged their audience. A major Sunday newspaper, in comparing me to AustraliaÂs Pauline Hanson, launched one of the most extraordinary exercises in second-rate muckraking journalism that I have ever witnessed. Presumably this idea was not conceived in the circulation department, because the polls showing wide public support for the Orewa speech implied that the headline was also an attack on most of the readership of the paper. The subsequent editorial attempts to defend this new low in the standards of New Zealand journalism were so lame as to be laughable. One can have only contempt for the mind that conceived that front page spread, and sympathy for those journalists that were unwittingly associated with it.
The critics who have focused obsessively on these Ârace-based funding details give the overwhelming impression of a group of people who cannot see the wood for the trees. Fortunately that does not apply to the general public, because the plain fact of the matter is that the public is more concerned with the parade of race-based political correctness we have endured over the past decade or more:
· cultural safety in nursing
· bilingual rebranding of the public sector
· Treaty issues getting tangled up in health and safety audits
· claims of taniwhas being used to block developments
· consultations with iwi being required in relation to resource management consents, and even to scientific research in universities
· the anomaly of Maori Parliamentary seats being expanded into local body politics and now to the representation on PHOs
· and so on in a relentless torrent.
Can we really believe that this simple 19th century treaty, which focused on sovereignty, property rights and citizenship, also has something to say about todayÂs SOEs and national parks, todayÂs schools and universities, how we go about approving or declining building permits, what science we should study, or how we should regard the new frontier of genetic science?
This is simply madness, and it must be stopped. "
Odds on an Election in 2004 anyone?
Steve Forbes, here to preach to the converted
Steve Forbes is over from the States to address the Act Party conference. His editorial in the Herald takes the emotive nonsense (and No Right Turn's brand of trite simplicity "rob from the poor to give to the rich") out of the equation and makes a simple economic argument about tax rates.
Just this morning when she was talking to Holmes, Helen sucked on her lemon and spat out one of her favourite lines of "tax cuts for the rich". If they bothered to listen they may find that tax cuts, for anyone, are not the evil that the left would claim.
Steve Forbes in the Herald, "There is another positive impact of Kennedy-Reagan type of tax cuts - the rich pay more. When Ronald Reagan became president, the top 1 per cent of income-earners in America paid 19 per cent of the federal income tax. Now, the top 1 per cent pay more than 35 per cent of the income taxes.
Last [northern] spring, President George W. Bush cut capital gains taxes (from 20 per cent to 15 per cent) and the dividend tax (from 38 per cent to 15 per cent). Personal income tax rates also declined.
Since those reductions, the American economy has picked up steam with real annual growth rates exceeding 4 per cent."
Lower rates result in high income earners paying more, shizzer, maybe Helen will have a listen!
Thursday, March 04, 2004
Philla Debacle is back
Phillida Bunkle is back in NZ - but only to appear in an interesting case in the High Court. Some chap from Lower Hutt, presumably with spare time in abundance, has bought a case under the Bill of Rights Act. He feels that his rights of representation have been violated by Phillida enrolling herself as a Wellingtonian, and then claiming an out of town allowance to live in Wellington, then forgetting where she lives...
From the Independent;
"Edwards, as a private citizen, is suing Elmar Toime (former chief registrar of electors), Murray Wicks (national manager, electoral enrolment centre) and the Wellington Central registrar of electors, Raewynne Uren who, in early 2001 was charged with deciding whether Bunkle had breached the Electoral Act prior to the 1999 election."
I hope she doesn't forget that she know lives in Europe when the hearing concludes.
Wednesday, March 03, 2004
Vindictive bugger isn't he...
In the world of NZ politics one should think very carefully before having a crack at Winston Peters. It appears that he has had his staff digging through David Carter's past a looking for dirt. I have not met David Carter, but I hope he is pure, because if he is not, I get the feeling we are going to hear about it.
The opening salvo in response to (supposedly) breaking Dinnergate, this from yesterdays Question Time;
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister prepared to investigate
the fact that the well-known philanthropist and MP David Carter
sold a property to the council for $1.025 million, and that the
council then obtained its full and true value, achieving a price
almost $600,000 less; and what would be the circumstances behind
that in respect of the historic places legislation?
He's shown us classy Winnie, here comes Winnie the nasty.
Tuesday, March 02, 2004
Dislike him or hate him, you gotta kinda love him
In challenging Doctor Don to stand against him in Tauranga, Winston promises to behave;
I promise a fair fight. If they stop telling lies about me I will stop telling the truth about them".
Classy.
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.
