i got 3 out of 12 right.
which, weirdly, makes me feel better rather than worse.
i cannot tell what the purpose of this is: is it to try and get a debate started, or is it to try and point out that Treaty Settlements are or are NOT a huge user of government revenue?
I am gonna come off the fence and say that i think negotiations should continue and we should not set a a cap in total expenditure over time, but should set an annual cap.
Seems like issues of Maori health and Education, as well as prison, are continuous, interconnected and ongoing, and therefore saying "here's $5billion, sort it out once an for all" would be rather short sighted. resources need to be guaranteed for the future to ensure the problem, which arose incrementally, also is solved incrementally.
// i cannot tell what the purpose of this is: is it to try and get a debate started, or is it to try and point out
// that Treaty Settlements are or are NOT a huge user of government revenue?
Dunno what you've heard from London (?) but the debate is already raging in NZ, with Don Brash using ill will regarding issues with the foreshore (etc.) as a springboard to end preferential treatment. So this is definitely a counter to that... in other words that they "are NOT a huge user of government revenue".
crime is often regional, some areas have a lot of crime relating to 'poverty' and it would be better maybe to focus money in these areas, police, school funding, job generation, rather than placing money into education for racial groups. This way the government controls the money been focused on the particular problem and theres less in the way of middle men to suck up the funds before the people who need it get it. Also this way everyones given equal opertunity based on location of residents and not race, even if one race is more dominant in the region than another.
more thinking would have to be put into it, but I like to think its positive steps.
i kinda thought that it was to counter the right wing propaganda, but then if you analyse it perhaps you could think "well, a right wing thinker might say that the amount spent on Maori is WAY TOO MUCH"
Its quite clever. an anti-thesis if you will.
It has made no impact in UK media, but perhaps if National are successful at the next election this issue will be discussed as indicative of a general trend towards the right politically around the world.
Look at NZ's biggest neighbour.
7 out of 12. average as usual.
i like what the quiz highlights and the parallels it makes. there's far too much misinformation out there (some of which I am guilty of).
dude. if you had read it properly you would have noticed the aim was to dispel the myth that treaty settlements and Maori in general aren't actually as taxing on the government as dickheads like Don Brash would have you think. Thus the title, a 'question of proportion'. So no, not Don Brash.
yeah, i realised that after I posted.
my apologies - i do lose all humour when it comes to this type of topic. i should really learn to stay away from them.
6 out of 12... (not sure why I even took it because I knew I wouldn't have the answers)
I think this 'test' is more about showing people the difference between fact and fiction- yes it does have an 'angle', but it's refreshing to see something created specifically to counter the various 'one people' sites that have come out of the woodwork... I was watching The Good Morning Show the other day (with the new host, Mary Lambie was way better), the talkback topic being 'Is Dr Brash in touch with New Zealanders' and the amount of ignorance on display from both sides was just overwhelming. It really made me feel quite ill- so this is 'average New Zealand'.
Ignorance = disagreeing with inhereted rights and special services and legal status for Maori as 'payback' for colonisation......
I'm quite happy to be ignorant then.
"""Tertiary students have access to 1451 scholarships for study. How many more scholarships are available solely to Maori?
The Sunday Star Times reports here that Maori students can apply for an additional 154 scholarships not open to others."""
"""The Government presently spends about $7.7 billion per year on health. Maori represent 14.7% of the population. What approximate proportion of the health vote do they receive, including special grants for Maori health?
The Sunday Star Times reports here that the Ministry of Health estimates that last year it spent $1105 million on Maori health through its mainstream funding – 14.7% of the total health spending of $7.7 billion.
Additional money targeted specifically at Maori lLast year amounted to $158m, about 2% of the total."""
now thats not write, well not in my opinion, something that has surely been debated everytime the government reads its spending plan. But still at what point should anyone based on race get any preferable treatment? I'm all for the idea of all New Zealand citizins (or residents possibly) have equal writes when it comes down to education, health and employment and such things.
grievance issues are another can of worms, and I won't pretend to understand enough to form a stronge opinion either way on it. But you can't move forward while looking back, but you can't go up with broken foundations either.
damn it, if you look at the government as a parent they are going to help the struggling child a little more aren't they? so maybe they should have preferable treatment? or is it the goverments job to be like a parent?
stupid, stupid trying to see from other points of view..... should of just disengaged my brain after I posted.
Nah, I think you're right, chronic - I also can't really fault Brash's logic that support should be aimed at the 'needy' rather than the 'maori' - just because the two groups overlap doesn't mean that it should become a treaty issue. The examples he's given appear to be valid, although I'd be interested in following up some of the rumours I've heard.
However, inasmuch as the more left-leaning people haven't really been able to completely refute his specific examples, they're right in drawing the examples back to "it's not as big a deal as Brash is making out".
I spoke to my (right-leaning) flatmate last night about it, he's a lawyer so he knows a bit of the background, but in the course of the discussion he mentioned that kaumatua get unlimited days off to attend tangis. I was able to correct him - they get one day off per tangi regardless of whether they know the dead person or not, and the same allowance applies to lay church-people. He said "well, still - should employers pay anyone to go to funerals?"
Herein lies my problem - Brash is conveniently ignoring all these other allowances made for other groups - christians, parents-to-be, women in general, criminals, people with disabilities, university students, given enough time I'm sure we could find plenty of little policies that could be viewed as unfairly favouring particular groups - and instead focussing solely on race-based issues. He claims that he doesn't want to become a one-issue party, but he's just wrapping up a whole bunch of different issues, conveniently packaging them as 'unfair treaty policy' and is now waving it about purely because it's a crowd-pleaser. He's actually devaluing the genuine issues he's addressing, and yes, I believe he'll marginalise maori even further with his rants.
they get one day off per tangi regardless of whether they know the dead person or not, and the same allowance applies to lay church-people. He said "well, still - should employers pay anyone to go to funerals?"
I can't say that I disagree (I note that you are not either) with Maori been able to attend cultural/traditional events (for lack of a better way of putting it). my personal view is that these are things that are distinctly new zealand and are part of the culture and heritage of the country, things to preserve and protect.
1 also, if anything this has nothing to do with questioning Don Brash' credability because like most good politicians he is looking forward instead of back, go Don.
Basically, I look at it like this.
Draw two circles, overlapping. In one, write 'Poor, below X income' in the other write 'Maori.'
Whenever access to basic needs and providing assistance (health, education, etc) but not when redressing past wrongs (which must have an end as they are not current wrongs) check the circles.
If someone is part of the income circle, they receive aid. If they are Maori and low income, they will STILL be in the income circle and will thus receive aid. Those Maori outside the income circle are presumably doing alright. If not, what good is the income guide at all and scrap it for everyone.
As to Maori culture and language, I think it is distinctive and interesting and enjoy encouraging it in any way possible. It is the second official language after all, we should all know some of an official language.
Of course, I still don't want to vote for National or Act because they were all for jumping into Bush's War without checking the reasoning... And Labour and Greens have made it legal for my 4 month old daughter to one day come to me and say "Daddy I'm going to be a whore when I grow up" so they just lost someone who helped them stay in power... But who does that leave?
//If someone is part of the income circle, they receive aid. If they are Maori and low income, they will STILL be in the income circle and will thus receive aid.
In terms of a criteria for giving `aid' I agree that income should be an important cut-off. However, in terms of delivery, it may be appropriate to give different sections of the population aid in different ways. For example, food banks presumably don't give meat to homeless vegetarians.
//As to Maori culture and language, I think it is distinctive and interesting and enjoy encouraging it in any way possible. It is the second official language after all, we should all know some of an official language.
Actually, it's the only official language. However, much as our constitution is unwritten, there is no doubting the status of english in New Zealand.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Technorati
i got 3 out of 12 right. which, ...
i got 3 out of 12 right.
which, weirdly, makes me feel better rather than worse.
i cannot tell what the purpose of this is: is it to try and get a debate started, or is it to try and point out that Treaty Settlements are or are NOT a huge user of government revenue?
I am gonna come off the fence and say that i think negotiations should continue and we should not set a a cap in total expenditure over time, but should set an annual cap.
Seems like issues of Maori health and Education, as well as prison, are continuous, interconnected and ongoing, and therefore saying "here's $5billion, sort it out once an for all" would be rather short sighted. resources need to be guaranteed for the future to ensure the problem, which arose incrementally, also is solved incrementally.
Good grief, 1 out of 12, not sure how I ...
Good grief, 1 out of 12, not sure how I should feel about that.
// i cannot tell what the purpose of ...
// i cannot tell what the purpose of this is: is it to try and get a debate started, or is it to try and point out
// that Treaty Settlements are or are NOT a huge user of government revenue?
Dunno what you've heard from London (?) but the debate is already raging in NZ, with Don Brash using ill will regarding issues with the foreshore (etc.) as a springboard to end preferential treatment. So this is definitely a counter to that... in other words that they "are NOT a huge user of government revenue".
Mike
crime is often regional, some areas ...
crime is often regional, some areas have a lot of crime relating to 'poverty' and it would be better maybe to focus money in these areas, police, school funding, job generation, rather than placing money into education for racial groups. This way the government controls the money been focused on the particular problem and theres less in the way of middle men to suck up the funds before the people who need it get it. Also this way everyones given equal opertunity based on location of residents and not race, even if one race is more dominant in the region than another.
more thinking would have to be put into it, but I like to think its positive steps.
i kinda thought that it was to counter ...
i kinda thought that it was to counter the right wing propaganda, but then if you analyse it perhaps you could think "well, a right wing thinker might say that the amount spent on Maori is WAY TOO MUCH"
Its quite clever. an anti-thesis if you will.
It has made no impact in UK media, but perhaps if National are successful at the next election this issue will be discussed as indicative of a general trend towards the right politically around the world.
Look at NZ's biggest neighbour.
Surely looking at the Labour govt in ...
Surely looking at the Labour govt in the UK, NZ or Australia could also be good indicators of a leaning towards the right?
"I get more left each day just by standing still" as someone somewhere once said.
10 out of 12. how the hell am I ment to ...
10 out of 12. how the hell am I ment to know what telecome made?
argg - 3 out of 12... google is ...
argg - 3 out of 12...
google is cheating aka .. ;p
excuse me????!!!???...
excuse me????!!!???
wish they still had that symbol that ...
wish they still had that symbol that combined ! and ?...
ah yeah, sorry not funny... arrr... dont mind me
7 out of 12. average as usual. i like ...
7 out of 12. average as usual.
i like what the quiz highlights and the parallels it makes. there's far too much misinformation out there (some of which I am guilty of).
1 out of 12. how made this website?? ...
1 out of 12.
how made this website?? Don Brash???
dude. if you had read it properly you ...
dude. if you had read it properly you would have noticed the aim was to dispel the myth that treaty settlements and Maori in general aren't actually as taxing on the government as dickheads like Don Brash would have you think. Thus the title, a 'question of proportion'. So no, not Don Brash.
he'eey lighten up tesse...my don brash ...
he'eey lighten up tesse...my don brash comment was a figure of speech, sarcasim, Know what im sayin?
yeah, i realised that after I posted. ...
yeah, i realised that after I posted.
my apologies - i do lose all humour when it comes to this type of topic. i should really learn to stay away from them.
6 out of 12... (not sure why I even ...
6 out of 12... (not sure why I even took it because I knew I wouldn't have the answers)
I think this 'test' is more about showing people the difference between fact and fiction- yes it does have an 'angle', but it's refreshing to see something created specifically to counter the various 'one people' sites that have come out of the woodwork... I was watching The Good Morning Show the other day (with the new host, Mary Lambie was way better), the talkback topic being 'Is Dr Brash in touch with New Zealanders' and the amount of ignorance on display from both sides was just overwhelming. It really made me feel quite ill- so this is 'average New Zealand'.
Ignorance = disagreeing with inhereted ...
Ignorance = disagreeing with inhereted rights and special services and legal status for Maori as 'payback' for colonisation......
I'm quite happy to be ignorant then.
Hey rdor, what do you think about ...
Hey rdor, what do you think about golfing handicaps?
Don't think "ignorance from both ...
Don't think "ignorance from both sides" can equal what you say rdor, cos what you're saying is only what one side believes...
"""Tertiary students have access to ...
"""Tertiary students have access to 1451 scholarships for study. How many more scholarships are available solely to Maori?
The Sunday Star Times reports here that Maori students can apply for an additional 154 scholarships not open to others."""
"""The Government presently spends about $7.7 billion per year on health. Maori represent 14.7% of the population. What approximate proportion of the health vote do they receive, including special grants for Maori health?
The Sunday Star Times reports here that the Ministry of Health estimates that last year it spent $1105 million on Maori health through its mainstream funding – 14.7% of the total health spending of $7.7 billion.
Additional money targeted specifically at Maori lLast year amounted to $158m, about 2% of the total."""
now thats not write, well not in my opinion, something that has surely been debated everytime the government reads its spending plan. But still at what point should anyone based on race get any preferable treatment? I'm all for the idea of all New Zealand citizins (or residents possibly) have equal writes when it comes down to education, health and employment and such things.
grievance issues are another can of worms, and I won't pretend to understand enough to form a stronge opinion either way on it. But you can't move forward while looking back, but you can't go up with broken foundations either.
damn it, if you look at the government ...
damn it, if you look at the government as a parent they are going to help the struggling child a little more aren't they? so maybe they should have preferable treatment? or is it the goverments job to be like a parent?
stupid, stupid trying to see from other points of view..... should of just disengaged my brain after I posted.
Nah, I think you're right, chronic - I ...
Nah, I think you're right, chronic - I also can't really fault Brash's logic that support should be aimed at the 'needy' rather than the 'maori' - just because the two groups overlap doesn't mean that it should become a treaty issue. The examples he's given appear to be valid, although I'd be interested in following up some of the rumours I've heard.
However, inasmuch as the more left-leaning people haven't really been able to completely refute his specific examples, they're right in drawing the examples back to "it's not as big a deal as Brash is making out".
I spoke to my (right-leaning) flatmate last night about it, he's a lawyer so he knows a bit of the background, but in the course of the discussion he mentioned that kaumatua get unlimited days off to attend tangis. I was able to correct him - they get one day off per tangi regardless of whether they know the dead person or not, and the same allowance applies to lay church-people. He said "well, still - should employers pay anyone to go to funerals?"
Herein lies my problem - Brash is conveniently ignoring all these other allowances made for other groups - christians, parents-to-be, women in general, criminals, people with disabilities, university students, given enough time I'm sure we could find plenty of little policies that could be viewed as unfairly favouring particular groups - and instead focussing solely on race-based issues. He claims that he doesn't want to become a one-issue party, but he's just wrapping up a whole bunch of different issues, conveniently packaging them as 'unfair treaty policy' and is now waving it about purely because it's a crowd-pleaser. He's actually devaluing the genuine issues he's addressing, and yes, I believe he'll marginalise maori even further with his rants.
//grievance issues are another can of ...
//grievance issues are another can of worms//
I totally agree, there's no point in mixing that up with general rights to public services etc, the reasonsing behind reparation is totally different
they get one day off per tangi ...
they get one day off per tangi regardless of whether they know the dead person or not, and the same allowance applies to lay church-people. He said "well, still - should employers pay anyone to go to funerals?"
I can't say that I disagree (I note that you are not either) with Maori been able to attend cultural/traditional events (for lack of a better way of putting it). my personal view is that these are things that are distinctly new zealand and are part of the culture and heritage of the country, things to preserve and protect.
wow. I got 1 out of 12....
wow. I got 1 out of 12.
so did i, and i fluked it....
so did i, and i fluked it.
me too....
me too.
1 also, if anything this has nothing to ...
1 also, if anything this has nothing to do with questioning Don Brash' credability because like most good politicians he is looking forward instead of back, go Don.
2 out of 12, I have no interest in ...
2 out of 12, I have no interest in these types things, so I'm surprised I got any right!!!
6 out of 12. Not too bad for a redneck....
6 out of 12. Not too bad for a redneck.
2 out of twelve. did anyone else notice ...
2 out of twelve. did anyone else notice question 1 was about claims from 1987 but the answer was from 1989?
Basically, I look at it like ...
Basically, I look at it like this.
Draw two circles, overlapping. In one, write 'Poor, below X income' in the other write 'Maori.'
Whenever access to basic needs and providing assistance (health, education, etc) but not when redressing past wrongs (which must have an end as they are not current wrongs) check the circles.
If someone is part of the income circle, they receive aid. If they are Maori and low income, they will STILL be in the income circle and will thus receive aid. Those Maori outside the income circle are presumably doing alright. If not, what good is the income guide at all and scrap it for everyone.
As to Maori culture and language, I think it is distinctive and interesting and enjoy encouraging it in any way possible. It is the second official language after all, we should all know some of an official language.
Of course, I still don't want to vote for National or Act because they were all for jumping into Bush's War without checking the reasoning... And Labour and Greens have made it legal for my 4 month old daughter to one day come to me and say "Daddy I'm going to be a whore when I grow up" so they just lost someone who helped them stay in power... But who does that leave?
//If someone is part of the income ...
//If someone is part of the income circle, they receive aid. If they are Maori and low income, they will STILL be in the income circle and will thus receive aid.
In terms of a criteria for giving `aid' I agree that income should be an important cut-off. However, in terms of delivery, it may be appropriate to give different sections of the population aid in different ways. For example, food banks presumably don't give meat to homeless vegetarians.
//As to Maori culture and language, I think it is distinctive and interesting and enjoy encouraging it in any way possible. It is the second official language after all, we should all know some of an official language.
Actually, it's the only official language. However, much as our constitution is unwritten, there is no doubting the status of english in New Zealand.