Util in redistributive property results in the blaming of the disadvantaged and the denial of racism

Economic prosperity in diversity The importance of profitability is maintained in the value of economic probity and government constraint to use money in ways that benefit New Zealanders: The incoming coalition government has, in these principles, made clear its commitment to build on the benefits of the New Zealand environment to enhance the quality of life for all our people. It has committed itself to the economic and social development of New Zealand. It is also concerned to focus on the key elements for Maori of health, education and training, employment and sound economic resource development and on the settlement of outstanding Maori claims and grievances. (1996) Economic growth and government initiatives are framed as worthwhile because of the tangible benefits to citizens—a clear commitment to utilitarianism. Through specific mentions of Māori or a general focus on diversity, the modern discourses imply an inclusiveness of economic benefits. The importance of inclusion and common direction are emphasized: As New Zealand moves forward, we must address needs across a range of communities and ethnicities. Social solidarity will be critical to our country's success. My government will continue to promote tolerance and understanding between all those who make up our nation. The New Zealand way has always been to move forward together, recognising the independence of individuals, while pooling our collective talent for the good of our economy and society. (2005) Unity and cooperation are portrayed as the key to New Zealand's economic success. Tolerance of diversity is framed as a facilitator of progress and prosperity. Recognition of both individuals and collectives implies an integrated society where diversity is at least tolerated and at best valued for its contributions to a strong economy. Universal potential of the disadvantaged The historical theme of universal human potential is sustained, with its modern counterpart focusing primarily on the potential of ‘disadvantaged’ members of society to help themselves. In part, this manifests as expressions of belief in the equality of diverse peoples, but this can also be understood to blame people (particularly minorities) for their own disadvantage: My Government is impatient to see Maori standing strong, economically independent and fulfilling the complete promise of their potential. (2008) The government is framed as fully supportive of Māori equality, while Māori are positioned as the ones responsible for achieving it. Māori agency could be understood to imply that they are complicit in their economic disadvantage, failing to live up to their full potential despite full opportunity. The implied rather than stated critique allows for plausible deniability of racism (Liu & Mills, 2006; Reeves, 1983). The discourses of self-reliance popular in the modern Speeches are distinct from 19th century discourses where the government was positioned as a benevolent guide responsible for enlightening Māori. The reciprocal responsibilities required for government protection are emphasized here: In going for growth my Government will be acutely conscious of the fact that it is in the interests of no New Zealanders, and to the detriment of us all, to allow an underclass to develop in New Zealand. It will take seriously its duty to protect our most vulnerable citizens. It will take seriously the importance of the obligations and ties we each, as citizens and as communities, have to each other. Most importantly, it will seek to give all New Zealanders the confidence that this is a country where you can get ahead and that the State, through its agencies and through this Parliament, should reward rather than discourage effort. (2008) While stated subtly, the speaker implies that not all communities have fulfilled their responsibilities to one another and the state. The economically disadvantaged (who are disproportionately Māori) are portrayed as insufficiently self-reliant, without acknowledging institutionalized disadvantages that contribute to the ongoing economic and ethnic inequality (Augoustinos et al., 2005; Wetherell & Potter, 1992). The separateness of Māori in the 19th century has been replaced by neo-liberal discourses (Liu & Mills, 2006) emphasizing reward for effort and discouraging and disparaging sloth (King, 2003). This perpetuates stereotypes about the unmotivated poor without balanced recognition of hard-working beneficiaries who are legitimately unable to work, temporarily unemployed or earning a low wage.